Murder 2 carried 25 to life.

.. where we put non-violent drug offenders in jail for life!

Remember to be convicted of MURDER the prosecution must not only show that the Killer Killed a person but that was the killer's intent before the attack even began.

In almost all abuse case no such intent can be proved, the Defendant intent was NOT to kill her, just to punish her for something. Thus you have intent to do harm, but NOT to kill. That makes the crime Manslaughter in most states.

here is the New York Penal Code defining Second Degree Murder:

If you can't take that many stabbings as evidence of murderous intent, then you're in the wrong line of work.

The couple are together and something causes the abuser to yell at the victim and then hit or other wise abuse the victim. The victim can NOT say it was intentional, it just happened (and in the cases I handle the victim is always still alive so I have one more witness then does a DA in an abuse case with a dead victim). In the cases I handle, one thing lead to another and the next thing you known the abuser is hitting, punching and throwing the victim all over the place.

As to the numerous stabbing, how can that show intent? Did he bring the knife with him to kill her? Or was it a knife that most people keep in their kitchen? Was it a knife he carried with him all the time, for he used it in his job all the time?

All the numerous stabbing shows is that the Defendant was out of control and thus had NO intent for he was acting on emotion not thought. Thus not evidence of intent. In fact evidence of no prior thought just reaction. You can almost make a case of Temporary Insanity, except such a plea almost always fails.

In a manslaughter case, the only intent the Prosecution needs to show is an intent to intimidate, thus the verbal yelling shows an intent to do some harm to the victim, but does NOT show an intent to kill. Remember to convict someone of Murder you have to show an intent to kill, not just an intent to do harm. In Manslaughter all you have to show is an intent to do some harm, no requirement that you show an intent to kill. Thus the yelling shows an intent to do harm, even if the stabbing can be shown to be some sort of automatic reaction and thus not the product of any intent.

Sorry, this is a case of Manslaughter not Murder, as is the case in most cases of abuse.

I'd be calling it a murder. It might have happened as a 2d murder (not a manslaughter) but at 150 stabs, I think we're well ino the murder range. It might have started as 2d, but it evolved. Or, if you want to claim it as manslaughter, it's clear it evollved beyond that.

The Judge will ruled the facts do NOT support a Murder Conviction and inform the jury the only Charge is Manslaughter.

In the OJ Simpson case the Judge, the Defense argued that the defense on a Murder Charge and the defense on a Manslaughter charge were in conflict. In the Murder Charge the Defense had to defend against an intent to kill, in the Manslaughter Charge the Defense had to defend against the actual killing. In most cases those two defenses are NOT in conflict, but in OJ case they were. The Murder charge was based on the prior history of abuse and that OJ drove to the home of the victim with a knife. The drive away from the house where the victims were killed was a factor as while as what happened to his shoes and clothes. In the Manslaughter case all of that irrelevant, the only issue would have been did he kill the victims?. Had the prosecution opted for Manslaughter they would have won, a jury of OJ fans wearing OJ Shirts would have convicted OJ of Killing the Victim.

instead the prosecution opted for murder and the evidence did not support an intent to kill so OJ walked.

I blame the OJ trial defeat on the Judge and the Prosecution. Both knew the evidence and the evidence did NOT support an intent to kill. The evidence did support that OJ killed the victims, but was NOT an option to the Jury for Manslaughter had been removed from consideration by the Judge upon the decision of the Prosecution. The Jury had to decide OJ INTENDED to kill the victims, not that he had just killed them,

In most cases, judges do NOT give the prosecution the option of deciding which one to select, the Judge says the max charge is manslaughter for that is what the evidence supports, The Judge then informs the Prosecution it is Manslaughter and the Jury is only given that option.

In the case of OJ Simpson, if the Judge had ruled it was Manslaughter, I suspect the Defense team was willing to have OJ plead Nolo Contende (no contest). Nolo Contende is the same as a guilty plea, but can NOT be used against the Defendant in any subsequent Civil Lawsuit. The evidence that OJ killed the victims was overwhelming, the only issue was did he intent to do so.

Just a comment, in most cases the Jury is NOT given the option of murder is such cases. Furthermore once the charge is reduced to Manslaughter the Defendant generally then pleas guilty for the evidence clearly shows that the Defendant killed the victim and the only issue of intent was did the Defendant intent to do the victim some harm and the evidence clearly shows that intent.

Thus in most cases the case never gets to a jury, the only issue is the sentence and that is generally up to a Judge.

The law and "common sense" often diverge. While a person who stabs another 150 times can certainly be said to be working mightily on killing that other, there is not necessarily a previously formed legal intent to do so beforehand. That means that many horrific killings are manslaughters and many less brutal ones are murder. If he'd bought a gas tank a week earlier, read up on the internet, gotten her drunk and then tied a nitrogen bag to her sleeping head, she'd have died far more peacefully, even painlessly, but he'd be easily convicted of murder.

His eldest child will then be younger than he is now, by almost a decade, the youngest not even 30 years old.

It's unfortunate, we can't imprison some for the same term they have condemned their surviving victims to serve. The children will serve life with the image of that knife protruding into all their nightmares. He may be released "for good behavior."

to determine whether he can get out. The victims have a say in many states.

He killed her and her 80 year old father in front of her 3 year old son. He "had to shoot 'em" because they were demons or some such rot. He was their neighbor, and they'd invited him over for dinner. Shot 'em both in the face multiple times, then waited outside holding the child's hand, to "protect him."

He was found to be insane, no surprise there, and was sent to Atascadero, the local hospital for mentally disordered offenders. The hospital touts on its website that those found not guilty on account of insanity are remanded to the State hospital "for a period equal to the maximum sentence of their most serious offense." The DA told us he'd be there "the rest of his life."

He murdered them in 1997. He was released in 2012. The boy was a man by then so I'm certain the doctors and lawyers and parole boards and even the schlub who mops up at night could sleep easy, knowing the killer spent at least some time locked up.

I have no faith in justice. It's kind of a crapshoot at best.

And unlike Prisons, Mental Hospitals budgets have been cut over the last 20 to 40 years. Thus such hospital are under pressure to get these people out into out patient treatment. That is where most of them end up in, and that is underfunded also.

I hate to say this no not blame the Hospital, Judges, Lawyers, Police etc, blame your state Legislature, they are the ones who set the budgets for such institutions and have REFUSED to fund them for decades.

that's one of the reasons the guy who killed John Lennon has been rejected for parole eight times.

In New York, people who commit violent felonies must be given a determinate sentence by a judge (IE 20 years) and not an indeterminate one (IE 15-25 years). A determinate sentence means no parole hearings for discretionary release. Violent offenders may still receive good time credit though, up to 1/7 of their sentence.

This particular prisoner will be at least 61 years old when release if he stays out of trouble in prison. If he misbehaves, he will be 66.

Men killing their wives/girlfriends has to be the most common homicide committed worldwide.

There really needs to be some sort of emotional training, from early on, to teach boys how to handle rejection from women. Most can, but too fucking many can't.

Those poor kids.