Voluntary manslaughter, as established in the Homicide Act 1957 is determined by three sections: diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact. These are all known meaning as part of defense that they do not give full acquittal of a sentence only, that the murder of homicide shorten. Diminished responsibility of § 2 of the Homicide Act is determined, stating that "If a person kills or party to a killing of another, he will not be convicted of murder if he affected by such abnormality of mind as much his mental responsibility suffered for his acts and omissions in doing or as a party to the killing. "
There can be used as a defense to murder if the defendant can prove an abnormality of mind when, for example, is the defendant an alcoholic, or has a mental condition as in Byrne (1960), in which the defendant had uncontrollable sexual desires. The defense is that the defendant does not have the necessary control over their actions when a reasonable person compared. Diminished responsibility has been criticized for a number of reasons, the very term "Diminished Responsibility" was criticized by authorities such as the Butler Committee, saying it was "not a medical fact the defendant in the context". There are also many other areas, which makes this area of law controversial as I will discuss.
abnormality of mind covers a wide range of situations and described by Lord Cj Parker in the Court of Appeal in the case of Byrne (1960) as "a state of mind so different from the ordinary people, that the reasonable People would call abnormal. " In Byrne (1960), who was strangled and then mutilated a young woman accused of a sexual psychopath. He was convicted of murder, but the Court of Appeal considers that his condition came in the definition of diminished responsibility and he is convinced the murder was substituted for a murder.
The main problem was that the medical experts had describes Byrnes state as amounting to "partial insanity" and the appeal court had approved it. But in Seers (1984) has found that comparisons with madness are unhelpful and should be avoided. In this case, the defendant stabbed his estranged wife, claiming diminished responsibility because of chronic reactive depression. The judge directed that needed to be successful for the defense borders be Seers on the insane. It was his as his conviction of murder for a murder replaced was found to limit the insane as a result.
Another problem is with the Law on the diminished responsibility that diminished responsibility a wide range of mental conditions covers such as paranoia and epilepsy. Some conditions have been known for years, but some of the conditions that have been recognized in recent years as "battered woman syndrome", was shown in the case of Hobson (1998). In this case, the defendant stabbed her alcoholic and abusive partner to death in 1992 during an argument. At the hearing they claimed that they had acted in self-defense, and there was a subsidiary issue on provocation. Diminished responsibility was not specifically raised, and the accused was found guilty. She called based on the grounds of diminished responsibility on battered woman syndrome, which has not been viewed as an anomaly of the spirit to 1994. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and ordered a retrial. The problem with this area of law is that some conditions can not be regarded as an anomaly when the mind only later and so the development in this area of law is very slow, resulting in the people who have a real condition that they had no control for to be punished about
, the abnormality of the mind through one of the questions that needs to be created in the parentheses in § 2 (1) of the Homicide Act 1957. These are: a state arrested or retarded development of mind. any inherent cause of an illness or injury induced. Inherent cause means towards one that comes from the interior of the defendant, as to an external factor, and it does not have to be permanent. The important point is that it must be given at the trial medical evidence, an abnormality of the mind of one of the specified causes.The abnormality of mind must be, arise affecting the responsibility for his actions substantially the defendant. In Lloyd (1967) it was found that means "essential" not "total", nor did it "trivial" or "minimal". There is something in between, and it is to decide to jury whether the mental responsibility of the accused was impaired and, if so, it was substantially affected? In seers (1984), the court as well as the phrase "serious," and decided that "substantially" means more than "trivial", but not "total" or "absolute" impaired.
Diminished responsibility and alcohol makes things more complicated, as there are various combinations of noise and diminished responsibility that must be taken into account, which are: noise only, noise and a pre-existing abnormality of mind is not connected to the noise, noise, damage and noise the brain caused due to the dependence / addiction.There is a clear rule that alone is not abated intoxication responsibility. In Di Duca (1959) - chosen The Court of Appeal that the immediate effects of alcohol or drugs to take, were not a violation, even if it did have an effect on the brain. So a "temporary" state of intoxication was no abnormality of mind.
There are also difficulties also in cases in which the accused has an abnormality of mind, but also, at the time he intoxicated killing does. This issue was considered in Gittens (1984). In this case, the accused is suffering from depression. On a visit home from the hospital, he argued with his wife and beaten to death and then raped and killed his stepdaughter. At the time of the offense he had been drinking and taking drugs for depression. The jury had to consider all the factors, the noise of the exclusion and see if it was responsible for his actions to a significant deterioration of the defendant. The decision was interpreted as meaning that the defendant could make only diminished responsibility to prove if he could satisfy the jury that he had killed because of abnormality of mind, even if he had been intoxicated.
This point was later confirmed by Dietsch Man (2003). In this case, the defendant killed a man in a brutal attack while he was very drunk. He was also suffering from a mental abnormality, namely an adjustment disorder was a depressive grief reaction after the death of his aunt, Sarah, with whom he had a close emotional and physical relationship and he had believed (wrongly) committed suicide because of their drug problems. It was found that to benefit from the knowledge of the diminished responsibility, D he would not have to show who killed he had been sober. Also by intoxicated it will not not entitle the accused to the benefit of the defense of diminished responsibility, is the only factor than capable recognizes the law his spiritual responsibility of diminishing the spiritual described by the experts anomaly. It was also said that drink totaling Diminished responsibility is only able if either damage to the brain caused or generated an irresistible desire, so that the consumption involuntarily (eg alcohol dependence syndrome)
If the brain has been violated by alcoholism, this injury or illness can support a finding of diminished responsibility. This was stated in Tandy (1989). In Tandy (1989), the defendant, an alcoholic, almost a bottle of vodka had been drinking when she told her mother that she (Tandy) was involved 11 years old daughter with her husband. They strangled her 11 years old daughter. (They usually drank vermouth or barley wine), the Appellate Court found that, if the defendant is not able to resist drinking, so that is involuntary, this amounted to a diminished responsibility. The same point was again as in Wood (2008), in which the Court of Appeal pointed out that the "sharp effect of the distinction made in Tandy distinction between cases where brain damage as a result of alcohol dependence syndrome has occurred and where it is not, no longer appropriate. the court of appeal also said that the jury should ignore any consumption of alcohol which they voluntarily decide. in the case of Wood (2008), the accused was drunk and went into the victim's house and fell asleep. When he awoke the victim found trying oral sex on him to perform and hit the victim with a meat clever to kill him.
Although diminished responsibility had provided a satisfactory defense madness for the defendants available to the killing, but suffer from a mental abnormality, there is the defense still has problems. One such problem is the burden of proof, as in most other cases, the defense has to collect only the defense, and it is up to the prosecution to disapprove it. Nothing accused pleasing diminished responsibility are at a disadvantage, which is not confronted by this increase provocation.
Another problem is the wording of § 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. The definition in this has constantly criticized. Lord Justice Buxton describes the formulation as a "disgrace". The Law Commission in its report, murder, manslaughter and infanticide (2006) pointed out two fundamental problems with the law. These were that the section does not explain what is involved "substantially impaired mental responsibility" and that the definition in section 2 was not written with the needs and practices of medical experts in mind.
There have also been many proposals for reform. For example, recommended placement of the Butler Committee, the burden of proving that the accused did the act (or omission made) with the requisite state of mind, in pursuit. The logic behind the proposal of the Committee seems to have the perceived anomaly of the burden of proof with respect to the defense of insanity and diminished responsibility. The Criminal Law Revision Committee also felt that the prosecution should bear the burden of disproving insanity and diminished responsibility. They felt that but happy lawyers with the difference may be between to be safe, and be satisfied on the balance of probabilities (adding "if indeed any are"), jurors are probably confused by these subtleties and by the different placing the burden of proof for different offenses. The Criminal Law Revision Committee their confidence in the judge, to ensure that defenses which have no proper basis for the evidence to be withdrawn from the jury.
also the Butler Committee recommended that it should be possible, where the prosecution is in the proof possession indicates that a defense under the section can be made for them to raise manslaughter in the first instance and not as murder , The Committee determined that the prosecution would likely only to take this course if it is clear that the defense to it were pleasant. If the defense wanted should resist evidence of mental disorder, the charge to be murder, as is currently the case.
The criminal law have approved the recommendation of the Audit Committee Butler Committee, the opinion is that the mental state of a disturbed person is not likely, by improving a murder charge outstanding. They felt also that it can not be right that the charges in the most solemn manner known to the law should be given priority, that is to prosecution if the prosecutor that it is a defense to the charge, which is suitable to to be succesfull. Here the criminal law revision committee had the support of several prominent public institutions.
This recommendation, however, is not adopted in the Bill. Sparing notified the defendant of the fear of a process of murder and to appear of the fear on a murder charge in court would have given expression to the founding of mankind, to which the defense is based. Only cases where the medical evidence the prosecution would have denied would be tried as murder. So valuable court would have saved time and money, as a judge not with lengthy medical testimony on the issue of diminished responsibility before deciding whether or not to accept the request or leave it for jury determination are confronted. This leads me to the conclusion that yes, the law on diminished responsibility is satisfactory indeed.
