MurdermadeEasy

One of the most dangerous aspects of modern British society is the poisoning, intentional or otherwise, of our judicial system, by its political masters. This country was always certain of its underlying democracy because it had a bedrock of case and common law that has, by and large, insured there was justice. This is no longer the case. There are some glaring inadequacies that are getting worse with every passing day.

The most recent mistakes are comically beyond belief. The Government has a politically correct agenda that is especially right on when it concerns feminist issues we now have laws being made by stupid and fixed agendas rather than by fairness or common sense. In these, the first major changes to the homicide laws for half a century, the government provides us with yet further proof of it being totally divorced from reality.

As a consequence it is seriously proposed in England that if a woman has an abusive partner and then kills him she could escape a murder charge, and pleading this in mitigation will only face a manslaughter charge. This would automatically ensure that the convicted woman will not face a life sentence for her killing. Under this proposal it will be sufficient to establish that the woman who killed was reacting to a “slow burn of abuse”. This is a murderer’s charter! All of us men had better watch out or we can be killed in future with very little chance of justice for us.

This will remove the present crime of passion defense, in which it was argued that a person could claim a momentary and sudden loss of control. In fact these two elements, when brought together, actually reverses the traditional wisdom of centuries of jurisprudence.

In addition to this ill-conceived measure it is further proposed that the long accepted “partial defense” of killing a wife because she was discovered to having an affair is also on the way out.

Apparently Ministers have ruled that many categories of killer, in addition to victims of domestic violence, will be offered partial defense of provocation. This will specifically include those “seriously wronged” by an insult.

This could be imagined to include whole new classes of those seeking to kill without the threat of a life in jail. Perhaps you have been in a long-term dispute with a neighbor, well now you can kill them!

It’s only human to want to kill the rapist that commits his crime and then laughs and taunts the victim, but this must not mean that its OK to kill him.

It cannot allow a woman who finds her daughter being sexually attacked to kill her attacker, but this law will allow such an action, and the charge will not exceed manslaughter.

It is feminist rubbish when we are faced with the proposed defense of “killing in response to words and conduct which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.” This is lousy law, with no basis other than feminism.

This series of proposals is riven with contradictions and misconceptions which add up to a man not being allowed to kill his wife under virtually any circumstance, including not being provoked by an unfaithful woman.

This sounds about right, to any sane person, there should not be any excuses to kill another human except in self-defense or in time of war.

But on the other hand this law does allow women a raft of bizarre reasons for them to kill. Basically it would result in women being able to kill their partner and either getting away with it, or, at worst, getting charged with manslaughter. Whereas, if a man kills his partner, he will be charged with murder.

The woman responsible for this botched, ill conceived, and grossly inappropriate set of legal proposals is Harriet Harman, and she has to be the most inept Minister in a totally inadequate government.