UBC student convicted of manslaughter in stabbing

On Nov 21st, 2008, Sasan Ansari was found guilty of manslaughter for brutally stabbing and murdering his friend Josh Goos. Ansari, a law student studying at UBC, used the defense that he was in a diassociative state, (not aware of his actions) and that he didn't even remember stabbing Goos 30 times. His plea of automatism was rejected by the jurors, but they did not convict him of second degree murder. He was convicted of manslaughter instead. Just like Mersault, Ansari murdered, and stood on trial. Although Mersault had plenty of provocation and he was intoxicated, he was not tried on manslaughter, but on first degree murder, and he was sentenced to the guillotine. Ansari (from what it suggests in the article) was neither greatly provoked, nor did the article mention intoxication. His only defense was that he didn't remember committing the crime, but admitted to doing it. Who seems more guilty: a man who intoxicated and extremely threatened killed another, or a man studying law (being fully aware of the ways to receive a lesser sentence) saying that he was "in a dissociative mental state, which caused his amnesia"? This plea could easily be false- a simple way to get out of years of prison. Even if it were true, does it seem fair that a man who brutally stabs his friend be punished less than a man who was, one could say, defending himself? Personally, I think it would be far more just if Ansari recieved the conviction of first degree murder, and Marsault was charged with only manslaughter. That is not to say that I wish their punishments were switched, as I strongly disagree with the death sentence, but I think it would be more fair if their convictions were reversed.

UBC student convicted of manslaughter in stabbing
By Neal Hall
November 10, 2008
The Vancouver Sun

Link to the Story