8 years for cold blooded murder. Pathetic.

[Busybub]

You're mixing up the definition of 'mens rea' there.

 

Sorry, but i think you are actually

 

If the injuries being inflicted would, to a reasonable person, seem life threatening, then that would be 'intent'. Intent isn't quite the same as 'i intend to punch you in the face till you die'.

 

Example:

 

Attacker 1 punches somebody in the face, expecting that it will result in the death of the victim.

Attacker 2 punches somebody in the face, expecting to cause injury to the victim but not death.

Both victims fall to the ground, smack their head on the floor, and die as a result.

 

Attacker 1 is guilty or murder (intent to kill)

Attacker 2 is guilty of manslaughter (no intent to kill)

 

"Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which now deals with how intention or foresight must be proved, provides:

 

A court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances."

 

In this case there appears to be little or nothing in the way of premeditation or planning that would be evidence to support a contention that the attacker expected the victim to die which would be required to convict for murder. We can argue whether death is a probable consequence of punching somebody in the face (a judgement call of a particular jury), but this is a far cry from shooting somebody in the head, blowing up a bus, or repeatedly punching somebody to death.

 

 

 

 

However, yes, a conviction requires actus reus and mens rea to be upheld basically.

[RabbieBurns]

from what i understand from watching the US crime shows on TV, theres a law that says is something happens while in the act of another crime, then a maximum penalty applies.

 

There are loads of exaplles (from tv shows) I can cite, and I would like to think they reflect real law.

 

Point is, if me and you get into a fight in a pub, or over something trivial like you kissed my girl etc, and I punch you, and you fall to the deck and die from hitting your head, then for sure that is manslaugher. Your mother will hate me for it and class me a murderer. My mohter would do the same if it was you. If I had punched you and you had died I would live the rest of my life feeling dreadful.

 

Point is, the act of the death occured whilst in the midst of other crimes. In the USA ( from TV) these crimes compound. So the fact I punched you whilst I was committing other crimes, should compound.

 

On the flip side, screw it... lets go looting and get some free stuff and punch anyone that gets in our way.

 

Edited April 27, 2012 by RabbieBurns

[Arthur]

from watching the US crime shows on TV

It's a shame we don't have a US-style Castle Doctrine. Burglars always seem to have more rights than home owners do in the UK.

[localzuk]

Sorry, but i think you are actually

 

Example:

 

Attacker 1 punches somebody in the face, expecting that it will result in the death of the victim.

Attacker 2 punches somebody in the face, expecting to cause injury to the victim but not death.

Both victims fall to the ground, smack their head on the floor, and die as a result.

 

Attacker 1 is guilty or murder (intent to kill)

Attacker 2 is guilty of manslaughter (no intent to kill)

 

"Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which now deals with how intention or foresight must be proved, provides:

 

A court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances."

 

In this case there appears to be little or nothing in the way of premeditation or planning that would be evidence to support a contention that the attacker expected the victim to die which would be required to convict for murder. We can argue whether death is a probable consequence of punching somebody in the face (a judgement call of a particular jury), but this is a far cry from shooting somebody in the head, blowing up a bus, or repeatedly punching somebody to death.

 

Interesting then that the definition and explanation I used were the ones used by a judge in a case against myself in Crown Court. ie. My intentions were drawn from them being supposedly a logical consequence of an action undertaken by myself, but in fact were not the intention of myself at the time.

 

However, if that law is the case, I wish someone had highlighted it to me at the time, as it would probably have tipped the balance in favour of an appeal (too late now).

 

Personally, I prefer the old way of considering things - as it puts the onus on the individual to actually pay attention to what they're doing, rather than just swinging fists and not wondering about what might happen.

[GrumbleDook]

One of the things to be careful about when talking about with regards to mens rea and murder is that you also have to consider intent when dealing with GBH, as with GBH there is always the risk of serious injury including those which result in death. That is why the defence can sometimes rest on whether the defendant was intending to cause serious injury, if they had the ability to understand what a serious injury is, etc. This is why the previous violent history is crawled over by the prosecutor as well as previous experience and violent sports.