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

Thank you. Pls don’t apologise. You did nothing wrong.

My family member is doing really, much better than we expected given the circumstances. Ty

She should have thought about that herself before she ran him over and killed him

I think it's an interesting question. Perhaps less relevant to actual murderers but it's something I've thought of for younger women who for example receive a custodial sentence for a non-violent crime (though I believe this is rare, and probably custodial sentences for non-violent crime are particularly undesirable in general anyway).

This does remind me of Brock Turner who appeared to receive a mitigated sentence for rape, on the basis of reducing the "severe impact" a longer sentence would have on his "promising" university and athletics career(!)

Realistically, different people have different amounts to lose when they choose to commit a crime. But should we really give out greater punishments to those who have less naturally to lose (and who therefore may actually have more mitigating factors behind their crime) Vs those who are more privileged? Eg Brock Turner case, which (rightly imo) caused outrage.

As others have said, can a woman who already knows she can't have children be punished more? I think everyone would agree most certainly not, so there isn't much of a way to address the impact of custodial sentencing upon fertility without perpetuating worse injustices.

The country is soft enough. Should be minimum 20 years for a crime like that and no pass just because she has a vagina.

Would you care about her "right" to have a child if it were YOUR brother she murdered?

I suspect you'd not give a crap.

Nobody has the right to have children.

The punishment in the UK for murder is a significant period of time behind bars.

These 2 things are totally unrelated.

But on a happier note, maybe she'll be "lucky" enough to be placed in a jail with one of those very special males who identify as women and are placed in the female estate. She could have her baby then, couldn't she?

Is this male vs female murderer's rights? Then yes, women murderers lose their chances of having children more than men do. I don't think it should be a consideration at all, they should all be sterilised/snipped. But it's not surprising a woman would suffer a harsher sentence than a man. That's life isn't it

Much more thoughtful and interesting post than many I see on the internet discussing sentencing.

IMO the interesting aspect of this isn't things like comparing what someone might miss out on through being in prison with what they deprived their victim of, or whether a murderer would be a fit and proper person to be a parent. It's more about whether, and if so, how, we might account for the differing impact of a sentence depending on the characteristics of the offender, and perhaps particularly when they're protected characteristics like sex. I don't know how much this is already taken into account with sentencing.

If you imprison a 24yo woman for twenty years, I guess it's true that there's this additional impact on her compared to if you imprison a 24yo man for twenty years. Seems reasonable to me to have a discussion about whether that unintentional disparity of potential impact is something that should be considered. There's got to be lots of ways that the same sentence might impact one offender differently to another, maybe some more worthy of consideration than others. Someone with young children not getting to see them grow up vs. someone without children, someone who will likely die before their sentence ends vs. someone who can look forward to getting out and rebuilding their lives, someone whose main hobby is hillwalking vs. someone who likes to read, someone with fragile mental health vs. someone who can bounce back and deal with anything…

I think for the most part people tend to feel that if there's some particular thing that's tough about a custodial sentence for a particular individual, well, if that affects that individual, then that's just part of the punishment. I guess you could argue that an apparently equal sentence means that some offenders are getting off lightly compared to others, but the practicalities of fine-tuning sentences for equal impact, going through all the arguments that would be made for leniency here or there, would be a total nightmare. And that's assuming it's even possible to make sentences truly equal in impact, when those impacts are as varied as lost fertility, lost income, mental distress, relationship damage, or missed memories. And the result would be a system that might seem less fair than just giving the same sentence regardless of personal characteristics.

I think even if we decided it was fairer to try to adjust for the impact of a sentence based on an offender's characteristics, it's maybe just too complex to try and account for things like lost years of potential fertility, or many of the other individual factors that affect the impact a sentence has on a person.

There are some women in prison who I wouldn't want to have children ever. Imagine if they'd have "considered the reproductive rights" of Lucy Letby.

It's her hard cheese if she looses the opportunity to have children.

I’d actually say that a person who commits murder in cold blood doesn’t ever deserve to have children, so her fertility isn’t an issue for me. She should be jailed just as long as a man for the crime she committed.

Is it already April 1st? Reproductive rights for cold-blooded murderers? WTF am I reading?

I really can't bring myself to feel sorry for anyone who has deliberately chosen to take another person's life 🤷‍♀️

If they end up in jail for all their fertile years then that's actually a good thing, imo. It's not the prison systems' fault that male criminals don't lose their fertility.

You were pondering if a prison sentence like this takes away more than 'just' liberty.
I think you are misunderstanding liberty or taking a very simplistic view of it.
It doesn't just mean curtailing your right to go places, it means removing all your choices about your life or most things that someone with liberty could choose. Marriage or family is just one of those.
And everyone having a cast iron sacrosanct right to have a family no matter what they do is not good human rights, the unborn should be considered too. So this sentence isn't unjust by breaching that 'right'

Women get quite significantly shorter sentences on average for the same crime.

The man she murdered.

Murdered.

Will never have children. What a stupid argument.

Being a murderer is a major child safeguarding issue, so any children a woman has would surely not be left in her care?

This thought process is crazy! You think she should be given the opportunity to have a child if this is what she can do? I’m pretty sure they don’t allow violent criminals to bring up children and would take them into care.

@ChocolateRat

thank you for then post and I think you summarised a lot of my thoughts quite eloquently. Possibly taking an example of a murderer was quite extreme but in reality custodial sentences for women could be potentially viewed as removing 'more' from women than men.

it is interesting that we would never consider in a civilised society the impeding of men to reproduce post release for whatever crime as the right to have sex and reproduce is a right they enjoy after serving sentence. It seems therefore that there is a right to reproduce that is quite fundamental and maybe it should be a right that is taken into account when sentencing women. The intention of the sentence surely is to remove liberty not enforced non parenthood.

Personally I’d sterilise them all. But failing that, I’d make it a part of the sentence that they were banned from having children.
so if a man fathered a child he would be recalled to prison, and if a woman conceived a child she would be and the child would be removed and placed for adoption.
but personally sterilisation would prevent any innocent children from having to be made a part of it.

Is this the woman who drove her car at the guy twice he jumped out the way the first time before she hit him. In a carpark and the whole thing was captured on cctv?

She's evil. If she's capable of doing that to someone she knew and supposedly loved, what's she capable of doing to a stranger?

@MayThe4th

interesting point. There are countries in the world where sterilisation is considered as part of a punishment but we would find that unpalatable in the UK. Therefore on effect we are protecting that right to parenthood etc. post release. Murder aside what other crimes would warrant such an approach?

having children isn't a right nobody deserves or are capable of looking after children. she got what she deserved

By that logic the judge would need to establish the fertility of the defendant before sentencing. So an infertile woman would get a longer sentence? Her life and freedom is of lesser value? Or a fertile murderer is allowed to walk free for 15 years until she hits menopause then is sent to prison while the kids go into care? Makes zero sense practically let alone from a moral standpoint.

She murdered her partner! What makes you think she could possibly be a fit and safe parent?!

A more important question is, why don't we permanently sterilise all people found guilty of murder. Nobody wants to be that child.