Lönnrot’s street hit-and-run district court judgment created a legal issue that the district prosecutor Eija Velitski wanted to bring to the court of appeal on the table. The case is a preliminary decision of character, if the court of appeal confirmed that both the driver of the reason guarantees infertility that the work of the so-called negligence.Lönnrot’s street hit and acts of intent has been raised in the court of appeal on the table.The prosecutor thinks it is bizarre that the offender is sentenced to “non compos mentis” and at the same time crimes accidentally done.The prosecutor is demanding five ten with mental health problems to a man the verdict of murder.Archive video: lincoln street hit and was brought to the district court the issue of the first reading.
the district attorney Eija Velitski keep the Helsinki district court judgment lönnrot’s street hit-and-run partly as unfounded.
the Court sentenced in 1965 a man born mentally unfit to stand trial and left him to condemn to punishment. The prosecutor’s appeal does not concern the driver’s state of mind, but the reason for the decoded offences: the district court sentenced the man for serious death and injury by negligence, when Velitski requires offences as murder and manslaughter attempts.
a Middle-aged woman died and five people were injured, when a bad mental health problems-a man drove into the crosswalk crossing on lincoln street.
involuntary manslaughter means more or less accidentally-inflicted death. Murder or manslaughter required the element of the certainty of death or default that the act will very likely lead to the death. In the latter option, the legal literature speaks of the so-called probability of the intent of the concept.
velitski of view, it was an intentional homicide, that the deceased victim in the case was a particularly brutal, cruel and even outrageous. The prosecutor believes the crime may those grounds I directly to the murder.
”first time in my career”
the District was waiting for a psychiatric evaluation to be completed. Judgment of the court was of the opinion that it is precisely the reason I take ettomuudet was a manifestation of acts of negligence.
I Think the intent and the reason I take ettomuudet should be evaluated separately, Velitski said.
the Prosecution according to the law, i.e. the year and a deal over the established interpretation of the law, is strongly in favour of the legally insane by the judge to deliberate on the factors. Instead, negligence is old law to find. Velitski has not received hands matter very little even theoretical literature.
– This is the first time in my career, when a person is convicted of the negligent acts retarded insanity.
Velitski take, for example, in Europe the terrorist attacks and lists separately Turku, France Nice, as well as the United states cases.
– If you think, for example, terrorist acts, so they have been considered tahallisiksi, although there would be mental health issues in the background.
Story continues pictures.
the district prosecutor Eija Velitski wants the district court to crash the most violent criminal charges through the court of appeal. The archive image. TIMO KORHONEN/AOPSurma-car (front) should work after some time in a public place. ELLI ridge bear meat before,
according to the Prosecution, victims ‘ compensation claims have been complaint of a catalyst. The acts of reading tahallisiksi can raise the amount of compensation that the court orders be paid to the victims or their relatives.
the state of mind of the research presented, that the 53-year-old man is legally insane. He told me he was having a panic attack in power before the run. A man went to the senate square offers to the restaurant to get the taste of bear meat. The meat turns out eater’s opinion, the worst tasting.
the man justification for the works to damage the assets were contributed to the secret, and the prosecutor wants to comment on them more. Their own plea for their Velitski to keep diversified.
– There are a number of different points, which justify the view I saw. The data are partly secret, and I can’t them terribly open, but I think it is unequivocal, that the intentional act is a question.
