Murder reduction to manslaughter based on Sexuality
Posted January 2nd, 2013
Could a person have their murder charges reduce to manslaughter if they argue that it was a homosexual advance that triggered a lost of self-control. The simply answer is yes.
Section 120 (e) of the Criminal Code of the Laws of Belize states that one of the causes of 'extreme provocation' would be "any thing said to the accused person by the other person or by a third person which were grave enough to make a reasonable man to lose his self-control." keep in mind that that 120 (f) earlier cites 'sexual assault' on another person in your care. It would not be unreasonable to extend the sexual assault defense from (a) to (e). A really adventurous attorney would even grasp at the abnormality of the mind defense. In my opinion, it would take serious bigotry to pull that one off. And putting it that way, it is something you should explore considering our 'inspired' judicial system.
You will see in Section 120 (d), you don't need the slightest actual touch to be an assault. In our law, '“sexual offense” means rape [of a woman], attempted rape [of a woman], marital rape [of a woman], carnal knowledge, forcible abduction, unnatural offense, incest or indecent assault [of male or female].' The basic definition for assault is perceived fear of imminent danger or physical harm. So this whole thing is a circle. According to our law, Man and Man sex is an unnatural crime. Your pick up line may tell me exactly what you want us to do together. [Unnatural!! ;-P] The courts may allow that adventurous attorney to use the facts of your advance to be an assault and the law gives the 'victim' nuff room to define it as such- and maybe get away with murder. So for those persons who don't see the importance of UNIBAM's case, the simple definition of unnatural can be used as a defense to do the "flirter" serious harm.
Is there some cause that says that the dead man must be proven to be a homosexual before you can use such a defense? The facts that are raised will allow the court to come to those conclusions. When I say court I mean judge and jury. But you get the danger in all this and why we have to get rid of that "unnatural crime" foolishness.
And definition for what constitutes sexual assault too it seems. Just keep in mind that in a criminal case, there is supposed to be a higher standard of proof. The conclusion that the man is a homosexual is not enough and NOT the same that this same homosexual man then made an advance that would be of the nature that I consider it to be an assault. A reasonable person would need to know more. Of course for less aware persons in our judicial system, just proving homosexuality may be all the proof of an actual assault they need.
Could a person have their murder charges reduce to manslaughter if they argue that it was a homosexual advance that triggered a lost of self-control. The simply answer is yes.
Section 120 (e) of the Criminal Code of the Laws of Belize states that one of the causes of 'extreme provocation' would be "any thing said to the accused person by the other person or by a third person which were grave enough to make a reasonable man to lose his self-control." keep in mind that that 120 (f) earlier cites 'sexual assault' on another person in your care. It would not be unreasonable to extend the sexual assault defense from (a) to (e). A really adventurous attorney would even grasp at the abnormality of the mind defense. In my opinion, it would take serious bigotry to pull that one off. And putting it that way, it is something you should explore considering our 'inspired' judicial system.
You will see in Section 120 (d), you don't need the slightest actual touch to be an assault. In our law, '“sexual offense” means rape [of a woman], attempted rape [of a woman], marital rape [of a woman], carnal knowledge, forcible abduction, unnatural offense, incest or indecent assault [of male or female].' The basic definition for assault is perceived fear of imminent danger or physical harm. So this whole thing is a circle. According to our law, Man and Man sex is an unnatural crime. Your pick up line may tell me exactly what you want us to do together. [Unnatural!! ;-P] The courts may allow that adventurous attorney to use the facts of your advance to be an assault and the law gives the 'victim' nuff room to define it as such- and maybe get away with murder. So for those persons who don't see the importance of UNIBAM's case, the simple definition of unnatural can be used as a defense to do the "flirter" serious harm.
Is there some cause that says that the dead man must be proven to be a homosexual before you can use such a defense? The facts that are raised will allow the court to come to those conclusions. When I say court I mean judge and jury. But you get the danger in all this and why we have to get rid of that "unnatural crime" foolishness.
And definition for what constitutes sexual assault too it seems. Just keep in mind that in a criminal case, there is supposed to be a higher standard of proof. The conclusion that the man is a homosexual is not enough and NOT the same that this same homosexual man then made an advance that would be of the nature that I consider it to be an assault. A reasonable person would need to know more. Of course for less aware persons in our judicial system, just proving homosexuality may be all the proof of an actual assault they need.
Comments
Post a Comment