Young woman imprisoned for murder - is the sentence harsh?

[mids2019]

I was reading this case of the very rare occurrence of a woman killing a man. The murder occurred using a car as a weapon essentially and though the sentence fits guidelines for this crime are you in effect removing the woman's right to hear children in her lifetime (or making it a lot more difficult)? Is the socially enforced infertility a by product of the sentence that is quite just or does this discriminate against women in that a man may not suffer in huge the same way (because of extended fertility).

I suppose the law is the law but is the removal of the right to seek a family ever taken into account with sentencing?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-68180241

Women should be treated more leniently just because they are women.
Younger people shouldn't be treated more leniently just because they are fertile.

Plus she's 24... she has theoretically had 8 years to have had children. Yesterday a teenager got 22 years... thats more of her fertile years... she should have been treated more leniently too?

I mean she took her fiancés possibility of ever having children by deliberately driving over him and then dragging his body under her car. She doesn't sound like someone who should ever be trusted looking after a child, if she can lose her temper/snap and deliberately kill someone.

No I absolutely don't believe we should be giving unduly lenient sentences to female murderers just to empower them to have children who we then may need to protect from them too. She made her choice, his entire life has been taken from him, so if the consequences of that result in her life opportunities being significantly curtailed then so be it. If you want to be free to have a family then perhaps don't murder people.

Good grief. Her fertility has nothing to do with this. He has lost the ability to have kids too. On account of being dead.

Would you be happy for your son to have children with her?

@PuttingDownRoots

I was just interested form a legal point of view as you are r removing something other than liberty? I think you could argue (to an extent) that the punishment is slightly harsher than a comparable one to a man as the man will leave prison and theoretically have more of a chance to father children. I am not trying to minimise the crime but was only pointing out that a by product of the sentence possibly is that opportunity to have a family and is that really part of the sentence?

Losing your freedom and having to forego everyday things and milestones, marriage, children etc is the punishment of going to prison.

Something about this makes me really uncomfortable.

Though I can’t quite articulate it. Suggesting that women of a certain age should be allowed to avoid the correct sentence for a crime so they have the have to have children doesn’t sit right with me. It’s almost like some people think if a woman wants a child that some come before everything in society and society must accommodate it. Regardless of the situation.

Would you be ok with this sentence if she was infertile? Or had been through menopause? Or has never wanted kids

You believe women or child bearing age and women who can have children, should be held in higher regard? Or women that want children should be treated differently? They should be exempt From times that others are not. Based on the ability or want to reproduce?

It feels like so derogatory to women. Especially to women who can’t have or don’t want children. They aren’t part of this special group that should have special allowances all based on their reproduction ability.

She should have thought of all that before deliberately killing an innocent man. I have absolutely no sympathy. Actions have consequences.

Fair enough points made. I just wondered if the right to family life had a bearing on sentening. I don't have a great deal of sympathy I was just pondering the point that if a man was released in his mind 40s there is the feasibility of family life but not with a woman.

Why is the opportunity for her to have a family, so important that she should get a lesser sentence for taking a man’s life?

@Wadermellone .

Fair enough and I am persuaded by the points here. It is a horrible business all round any way.

So do you think all women should be released in their late 30s so they can have children, and those late 30s to mid 40s not be imprisoned at all?

To be honest... I feel more sympathy with those who already have children when they are sent to prison. More for the children than the parents, as the children arre also punished in this scenario, but they have to live with the fact that their children are being punished daily for their actions.

I think it’s an interesting discussion.
Personally, I think it doesn’t appear that having children is in anyone’s best interest but I do think it’s worthwhile having a discussion and exploring different perspectives.

A woman's 'right to have children' should override consequences of breaking the law?

If I'm right, I think you mean the WHO's definition of "Everyone has the right: To choose whether to have children or not"

One could argue she made her choice to have children or not by making the decision to kill someone.

Well, ponder this….try to imagine being that man’s mother. He won’t be having children either.

But surely this argument can be applied to loads of situations.

A long sentence takes away your chance to do lots of stuff during life. You'll likely miss funerals and weddings of family etc and your career will be trashed. It's surely the point !

No. Having children isn't a right.

And anyway, someone who commits murder is not fit to be a parent. What values would she pass on to her children? Same for a man.

'Family' is more than having bio children. She has contact with her family in prison (if they want to talk to her)

You can’t possibly be serious.

even pondering that women of child bearing age should be given less harsh sentences in case they want children is fucked up.

Most people, OP, believe that taking a life demands the surrender of all rights to which you may have formerly been entitled. The Law ameliorates this view, if it didn't there'd be regular public hangings on street corners. The 'right' to family, life was removed from the victim by the perpetrator. Natural justice demands the same for her. Which, given her temperament, is probably a good thing.

Do you think some poor children should have her as a mother? Anyway, she could have had children by 24, what if she was 30? Would you say only lock her up for 5 years in that case?

I guess from the above that child bearing can't be part of any legal consideratiin...Fair enough. I wasn't at all sympathizing with the murderer just curious about whether reproductive rights can ever be a consideration when sentencing.

@mids2019 I absolutely disagree that women should be treated more leniently for any crimes because they might miss their opportunity to have children. They should be treated equally. Like someone pointed out earlier the man’s ability to have children was taken away permanently- why is his life worth less because he is a man?
But where do you draw the line? Who decides whether the crime was too heinous or not that bad? I mean Myra Hindley was early 20’s when she was caught…

I think you have a point for discussion @mids2019 .

Certainly loss of fertility and a family life is not going to happen to a man. He can start a family in his 50s if he wishes, regardless of his crime.

@placemats .

I wasn't trying to elect sympathy for a murderer. Possibly the example given was a little black and white. I suppose for 'lesser' crimes it may be custodial sentence for women in some circumstances remove the realistic possibility of having children and is there any conceivable way the justice system can take this into account? As you say the right isn't taken from men in the same way.