Heavy Sentences

[AtW]

I don't think so. In the heat of the moment you can attack someone and kill them, and in that moment you WANT to kill them, that's murder innit? Even for manslaughter though, you can throw a punch and the guy cracks their head on the fireplace and snuffs it.

"without thinking properly"

That's the key part - if you did not plan it, did not think of it, but as you say in the heat of the moment (you catch postman sleeping with your wife like) then it's likely to be manslaughter.

Remember - courts can't see what you were thinking, but there can be evidence of pre-mediation in which case it's clear murder.

Naturally neither are good.

[VectraMan]

I agree, it does sound severe for importing an illegal substance. Is cocaine definitely more dangerous than alcohol? Are all the posters here squeaky-clean souls who've never sampled an illegal substance?

Indeed. I can't help feeling this sort of harsh sentence is more politically motivated than anything else.

[ASB]

"without thinking properly"

That's the key part - if you did not plan it, did not think of it, but as you say in the heat of the moment (you catch postman sleeping with your wife like) then it's likely to be manslaughter.

Remember - courts can't see what you were thinking, but there can be evidence of pre-mediation in which case it's clear murder.

Naturally neither are good.

Big changes in the Homicide Act (or strictly its partial replacement with the coroners act 2009). There is no longer a defence of provocation it's now loss of control and broadly speaking you would need to demonstrate that a significant number of people would have the loss of control in those circumstance to have topped the postman ot get a successful defence.

[d000hg]

I agree, it does sound severe for importing an illegal substance. Is cocaine definitely more dangerous than alcohol?

What does that have to do with anything? Not to mention, if you imported alcohol of the same value illegally that would also be a serious matter.

Are all the posters here squeaky-clean souls who've never sampled an illegal substance?

Again, what's that got to do with it?

[AtW]

Big changes in the Homicide Act (or strictly its partial replacement with the coroners act 2009). There is no longer a defence of provocation it's now loss of control and broadly speaking you would need to demonstrate that a significant number of people would have the loss of control in those circumstance to have topped the postman ot get a successful defence.

I guess postmen in your area are safe

[AtW]

Big changes in the Homicide Act (or strictly its partial replacement with the coroners act 2009). There is no longer a defence of provocation it's now loss of control and broadly speaking you would need to demonstrate that a significant number of people would have the loss of control in those circumstance to have topped the postman ot get a successful defence.

btw - what do you mean successful defence - completely getting off the hook or just successfully defending that it is manslaughter rather than murder?

[VectraMan]

What does that have to do with anything? Not to mention, if you imported alcohol of the same value illegally that would also be a serious matter.Again, what's that got to do with it?

Would somebody get 19 years for importing alcohol illegally?

[ASB]

btw - what do you mean successful defence - completely getting off the hook or just successfully defending that it is manslaughter rather than murder?

Just defending it down to manslaughter. It may however specifically exclude infidelity from the defence.

[AtW]

Just defending it down to manslaughter. It may however specifically exclude infidelity from the defence.

And what if postman was raping your wife and you had to act to defend her?

[ASB]

And what if postman was raping your wife and you had to act to defend her?

Now you're just taking the p. Is this a quiz or what?

Anyway I rather doubt rape would constitute sexual infidelity in terms of the act. I think the relevant wording is here:-

"Where a person kills or is party to a killing they are not to be convicted of murder but of manslaughter if:
(a) their acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from ‘loss of self-control’;
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger (see section 55); and
(c) a person of their sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in their circumstances, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way."

The loss of control defence may well succeed - but I seriously doubt it could be taken for granted. The simple fact is that the view was that the old defence of "provocation" was too wide. Also one of the rather more unfortunate affect of it was that it was rarely available to people (usually women) who had been subjected to domestic violence over a long period (because it was only really available for spontaneous action, and DV didn't really fit the pattern).