Lucky To Get Away With Manslaughter.

[Jackdaw33]

Murder in my book.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44724668

[Mamyalynne]

It's impossible to get your head round this one - I don't envy those who had to go through all the detailed evidence.

[Jackdaw33]

Let's hope the judge hands down the maximum sentence, which is life.

[ToraToraTora]

dam savages, how is that not murder?

[bednobs]

perhaps they do not have the mental capacity to stand trial for murder. I certainly hope that they did not have normal iq and capacity and still did that

[andy-hughes]

I believe that murder is not an appropriate charge, if the death was not inflicted deliberately - as in this case.

These women are clearly mentally and socially inadequate, and were unable to deal with the circumstances that befell them, and the tragic members of their family.

I don't believe they are murderers, or indeed 'savages'.

It's easy to assume that because we take normal life and responsibility for granted, that everyone else does as well - and they don't, as this case shows.

[youngmafbog]

Sorry, but I think they are evil savages.

Lock them up and throw away the key in the absence of being able to fetch the rope.

[ummmm]

Have you actually read the full article? Maybe you should before you take the 'throw away the key' stance!

[sunny-dave]

Difficult - I've read not just the article linked to in the OP, but some of the defence submissions - which detail the (alleged?) attempts made by the two convicted women to care for the young man - and his (alleged?) refusal to accept any other intervention.

Even so, I'm far from convinced that manslaughter (as opposed to murder) is the correct decision.

To accept that they didn't understand the consequences of their actions is (essentially) saying that stupidity is a not just a mitigating factor, but a complete defence - which it shouldn't be.

I'm unhappy with the circular argument that says "No sane person of normal intelligence could have done this - therefore they are automatically allowed the defence of insanity or limited mental capacity" - it's just not right.

[ummmm]

No..it isn't right but the knee jerk 'throw away the key' also isn't. It's like people make up their minds by just reading the bullet points.

I think manslaughter is appropriate.

[andy-hughes]

YMB - // Sorry, but I think they are evil savages. //

Given the ferocity of your view, why do you feel you need to apologise for voicing it?

[murraymints]

it is all very very sad...

[andy-hughes]

sunny dave - // To accept that they didn't understand the consequences of their actions is (essentially) saying that stupidity is a not just a mitigating factor, but a complete defence - which it shouldn't be. //


I think you have to be careful here not to confuse everyday speech expressions, with legally binding terminology.


I would suggest that the convicted couple did not avoid murder charges because they were 'stupid' - in my view, stupidity is the action of someone who is fully aware of what they are doing, but does not consider the consequences through simple lack of thought, which is not the same as being unable to consider the consequences.

I would also suggest that the couple have undergone appropriate psychiatric evaluations which have judged then as incapable of understanding the potential result of their behaviour - hence the charge or manslaughter, which involves an involuntary death, rather than murder, which involves an intended death.

// I'm unhappy with the circular argument that says "No sane person of normal intelligence could have done this - therefore they are automatically allowed the defence of insanity or limited mental capacity" - it's just not right. //

I would be too, if I believed it existed in law, which I do not believe it does.

The notion that 'no person of normal intelligence could have done this' is not one that is used to frame or enact the law.

Each case is assessed individually, and not on a blanket 'it can't be that, so it must be this' concept - that is not how the law works.

[anotheoldgit]

First let's see what their sentence is.

[andy-hughes]

I don't think the sentence is going to make any difference to this debate.

The conviciton is for Manslaughter and the OP suggests that the convicted couple have been 'lucky to get away with it' - so their sentence is highly unlikely to prove satisfactory for him since it is not likely to be Life Imprisonment With No Parole, which, barring execution, appears to be the only sentence he feels is appropriate.