I wonder why men kill women
Doublethink
Admin, 8th Day Host
in Hell
Why the ever living fuck was this man not charged with attempted murder ?
Comments
Did they think he thought she would bounce ?
Attempted murder has a very high bar. They have to prove intent to kill, not just intent to do something that could cause death. So all a defendant has to say is that they didn't intend to kill their victim and the prosecution has the very difficult task of proving that they did.
Perhaps bizarrely, the mens rea for murder is easier to prove than that for attempted murder.
Otherwise, rant away.
Dafyd Hell Host
It appears from this article that he was charged but found not guilty:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q3jxdg5k2o
The procedural history appears to be rather complicated - there is a mention of a re-trial and he was also found guilty of other offences against the same victim in a separate trial.
Given the number of lads who were reported to have got out of third floor windows thinking they were ground floor rather than face the Warden of an all female hall of residence when I was at Uni...
I have sat through too many start of year talks by senior students on "If you accidentally happen to have a man in your room after midnight this is how you can let him out of the hall... No you cannot come in that way. Get yourself a late key" for this to be entirely without basis.
The rule was there for a reason. It is a lot easier to remove a unwanted male guest for overstaying their welcome with this sort of rule than have to go into queries of what was going on in the middle of the night.
The delays aren't really related in any way to the jury system, it's court capacity.
Which a move away from the jury system will just make worse, if anything.
Except his defence was that he didnt throw her, she jumped.
On the facts revealed here, I can’t see how it could have been other than attempted murder.
And delay of trial doesn’t change mens rea. And carrying her back to the appartment rather than calling an ambulance speaks of a guilty mind.
I just don’t get it.
As I read the article it seems the prosecution had the burden of refutirng the man's intent. Sort of like proving a negative.
However, five years is a significant amount of time. I see in Great Britian while the maximum for attempted murder is life, the actual range of sentencing is anywhere from 3 to 40 years depending on a whole range of issues, See here.
Had exactly the same thought.
It had the burden of proving intent (as always), though intent can often be inferred from foreseeable consequences. I get the sense there may be something going on that is not clear from the news reports, which are not very helpful. The one I linked to reads like it’s trying to explain something, but the explanation only makes sense if you know something they’re not telling you.
Closest I can get to empathy is "someone somewhere did something that taught him to act like that." I can't even begin to imagine. But he's old enough to take responsibility. I hope the sentence shows him some.
I was fortunate in having some supportive and loving people around me as well as good professional psychological help. They made all the difference.
Same here.
@Barnabas62 : no, rage is not confined to men, but men are the only sex who are encouraged to believe that rage is socially acceptable. Women are not allowed to be angry about anything. It used to be socially acceptable to get angry about your child being mistreated (never yourself, you just have to put up with whatever your Man decides to do to you), but nowadays you are just as likely to be labelled a helicopter parent.
I think @Jane R is right about this one. "men are the only sex who are encouraged to believe that rage is socially acceptable. Women are not allowed to be angry about anything"
Which of course shows that if we trained boys the way we trained girls, we could have men could control themselves. But as a society, we'd rather not bother.
Men can learn to express the feeling beneath anger when they’re given language, safety, and models for doing it. Teaching a pause, naming hurt or fear, and normalizing vulnerability helps break the reflex to lash out. Anger becomes a signal to explore, not a weapon to use.
Agreed. And what @Ruth said.
And there's also different modes of control. I got this running theory in my head that people relate to other people the same way they relate to themselves. And if you're taught from childhood that "control is violence" then what you'll see is "violent threats are appropriate." By this logic, threats are the basis of civilization, ultimately. I know folks, men and women, who still go on about "I was raised on corporal punishment and I turned out ok!" That's where that goes, ultimately, normalized pain compliance. It's not my culture, but I've been exposed enough that I can tease out the depraved logic of it.
The anger a guy internalizes to "control" himself will get externalized if he's not very careful with it. This is a terrifying model to operate with, but I think it's more socially common than folks like to admit.
We are taught - in certain contexts in certain cultures for certain guys - that rage is socially acceptable. But I also think, if you don't teach any other outlets for negative emotion, that's what you're left with. The Hulk is a popular comic book hero for a reason. It's socially conditioned, but it's also an experience a lot of people relate to.
And yes, I do think boys do suffer for a lot of emotional neglect. It's not great, and sometimes I think we have been conditioned to take that on ourselves. And it certainly does not excuse gross misbehavior by adult men.