- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 457 Hour
- Reading permission
JFenix Post time: 2012-10-3 23:36
There is more than that. Her brother saw her being carried off by the man and heard her screaming ...
Justice is Blind~
According to the Law.
The father will be charged for Murder under Homicide Act 1957; Section (1) - Killing with the intent for murder. There are 2 elements to consider;
1. Actus Reus - the act.
Facts - Father punch the victim
2. Mens Rea - the guilty mind.
Facts - Father intent to kill
Father Defence (most probably will argue)
- There are Acturs Reus (the act) but the Father does not have the Mens Rea i.e. the intention of killing.
* Noted that in U.S. the RULE is "innocence until proven guilty". So its up to the Prosecutor to proof the Mens Rea of the Father. (the intent to kill)
Like most argue...the Father could have stopped the beating when the assailant is disabled and unable to fight back. Further beating will tends to amount of Bodily Harm.
Whether the beating is causing "actual" or "grievous", there are formal medical evidence to verify the injury.
If the harm caused is considered grievous by the evidence, then its amount to malicious intent. = intent to kill; if the infliction resulted into death. Thus...the father will be guilty of Murder.
If the harm caused is not grievous, then its not fall under the intent to kill. Mens Rea failed. But the victim died. So the next charge that the Father received will be the charge of Involuntary Manslaughter, under Homicide Act.
Under English law, according to R v Creamer, a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when he or she intends an unlawful act that is likely to do harm to the person, and death results which was neither foreseen nor intended.
Defence that Father will put on;
Self Defence - Self-defence in English law is using reasonable force against an unjust threat; an act to protect others as to protect oneself.
Will fail to defend himself with Self-Defence because of "reasonable force". The fact that the Father "went to far" as to continue beating the victim eventhough he is already disabled and unable to fight back; and resulting death. reference case of R V Lindsay 2005.
Additionally, the "Thin-Skull-Rule"...even the Father had stopped the beating, but the victim died due to thin skull meaning unable to withstand few punches...the Father will still be responsible or liable for; As if the victim is normal, and not an easily died type.
Verdict as below;
Offence: Involuntary manslaughter
Legislation: Offences Against the Person Act 1861 section 5
Sentencing Range: Serious specified violent offence. Schedule 15A CJA 2003 applies
In this case is Manslaughter arising out of fights;
If the prosecutor considered the involuntary manslaughter that was based on “gross” negligence or “willful and wanton” negligence, it is considered a felony, which is punishable with up to four years in Jail.
If the prosecutor considered it as a misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter charge, where the death occurred during the commission of a misdemeanor or unlawful act not amount to a felony, it is punishable for a maximum of one year in county jail.