Major police incident

[Hamble]

Luckily whatever the verdict there are facilities for criminals and facilities for the criminally insane.


My thoughts are on the crime of passion and justice for victim's.

Will the perpetrator escape a murder conviction claiming he intended to
wound/scare/intimidate not kill?

[Steed]

Will the perpetrator escape a murder conviction claiming he intended to
wound/scare/intimidate not kill?

He got up that morning, put a knife in his pocket, travelled to her place of work, walked in and slashed her throat.

If he wanted to “wound” her, surely he wouldn’t have gone for the throat area, arms or legs maybe, If he wanted to “scare or intimidate” her he could have shouted and waved his arms about.

The fact is, he went there to cause her harm, the fact that he went for the throat area says he wanted to cause her serious harm.

[VB123]

Luckily whatever the verdict there are facilities for criminals and facilities for the criminally insane.

We don’t use the word ‘insane’ anymore to describe those with mental health disorders.

[Alikado]

He got up that morning, put a knife in his pocket, travelled to her place of work, walked in and slashed her throat.

If he wanted to “wound” her, surely he wouldn’t have gone for the throat area, arms or legs maybe, If he wanted to “scare or intimidate” her he could have shouted and waved his arms about.

The fact is, he went there to cause her harm, the fact that he went for the throat area says he wanted to cause her serious harm.

He was probably pumped up with Steriods, Weed or other such substances.

[Hamble]

He got up that morning, put a knife in his pocket, travelled to her place of work, walked in and slashed her throat.

If he wanted to “wound” her, surely he wouldn’t have gone for the throat area, arms or legs maybe, If he wanted to “scare or intimidate” her he could have shouted and waved his arms about.

The fact is, he went there to cause her harm, the fact that he went for the throat area says he wanted to cause her serious harm.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove intent as it will affect the outcome in prosecution.

[Hamble]

We don’t use the word ‘insane’ anymore to describe those with mental health disorders.

The law still does though it is under pressure to change the wording.

Quote
"Insanity in English law is a defence to criminal charges based on the idea that the defendant was unable to understand what he was doing, or, that he was unable to understand that what he was doing was wrong.

The defence comes in two forms; where the defendant claims he was insane at the time of the crime, and where the defendant asserts he is insane at the time of trial. In the first situation, the defendant must show that he was either suffering from a disease which damaged the functioning of the mind and led to a defect of reason that prevented him from understanding what he was doing, or that he could not tell that what he was doing was wrong. In the second situation, the test is whether or not the defendant can differentiate between "guilty" and "not guilty" verdicts, instruct counsel and recognise the charges he is facing. If successful, he is likely to be detained under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, although judges have a wide discretion as to what to do.

Use of insanity as a concept dates from 1324, and its criminal application was used until the late 16th century in an almost identical way. The defence, if successful, either allowed the defendant to return home or led to him being incarcerated until he was granted a royal pardon; after 1542, a defendant who became insane prior to the trial could not be tried for any crime, up to and including high treason. During the 18th century the test to determine insanity became extremely narrow, with defendants required to prove that they could not distinguish between good and evil and that they suffered from a mental disease which made them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. The current wording comes from the M'Naghten Rules, based on the trial of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843.

The defence of insanity has been subject to intense criticism, particularly from the Butler Committee, which noted that the rules were "based on too limited a concept of the nature of mental disorder", highlighting "the outmoded language of the M'Naghten Rules which gives rise to problems of interpretation" and that the rules were "based on the now obsolete belief in the pre-eminent role of reason in controlling social behaviour... [the rules] are not therefore a satisfactory test of criminal responsibility".[1] The Committee proposed reform of the law in 1975, followed by a draft bill from the Law Commission in 1989; so far, these have both been ignored by successive governments."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_in_English_law

[Steed]

The onus is on the prosecution to prove intent as it will affect the outcome in prosecution.

I don’t think that should be too hard to prove, he didn’t do it on the spur of the moment or in a fit of rage, looks pretty much premeditated to most people.

[silver fox]

I don’t think that should be too hard to prove, he didn’t do it on the spare of the moment or in a fit of rage, looks pretty much premeditated to most people.

Not sure about the rights and wrongs of discussing this case before it goes to court, but I believe this guy has a history of harassment against this young woman, and has already been served with an injunction to stay away, hardly a momentary tip over into loss of control.

[VB123]

The law still does though it is under pressure to change

The courts need to change their terminology to match the terms used by psychologists, the medical profession and general society. The fact it was first used in 1342 says it all. It is unacceptable to use such a word to describe someone with mental health issues - appalling that the courts still use the term.

[Lamparilla]

Not sure about the rights and wrongs of discussing this case before it goes to court, but I believe this guy has a history of harassment against this young woman, and has already been served with an injunction to stay away, hardly a momentary tip over into loss of control.

Yes, I don't think the prosecution would have much trouble in establishing premeditation.

As long as the sentence is long, it shouldn't really make a difference. Peter Sutcliffe has been in Broadmoor (a psychiatric hospital, not a prison) for 32 years.

[Hamble]

The courts need to change their terminology to match the terms used by psychologists, the medical profession and general society. The fact it was first used in 1342 says it all. It is unacceptable to use such a word to describe someone with mental health issues - appalling that the courts still use the term.

Perhaps so in todays language remember it is a legal not medical definition and therefore useful in justice for victims as proving 'criminally insane' has a high threshold.

The criminally insane are thereafter effectively patients rather than inmates and confined to a facility established to treat medically.

[said]

Not sure about the rights and wrongs of discussing this case before it goes to court, but I believe this guy has a history of harassment against this young woman, and has already been served with an injunction to stay away, hardly a momentary tip over into loss of control.

It appears from the various reports published that A Burke was with his partner for a period in excess of six years and they had a child together. His partner separated from him and he was seeing his child on a regular basis. Within months of the separation, his partner took up with C.Hayes, who herself had been in an off on relationship for a number of years. It is at this time A Burke was refused access to his child and the situation escalated. If A Burke had been of a violent character - would his partner have remained with him so long?

[salus.populi]

It appears from the various reports published that A Burke was with his partner for a period in excess of six years and they had a child together. His partner separated from him and he was seeing his child on a regular basis. Within months of the separation, his partner took up with C.Hayes, who herself had been in an off on relationship for a number of years. It is at this time A Burke was refused access to his child and the situation escalated. If A Burke had been of a violent character - would his partner have remained with him so long?

I know women who have stayed with violent men for decades.Some never leave.

[Hamble]

I know women who have stayed with violent men for decades.Some never leave.

Ditto.
The reasons given one may not agree with but one has to respect.

[silver fox]

It appears from the various reports published that A Burke was with his partner for a period in excess of six years and they had a child together. His partner separated from him and he was seeing his child on a regular basis. Within months of the separation, his partner took up with C.Hayes, who herself had been in an off on relationship for a number of years. It is at this time A Burke was refused access to his child and the situation escalated. If A Burke had been of a violent character - would his partner have remained with him so long?

I think we get the message of a fairly tangled relationship, however Burke's problems with access were with his ex-partner and none of it can remotely justify his actions.