If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
'Honour Killing?' of 17 year old?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
See here
i think this forum is probably the right place for this
so what do you all think? personnaly the circumstances seem to point to a family member killing her after she refused and arranged marriage, however i cant make my mind up. i remember an article in the paper a while ago that before she died her father had been beating her for being 'too westernised'
hmm :chin:
i think this forum is probably the right place for this
so what do you all think? personnaly the circumstances seem to point to a family member killing her after she refused and arranged marriage, however i cant make my mind up. i remember an article in the paper a while ago that before she died her father had been beating her for being 'too westernised'
hmm :chin:
0
Comments
No one knows what happened, let the police do their job and work it out.
I am glad that I was not born into a strict family though.
But it's not an "honour killing", it is cold-blooded murder. Speaking generally, when these "honour killers" get caught they always seem to think that they were right to do it, and that the woman deserved it. Sometimes I find myself advocating bringing back the rope...
Bopz
Sorry mate, I can't accept that, whether you think its wrong or not, you still have to follow the laws of the land regardless. Anyway nothing has been proved on this case so lets not speculate too much. For all we know she ran away and was killed or died through other circumstances.
the post mortem proved she was murdered im afraid, they found her body about a month ago and was only identified yesterday.
i found it quite odd, the parents barged into the press conference (un invited and not expected) and had there solicitor read out a statement from them saying that they didnt do it. hmmm :chin:
terrible though, the girl had drunk bleach when they tried to make her marry someone.
In principal yes, but that law really only applies to children too young to understand basic concepts of right and wrong, and the mentally imbalanced.
Ignorance of the law is no defence, and neither is fundamentalist faith. A premedidated killing of someone is murder, and if this poor girl's family are responsible for her death, then they are murderers.
There is no honour, in my opinion, in killing someone; no matter who they are or what they have done/you think they have done. And I rather think the British police force, CPS, and the Judiciary would be inclined to agree with me.
i want to add to that, if a headhunter child was brought up his whole life learning that the only way to survive is to headhunt, he will see nothing wrong with this,if you dropped him into our streets he will headhunt and see nothing wrong with this, and to a certain extent, there is nothing wrong with it because that is the envirmonemt he was brought up in, the things that are deemed wrong in our society are the things that were made up by the majority centuries ago, that seem horribly wrong, i.e honour killings, but to a Muslim, this is perfectly normal, it's as normal as bird hunting is in our soceity, however, we all know that this is totally wrong and he should be imprisoned for life.
Errrrr...no. Not to most Muslims it isn't. Same as killing people 'cos the Christian church split after the Reformation isn't normal to most Christians.
Whats it like to be back
What about it?
The mens rea for murder is an intent to cause death or an intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Simple as.
you're right, as the killer, whoever it was had both the mens rea (the pre thought intention to commit the crime) and actus reus (the act of the crime) then they are guilty, if one or other was missing then they would not be guilty of murder i.e if the death was accidental he had no mens rea=not guilty. if it was an honour killing the killer is still guilty as he intended to do it, whether he thought it was right or wrong
interesting :chin:
edit because of spelling mistake
Moral questions can only be brought up in terms of sentencing, not in terms of the crime. If person X intends to kill person Y, or commit GBH on them, and manages to then X is guilty of murder. It only gets interesting when causality becomes part of the question...
Not another lawyer are ye?;)
i did law for a lickle bit, then quitted
so if the murder thought he was doing right by killing the girl, would his sentance be longer? due to his lack of remorse and conciense (i.e. perfectly likely to do it again)
did she drink bleach?
The only available sentence for a person convicted of murder is a life sentence. So, no.
:yes:
she did, showing to me just how unhappy she was, however before i would have said 'maybe she killed herself?' but the postmortem shows she was murdered and her body dumped in a river, poor girl
yea but wats life these days, 16 years or something thne u can be eligble for early release, or life without parole, people like this should be put in a loony bin centre and taught the ways of the world and then released if they realise what they're doin is wrong and if it's safe to come back into "society"
yea thats the word
Study it and you'd realise it's related to this topic!!!!!
Err, no it isn't. The MAXIMUM sentence is life imprisonment, but the judge may use his or her discretion when sentencing, taking into account the facts of the case. I think there might be a minimum sentence now, but if there isn't in theory the judge could impose any sentence he wished.
As for Char's question, as far as I am aware then the defendant's lack of remorse would be taken into account during sentencing, as would all the facts of the case.
Probably. The word 'allegedly' is used to protect the journalist from accusations of libel if it turns out to be a false allegation.
if you look on the missing persons posters there were for her, it had details about it, because she needed urgent medical attention
Yeah, I'm almost certain it is true, but the BBC, or any other journalistic organisation, have to cover their arses just in case it isn't true, because then they could be liable for defamation.