Cable Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Hmmm (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=24369)

Maggy 21-02-2005 15:13
Re: Hmmm
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth
Yes, Incog and I must have watched the same programme.
__________________

...although we were not together when we watched it, I hasten to add... not that we're together now... we've never even met.

Yikes, this has all gotten out of control :Sprint:
I think this :dig: is the smiley you now need. :D

Xaccers 21-02-2005 15:32
Re: Hmmm
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
There have been several cases that I can remember recently where a woman has killed an abusive husband and got away with it.
It also was (and may still be) legal to beat a homosexual to death if he came onto you.
I'll have to check with a Law student I know who was doing an essay on this topic.

Maggy 21-02-2005 15:58
Re: Hmmm
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
It also was (and may still be) legal to beat a homosexual to death if he came onto you.
I'll have to check with a Law student I know who was doing an essay on this topic.
What? I don't think so!! :td:

Xaccers 21-02-2005 16:49
Re: Hmmm
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incognitas
What? I don't think so!! :td:
homosexual advance defence

Quote:
A homosexual panic defence, or Portsmouth defence, is a variation on the defence of provocation, a defence that only applies on a charge of murder.


If accepted it reduces the defendantâ₠¬â„¢s liability to a charge of murder. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence; the sentence for manslaughter is at a judge's discretion.

What is the defence?
The accused claims that the victim made a homosexual advance that caused him to lose control and attack the victim. If there is any evidence that the accused was provoked (and the defendantââ‚ ¬â„¢s own words are enough) the judge must let the jury decide whether the defendant was provoked and whether a †˜reasonable manââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ would have been similarly provoked.

How it is used
In 1994 Al Francisco Delamotta was murdered in Ramsgate. Delamotta was a married man with three children; there is no evidence to suggest he was bisexual. He was stabbed in the chest and back by David Hunt, an unemployed labourer at Delamotta's home in Ramsgate. Hunt claimed that Delamotta, whom he had met while out drinking, made homosexual advances to him. There was no evidence other than Huntâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s word that this was the case; nevertheless Huntâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s plea of provocation was accepted and he was sentenced to five years for manslaughter.

punky 21-02-2005 16:56
Re: Hmmm
 
It seems to be a legitimate defence in Australia, NZ and Canada.

The mind boggles... :eek:

Pierre 21-02-2005 17:23
Re: Hmmm
 
Well Bugger Me :erm:

Maggy 21-02-2005 20:15
Re: Hmmm
 
So does this mean that anyone can kick a homosexual to death and just claim that he was being accosted?I can't believe that anyone would get away with uncorroborated testimony like that.So what if someone makes the attempt? It's not a defence that I think anyone else would get away with.The judge must have been mad. :shocked:

So the next time a man accosts a woman she can kill him and claim he accosted her?I think not.

Unless he was actually claiming he was frightened that he was going to be killed I can't see how it is any kind of defence. :shocked:

Xaccers 21-02-2005 20:47
Re: Hmmm
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incognitas
So does this mean that anyone can kick a homosexual to death and just claim that he was being accosted?I can't believe that anyone would get away with uncorroborated testimony like that.So what if someone makes the attempt? It's not a defence that I think anyone else would get away with.The judge must have been mad. :shocked:

So the next time a man accosts a woman she can kill him and claim he accosted her?I think not.

Unless he was actually claiming he was frightened that he was going to be killed I can't see how it is any kind of defence. :shocked:
Incog, it's a defence that people have used to get off a murder rap! That's the scary thing, some juries have agreed that it was a reasonable action to take!

Ok, so a lot of the cases involve the defendant having been abused as a child and those memories being triggered by the advance, or so has been claimed, and they've reacted as if they were attacking the abuser.

If the jury turns round and uses a bit of common sense and says "ok so he made a pass at you, so why did you have to kill him?" (something I'd be asking if I were on such a jury) then chances are the defendant would be found guilty of murder.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum