"Guilty by Reason of Loss of Control"

"A woman who stabbed a suspected paedophile to death in east London has been found guilty of manslaughter by reason of loss of control.

Sarah Sands, 32, killed her 77-year-old neighbour Michael Pleasted after finding out he allegedly abused three boys.Sands was cleared of murdering Mr Pleasted at the Old Bailey.

Mr Pleasted was stabbed eight times in his Canning Town flat on 28 November.He had been on bail awaiting trial. Police were also investigating an allegation he had abused a third boy."

Source: BBC [Full article; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33483744]

What are your thoughts?

(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Viva Emptiness

I just read that...seems like an awfully convenient get out clause considering she went with a knife.

Reply 2

zippity.doodah

I personally hate the "loss of control" defence - it makes no sense - it's basically a vague law which allows potentially anything to qualify - the law is based on whether "a reasonable person of the same age and sex would have done the same thing in the circumstances" - how is gender important? or age? why not just "person"? it's implying that there *is* some kind of difference in the way reasonable men and reasonable women act which is kind of stupid

Reply 3

SH0405

Original post by Viva Emptiness

I just read that...seems like an awfully convenient get out clause considering she went with a knife.

It's a strange one. I didn't even know 'loss of control' was a thing, especially in such a severe case. I understand why she did it but I don't understand WHY she did it if you see what I mean.

Also, apparently, she didn't mean to hurt him! :s-smilie:

Reply 4

SH0405

Original post by zippity.doodah

Hmm. That is strange. I thought they had the notion of a 'reasonable person', but I didn't know they distinguished between the genders.

Reply 5

zippity.doodah

Original post by SH0405

Hmm. That is strange. I thought they had the notion of a 'reasonable person', but I didn't know they distinguished between the genders.

the statute in question says "(c) a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D." - it really does seem vague enough to allow anything the jury wants it to allow along the lines of age and gender for not really any thoughtful reason...I can see one day that they'll say "older people can react like x but younger people can only react like y", or that kind of thing for men and women

Reply 6

Wade-

I expected to see this full of comments like 'good, he deserves it'.

From the BBC article I don't see how her testimony was taken seriously; she claims to have 'just poked him' with the knife and that she pushed him away and left but told police she intentionally stabbed him. In my opinion if she was a he then the sentence would have been different

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

username1921011

What a load of BS. She went to him with a knife, that's premeditated homicide which should carry a life sentence. He wasn't a good person allegedly (note he was suspected, one of the many problems with vigilante justice is its usually enacted regardless of the evidence making it basically a witch hunt) but that hardly factors in the application of the law. Its a dangerous standard to set that 'loss of control' is reasonable grounds for downgraded sentences, I can see quite a few people trying their luck with this one.

Reply 8

Evening

If that was a guy he'd be convincted. Just sayin'.

Reply 9

caravaggio2

Original post by Evening

If that was a guy he'd be convincted. Just sayin'.

Tru dat.😊
In the recent case here where a female teacher was done for having sex with under age boys, had a man of no relation taken a knife to her house and stabbed her to death due to "loss of control" , there is no way in a million years he wouldn't have been done for murder.
Yet another example of the way women are disadvantaged compared to men......oh no.....wait a minute.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 10

Juichiro

Original post by SH0405

She has been cleared of murder but FOUND GUILTY OF manslaughter.

Reply 11

Juichiro

Original post by zippity.doodah

It is not possible to prove that someone lost control. If angry partners are not found guilty by reason of loss of control when they find their exes with someone else and decide to kill them out of jealousy and similar other crimes, the clause should only apply to cases where the subject has a history of psychological disorders that render him unable to act like a legal adult.

Reply 12

Juichiro

Original post by SH0405

That's obviously an excuse, she won't say she meant to hurt him because she would be charged with murder (premeditated killing of someone) otherwise. She is acting up but obviously no one will give her a sentence for murder because she killed a paedo with a history of sex offences.

Reply 13

Juichiro

Original post by SH0405

Hmm. That is strange. I thought they had the notion of a 'reasonable person', but I didn't know they distinguished between the genders.

Truly vague and useless notion not fit for 21st century scientific understanding of human behaviour.

Reply 14

Juichiro

Original post by zippity.doodah

Old laws based on old thinking. The bit of law assumes that all x of y age act in a certain way.

And it is certainly vague enough to allow the judge not to send someone to jail who has committed a crime by appealing to this statue.

Reply 15

caravaggio2

Are you saying x is "women" and y is "under 40"?

Reply 16

spurs9393

The woman has taken the law into her own hands and committed a pre-meditated murder, which should carry a life sentence. Notice the jury was made up of 10 women and 2 men - the women at least obviously took sympathy on her and acquitted her of murder.

Posted from TSR Mobile