ChatterBank0 min ago
If This Man Is Found And Charged, Could It Be Murder?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Child destruction, contrary to the Infant Life (Preservation Act) 1929":
http://
http://
^^^ The 1929 Act states that pregnancy for a period of 28 weeks should be regarded as sufficient proof that the child was capable of being born alive. It doesn't specifically bar a prosecution where the pregnancy was of a shorter duration but it can still be shown (based upon current medical evidence) that the child could still have been born alive.
A problem with the Act is that, although actions such as those referred to to be Sp1814 are covered by it, it was really intended to prohibit abortion. The Abortion Act 1967 later made the relevant period one of 24 weeks gestation and a court might well regard that as a more meaningful threshold in determining whether or not the child could have been born alive.
For shorter pregnancies though, where there was clearly no chance of the child being born alive at the time of the external intervention, there does seem to be a major gap in the law.
A problem with the Act is that, although actions such as those referred to to be Sp1814 are covered by it, it was really intended to prohibit abortion. The Abortion Act 1967 later made the relevant period one of 24 weeks gestation and a court might well regard that as a more meaningful threshold in determining whether or not the child could have been born alive.
For shorter pregnancies though, where there was clearly no chance of the child being born alive at the time of the external intervention, there does seem to be a major gap in the law.
^^^ A problem with defining what is, and isn't, 'murder' is that Parliament has never passed any legislation making murder an offence. (It's a 'common law' offence, not a 'statute law' one).
So it's left to the courts to decide. However every time a higher court makes a ruling on the subject it creates a precedent which other courts are then bound to follow (unless there are exceptional circumstances which cause the original ruling to be revised). Those precedents are summarised here:
http://
So it's left to the courts to decide. However every time a higher court makes a ruling on the subject it creates a precedent which other courts are then bound to follow (unless there are exceptional circumstances which cause the original ruling to be revised). Those precedents are summarised here:
http://
^^^ My post above (at 1930) was a response to Hc4361.
Sp1814:
The 1929 Act refers to a 'wilful act' but the legislation itself doesn't make it clear whether that 'wilfulness' pertains specifically to an intent to terminate the life of an unborn child or simply in relation to the assault upon the mother. It would be up to a court to decide how the law should be interpreted.
Sp1814:
The 1929 Act refers to a 'wilful act' but the legislation itself doesn't make it clear whether that 'wilfulness' pertains specifically to an intent to terminate the life of an unborn child or simply in relation to the assault upon the mother. It would be up to a court to decide how the law should be interpreted.
CHRIS, the 1929 Act says, "Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:"
To me, it clearly means there has to be intent to kill the unborn wee one as opposed to a consequence of an assault on the mother.
To me, it clearly means there has to be intent to kill the unborn wee one as opposed to a consequence of an assault on the mother.
As above, it cannot be murder. TheCorbyLoon has also hit on the reasons why it is actually very difficult to prove child destruction because there has to be intent to kill the child. Apparently there have only been 11 convictions on this charge in 16 years (so says an article I read, I have no idea how accurate it is). The OP's article also does not say how far advanced the pregnancy was. It has to be proved that the child was capable of being born alive. So I would guess than anything less that 28 weeks would be doubtful (for 28 weeks, it may be less - I am no expert).
Poor poor lady - what an absolutely devastating and wicked thing to have happened.
Poor poor lady - what an absolutely devastating and wicked thing to have happened.
Thankfully they have found the scumbag. I hope he gets the longest sentence available for the crime.
http://
http://
1 to 20 of 20
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.