Does s 2 and s 3 of the homicide act 1957 mean that offenders are getting
The actual definition of murder is “an unlawful homicide with malice aforethought”; this basically insinuates that it is the killing of another with no excuse and that the ‘murderer’ has a true and premeditated intention to kill. So this section of the homicide act covers straight out murders, which, in theory, are easy to establish. However, this does not include people who commit a homicide without the intent, without the calculated malice, which is quite important when committing murder. Sections 2 and 3 however do cover this; the differentiating factor between the three sections is purely the mens rea of the crime, the ‘guilty mind’ of the person, which, in essence, is whether the person in question truly intended the homicide. The Actus Reus remains the same in all of the sections of the homicide act, as this is the actual killing and obviously, there isn’t any murder if there is no killing. Section 2 of the act is ‘Persons suffering from diminished responsibility’; this section looks at the basic state of mind of the “killer” and whether they are mentally stable to take the blame of the homicide.