Sarah Kruzan: Sentenced to Life Without Parole at Age 16

[Mint]

Anyone is capable of murder.

Your point is? Just because it's possible to murder someone doesn't mean that we actually would. The people that have murdered should not be walking the streets. They are dangerous and are highly capable of murdering again.

[FlyingJesus]

Well i think it's obvious she isn't a danger to anyone anymore. I don't think she should have to live her whole like in torment because that has what she has done.

Where are you getting the idea that she's not a danger any more? Anyone who can snap and kill a man with full intent to do so is dangerous, whatever that person has done. In fact her being so messed up by him makes her even more of a danger than many other people who've killed

[LuketheDuke]

Where are you getting the idea that she's not a danger any more? Anyone who can snap and kill a man with full intent to do so is dangerous, whatever that person has done. In fact her being so messed up by him makes her even more of a danger than many other people who've killed

Then why wasnt she tried under a state/federal mental health act?

The way in which she was tried for the crime is completely ridiculous, crime isnt just a bunch of statistics its about situations. Do we know whether she could go to the police without being found out and being beaten, maybe potentially murdered herself? No, we dont.

The video is pretty sucky for concrete evidence.

[Mint]

Then why wasnt she tried under a state/federal mental health act?

The way in which she was tried for the crime is completely ridiculous, crime isnt just a bunch of statistics its about situations. Do we know whether she could go to the police without being found out and being beaten, maybe potentially murdered herself? No, we dont.

The video is pretty sucky for concrete evidence.

I don't think he was trying to say that she has a mental health problem, I think he was saying that if she has already committed murder then she is highly likely of doing it again.

[Nixt]

I believe you can "kill" someone in self-defence in the UK

Self-defence can be used as a mitigating factor in English law, that is one can claim their act was in self-defence in order to minimise the possible sentence they may receive if found guilty. It is rare that self-defence can be considered a total defence for a crime. The reason for this is because of the term "reasonable force"; the Criminal Law Act 1967 reads - "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large". This is essentially confirmed by the common law principle (common law is law created by the courts) established in R v Beckford - "A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

The problem in English law is what is reasonable force. English law is very confusing in the fact that reasonable force is open to interpretation - and this is what makes cases where defendants claim self-defence occasionally some of the most controversial around.

In regards to this case (not being aware of the differences between English and American law - and there are many, as well as not knowing the details of the criminal act) I do not think her act was in self-defence. As FlyingJesus said earlier in the thread, self-defence would require immediate threat or danger to her or someone else. It's difficult to establish whether this was the case because I don't know the details of her act however one can be sure that the case would be tried differently in the event that the murder was committed in self-defence.

However, I do believe she could argue provocation in this case. In English law to use the defence of provocation requires two things;
1) the jury must establish that the person was actually provoked.
2) the jury must then establish that a reasonable person would act in the same way the defendant did.
One could argue that the repeated abuse, rape and grooming of this woman could amount to provocation. I recall Sammeth saying, earlier in this thread, that he would of broken before three years. In my opinion a jury would agree and would assume that this was long-term provocation and any reasonable person would have acted in the same way.

Nevertheless, this is English law and not American. Additionally, without knowing the details of the case it's impossible to make a fair decision. The video is a very biased view on her imprisonment after all. Personally, on the basis of what I know, her sentence is quite harsh. Yes, she deserved punishment but seriously - wouldn't any reasonable person behave the same way as her. I certainly would.

[IceNineKills]

Your point is? Just because it's possible to murder someone doesn't mean that we actually would. The people that have murdered should not be walking the streets. They are dangerous and are highly capable of murdering again.

Even if it was selfdefence or manslaughter?

[FlyingJesus]

It wasn't either of those things