How Does This Qualify As Manslaughter?

Avatar Image
ChillDoubt | 22:03 Tue 29th Jul 2014 | News
40 Answers

To my mind, if you take a plastic bottle and a shoe to a 6 week old for the express purpose of causing injury and in all probability death it almost beggars belief to be cleared of murder.

Yet again we see someone who will get a sentence far less than what they desrve, of which they'll only serve half.
As ever, one hopes that proper prison justice will be meted out.


21 to 40 of 40rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Avatar Image
It's murder. Once again we see soft liberal justice meted out.
08:44 Wed 30th Jul 2014
I think Canary 42 sums up my thoughts exactly.!!
We haven't heard the evidence. I can't believe any jury would find him guilty of manslaughter if the evidence was there to find him guilty of murder.

"So we can presumably expect Pistorius to be acquitted then?!"

I didn't want to side-track this thread. Was merely making a point about Svejk's comment.

Meanwhile, try it for yourself - the Pistorius evidence combined with a randomly selected mugshot.

Hypo - yes,I realised that.More tongue in cheek from me.Interesting what you said about test result with actors...
36 hours of deliberation. That is a very long time for the jury, a hell of a lot longer than it takes to read one newspaper report and reach a conclusion.
It's murder. Once again we see soft liberal justice meted out.

"As ever, one hopes that proper prison justice will be meted out."

Aha! So -that's- the point of putting the mugshot in the papers? ;-)

Didn't understand that until now. (I always thought it was the victim who deserved the fame, not the perpetrator).

"After deliberating for 35 hours and 56 minutes, the jury decided by a majority verdict of 10-2 that Pearce was guilty of manslaughter but cleared him of murder."

If they deliberated for all that time, they have to have been taking it seriously. hc4371's right - they've heard all the evidence, not just what's in the article. And he hasn't been sentenced yet. That's today. The judge will decide how long he gets, based on the charge, the verdict and all the evidence.
hope he gets a good kickin in jail
So do I jenny. Poor, defenceless little child.
Question Author

9 years. So probably out in just over 4 and a half.

Yes Chill, a disgrace. He has got of very light.
premeditated murder in my book. longest possible sentence should have been the only option. for example locked up forever. maybe he'll slip on a bar of soap in goal and do something nasty to himself.
9 years . the price to be paid for killing a 6 week old baby............justice ?
Question Author
Very good, Chill. I hope the sentence is substantially increased.
I guess it must be down to intent. Having have 5 pints of beer it might have been difficult to persuade the jury so the lesser charge was agreed on. Sometimes I wonder why there is a distinction. So often what seems clearly to be a murder is put down as manslaughter, even though no reasonable person could except an outcome other than death from what was done. It seems to me more sensible to establish who did what, and then let the judge decide what the sentence should be taking into consideration circumstances.

what ever happened to in vino veritas, eh? ie His true intentions being unleashed by the drink.

What's happening there is that >everybody else< wants to retain their "but I was really drunk at the time" card.

Is it any wonder that there is no justice in this world?
What is an individual's true intention ? The one shown when in full control or the primitive reaction normally held in check ? If one believes in free will under what circumstances is that prevented from having an effect ?
That's an extremely tricky question, OG.

I regard the "person" as the product of the higher cognitive functions, while instinctive behaviours are controlled in parts of the brain we share with less advanced vertebrates.

We cannot yet identify any brain activity associated with the instinct-level "desire" to produce/obtain offspring, let alone the higher function of concepts like "wanting to be a father", due to limits of current technology. I cited an animal example involving destruction of the displaced pride-male's last set of cubs. I do not know to what extent that is genetically-programmed, instinctive behaviour or whether it is forethought and planning (higher cognitive functions) but at the animal level.
We humans may still have the same 'wiring', deep down, but have still higher functions (shared by other primates) where we learn and store behaviours - social 'norms' - with which to suppress those baser instincts.

Loss of control through alcohol is, obviously enough, impairment of those inhibitory nerve impulses. So, fair enough, I concede that loss of self-control can happen.

BUT:- New girlfriend has newly arrived baby. Surely, in a sober moment, he should have realised that the newborn means a new lifestyle, new responsibilities - no more getting smashed on 'n' pints of booze. Doing it in spite of that is criminally negligent.

If negligence can lead to a child's death without even touching it (hypothetical case), how would that be charged, just for comparison?

21 to 40 of 40rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

How Does This Qualify As Manslaughter?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.