Page 1 of Why always manslaughter??

There have been quite a few cases like this reported in the press over the years, the latest goes like this.......Man out walking,gang of scum decide to kick him to death because its fun,it was reported in court that the mans head was kicked repeatedly like a football they also filmed it on their mobile phones,the result is guilty of manslaughter and a 12year prison sentance for each of them( thats 8 in reality),why not murder and a 30 year sentance each . :/

This item was edited on Monday, 23rd January 2006, 17:12

For once I find my self agreeing with you.

All the best,

Dr 42%er.


It`s not easy being different. It`s not easy being cool....but somehow I manage....

I would think the difference is premeditation.
Murder is an act whereby the accused has actually planned out the attack/killing of one individual in particular where manslaughter is unpremeditated killing of another, I think.
The reason I actually favour the manslaughter category is quite simple and selfish you may say for the following.
I was involved in an incident at my work , Petro-Chemical giant :)
A fellow worker , in the presence of management, threatened me and poked me in the chest.
I flew for him and was wrestled to the ground by the aforementioned management .
Had I not been wrestled to the ground I would have sliced this scheitte bags face off with a factory issued stanley knife I had in my pocket.
No premeditation simply a murderous rage brought on by the actions of another.
No thought, no balancing up the pros and cons, simply a black rage that would have ended with him probably dying as a result of my actions.
Would I have been a murderer or would I have been charged with a lower category due to mitigating circumstances. You tell me mate.
That is why Murder and Manslaughter are, rightly IHMO, two very different offences.

Ian

This item was edited on Monday, 23rd January 2006, 18:44

But they did not know him he never said or done anything to them,they just attacked him for no reason,in your example I can understand why a manslaughter charge would apply but a unprovoked attack on a stranger ( unless mental problems) I cant.

I agree with everything you say Choagy.
It could be argued that filming the attack suggests a certain amount of premeditation,but only premeditation to attack,not to kill.
I`m willing to concede (grudgingly..) that they probably didn`t mean for the person to die,so murder is inappropriate,however disgusting the attack. >:(

Well they wouldn`t have got a 30 year sentence for murder anyway... :(

--

www.soundalikes.com/

The premeditation of intent to cause physical harm that lead to death as a result of the act = Murder IMO.

Manslaughter = The unintentional\accidental\without malice killing of a person.


My job got a lot less stressfull when I realised I hate my customers.

This item was edited on Monday, 23rd January 2006, 18:27

Quote:
Well they wouldn`t have got a 30 year sentence for murder anyway
No they wouldn`t. It would be life - that is the only sentence than can be given to someone found guilty of murder.
In the case Zorvirax quotes here as much as it pains me I would have to agree with him for once.
I think the factor that distinguishes murder from manslaughter is whether there was an intention to kill.
Any moron who kicks someone repeatedly in the head as hard as they can MUST be aware that it is an action that will kill them.

Quote:
it was reported in court that the mans head was kicked repeatedly like a football they also filmed it on their mobile phones

Quote:
Manslaughter = The unintentional\accidental\without malice killing of a person.

Please excuse smell of burning insulation. Trying to reconcile the two statements above.

J Mark Oates

This item was edited on Monday, 23rd January 2006, 23:15

Quote:

No they wouldn`t. It would be life - that is the only sentence than can be given to someone found guilty of murder.

Duhhhhhhh what I meant was how many "life" sentences end up being anything like 30 years?

--

www.soundalikes.com/