U.K. Victim of Child Porn Kills Abuser

Nov 2007
1,396
441
Prague, Czech Republic
#33
Murder is murder, we don't have degrees - and it automatically carries a life sentence. She was found guilty of manslaughter not murder.
While it's true that murder carries an automatic life sentence in England and Wales, it's also true that life does not actually mean life. There are no degrees of murder, but there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances. These change what life actually means, since the judge can change the minimum sentence (ie. how long you have to remain in prison before being eligible for parole).

The minimum minimum recommended by current sentencing guidelines for an adult convicted of murder is 15 years, so from this perspective a 9 year maximum for manslaughter seems like a good deal - she'll probably only serve 6 (Slartibartfast wrote 4 1/2 above, but I don't think that's the case anymore. Parole laws got stricter). The permitted sentence for manslaughter by means of diminished responsibility is between three and forty years, so nine is clearly on the lower end. "History of significant violence or abuse towards the offender by the victim" is explicitly mentioned as one of the mitigating factors in sentencing guidlines, which was presumably what this sentence relied on.

Not that I think 9 years is necessarily fair in an abstract sense. Sentences have gotten progressively longer in British law over recent decades and I don't think this is a good thing. But if we're asking 'is this fair in comparison with how other sentences are structured'; then it seems quite reasonable. Especially since she is not only guilty of killing him, but of keeping his death a secret and claiming his benefits for over a decade.
 
Likes: The Man
Aug 2012
3,080
751
the Sussex Downs
#34
While it's true that murder carries an automatic life sentence in England and Wales, it's also true that life does not actually mean life. There are no degrees of murder, but there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances. These change what life actually means, since the judge can change the minimum sentence (ie. how long you have to remain in prison before being eligible for parole).

The minimum minimum recommended by current sentencing guidelines for an adult convicted of murder is 15 years, so from this perspective a 9 year maximum for manslaughter seems like a good deal - she'll probably only serve 6 (Slartibartfast wrote 4 1/2 above, but I don't think that's the case anymore. Parole laws got stricter). The permitted sentence for manslaughter by means of diminished responsibility is between three and forty years, so nine is clearly on the lower end. "History of significant violence or abuse towards the offender by the victim" is explicitly mentioned as one of the mitigating factors in sentencing guidlines, which was presumably what this sentence relied on.

Not that I think 9 years is necessarily fair in an abstract sense. Sentences have gotten progressively longer in British law over recent decades and I don't think this is a good thing. But if we're asking 'is this fair in comparison with how other sentences are structured'; then it seems quite reasonable. Especially since she is not only guilty of killing him, but of keeping his death a secret and claiming his benefits for over a decade.
She could be out in three years -1/3 of the sentence IF she pleaded guilty. IF she pleaded not guilty she would do the whole stretch. I forget the case now ---

Prisons are terrible here now, worse than ever, and yup sentences longer.
 
Likes: The Man