QUOTE(Kitsune @ Apr 14 2007, 10:50 PM)
How many years law have you done then? I'm currently in 3rd year law, and major in psychology. So please be careful before assuming 'most' people here don't know what they're talking about. I do in part agree with you, I do think she'd be eligible and could be successful in an insanity defense and if it were here she'd theoretically be found to have committed infanticide, not murder or manslaughter, and would likely be acquitted because of insanity based on the little facts described so far. However, I don't think you should be going around saying Tetiel did no research before she posted. Not to mention she's a psyc major so she does know what she's talking about. Everyone makes statistical errors. I'd advise you not to be so arrogant.
Kindly explain how she'd be convicted of voluntary manslaughter? manslaughter here is defined as "Except as provided in section 178 of this Act, culpable homicide not amounting to murder is manslaughter" section 178 is the section about Infanticide which is what this situation is centered around. Manslaughter wouldn't even be an option.
Manslaughter: VoluntaryVoluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a
first-degree or
second-degree murder.
A good Attorney could easily turn this to be a heat of passion case, as it has happened before. The difficult part would be the whole 135 stabs situation, but we could easily say she is mentally disturbed.
Isn't New Zealand's law system COMPLETELY different than the U.S. 's system? or at least I would assume considering it was cut off from the rest of the world when systems of law formed. I would guess it is based on a code system of law? The U.S.'s system was pretty much evolved from the British System of law.
Furthermore, I felt as if her replies were very arrogant in the own, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone, my point was to be so aggressive in my reply to stats error.
I do have a question though, how in the world does a psych major now anything about the law? lol...
It just that, a lot of what was posted was more or less baised on a European assumption of U.S. Laws, which do not work by any means the same way.
The manslaughter I quoted above is baised on a fedral statue which is probably much less agressive than the state she is in.
Just because she is being tried for first degree and is put in at a million bond, really doesn't mean much though. I'm sure plea-baragins will start.
In all, didn't mean to sound rude, however I do feel as if she probably will serve a limited term in jail and be fined.
Did I say "most" people do not know about law? No, you misunderstood, I was refering to that it seems Tetiel didn't understand that much. I was not refering to everyone in full.
Once again, sorry if I seemed like an ass...Oh well.
Edited by pktester, 16 April 2007 - 09:08 PM.
Also, the death penalty is letting some people off easy 
