Because our justice system doesn’t give a shit about violence against women.
Isn’t it really hard to argue diminished responsibility?
The UK justice system doesn’t give 2 shits about women, or justice for them. Sure rape has been basically reduced to a minor offence these days. Disgusting.
Wonder how far down the comments I’ll have to read to find out that men are the real victims here.
I’m not sure how to respond to what I’ve just read. Not only was I not aware that the tariff system seems to be completely insane; but that a man who showed multiple examples of premeditation was only convicted of manslaughter. That’s not justice and the public isn’t protected.
> “The jury had to decide which psychiatrist to believe,” says Barkworth-Nanton. “That’s bonkers.”
Who else is she proposing should determine guilt and innocence in a murder trial? Or is she saying they should do it without the assistance of expert psychiatric evidence? The questions posed by a defence of diminished responsibility include whether the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition: [Homicide Act 1957, section 2](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/section/2).
> Partial defences are also used when men claim a partner died during “sex gone wrong”.
No. They. Are. Not.
Repeating this is wilful ignorance at best and outright lying at worst.
They apply where the elements of murder (broadly: unlawfully killing another person, with intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm) are satisfied, but the defendant can prove on the balance of probabilities certain additional factors.
None of those has any application to a “sex gone wrong” case. The nature of the defence in a “sex gone wrong” case is that the basic elements of murder *were not made out* – in particular, in most cases, that there was no intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
Killers are freed all the time. Not sure why this particular case was singled out.
7 comments
Because our justice system doesn’t give a shit about violence against women.
Isn’t it really hard to argue diminished responsibility?
The UK justice system doesn’t give 2 shits about women, or justice for them. Sure rape has been basically reduced to a minor offence these days. Disgusting.
Wonder how far down the comments I’ll have to read to find out that men are the real victims here.
I’m not sure how to respond to what I’ve just read. Not only was I not aware that the tariff system seems to be completely insane; but that a man who showed multiple examples of premeditation was only convicted of manslaughter. That’s not justice and the public isn’t protected.
> “The jury had to decide which psychiatrist to believe,” says Barkworth-Nanton. “That’s bonkers.”
Who else is she proposing should determine guilt and innocence in a murder trial? Or is she saying they should do it without the assistance of expert psychiatric evidence? The questions posed by a defence of diminished responsibility include whether the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition: [Homicide Act 1957, section 2](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/section/2).
> Partial defences are also used when men claim a partner died during “sex gone wrong”.
No. They. Are. Not.
Repeating this is wilful ignorance at best and outright lying at worst.
The partial defences are:
* Diminished responsibility: see above.
* Loss of control (formerly provocation): [Coroners and Justice Act 2009, section 54](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/54).
* Suicide pact: [Homicide Act 1957, section 4](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/section/4).
They apply where the elements of murder (broadly: unlawfully killing another person, with intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm) are satisfied, but the defendant can prove on the balance of probabilities certain additional factors.
None of those has any application to a “sex gone wrong” case. The nature of the defence in a “sex gone wrong” case is that the basic elements of murder *were not made out* – in particular, in most cases, that there was no intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
Killers are freed all the time. Not sure why this particular case was singled out.