The motives of love, lust, lucre and loathing

ARCHIVES 2012

By admin-s On Mar 9, 2012

In the most simple approach, and avoiding the pitfalls of legal definitions, I would say that if someone has been killed and there was motive, it’s murder. If there wasn’t any motive, then it’s probably manslaughter.

KTemoc Konsiders

Aiyah sayang saje, if only I didn’t focus on writing Vice greater than 7 Deadly Sins yesterday, I would have pipped my hero Karpal Singh in asserting the centrality of ‘motive’ in murder, specifically in the murder of Altantuyaa Shariibuu.

It’s not that I’m a learned erudite lawyer like my Bai guru but wakakaka I have read a few books on crime, of course only for knowledge and entertainment.

Only the most mindless moronic murderer wakakaka would deliberately kill someone without motive, but then I suppose his lawyers could plead insanity (and he would probably win too), wakakaka.

Karpal has been, probably still is angry with the bizarre statement of the Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin, who astonishingly said “Whatever the motive was, it is a matter of law that the motive, although relevant, has never been the essential to constitute murder.”

And this was AFTER he admitted that Abdul Razak Baginda could have had a motive to murder Altantuya as she was blackmailing him.

But then the most learned judge stunned every legal person in Malaysia (well, almost everyone) by declaring the motive cannot be the basis to call for Razak Baginda’s defence.

So, my Lord, what basis if not motive should be the case then? Would a videoclip of the murderer (plus 4 witnesses) plunging the knife (or detonator) into the victim’s heart do?