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

Murder is murder. Even for women. Even for middle class nice looking women.

would you say a pedo woman has a right to a family life?
What about a woman who kidnaps? or tortures? Or sells/does drugs?

Having children isnt a right!!! You are not ENTITLED to have children. If your capable of murder you should never have children,

Two words, Lucy Letby.

Yes, I think if this one had legs then surely some canny lawyer would've pulled out the 'you're impacting on her right to a family life' card already in an attempt to have a sentence reduced.

It's a load of crap anyway.

A woman like this should never have children tbh

You mention ' the right to have a family'. The man she killed had 'a right to a life'. If you commit a crime, you give away that right. It's that simple. That would be the same as saying any woman with a child shouldn't be punished for a crime. As you're taking away her ' right to parent'. It just doesn't work like that. And of it did, any man who had children and committed a crime would ' have a right to parent '...

Letting her out of jail to reproduce is getting a bit too Handmaids Tale for me.

The average woman has around 25-30 years in which she could conceive a child. Only the most serious of crimes could ever carry a sentence that would result in most or all of those fertile years being spent in jail - and those sorts of crimes would also likely result in a mother losing custody of any existing children she already has. For more minor crimes, the sentence is never going to be long enough to remove any chance of conceiving.

Regardless - it is not the justice system's responsibility to facilitate the most serious (i.e. the most dangerous) criminals' ability to have children.

My sympathy is primarily with children who are deprived of years with their mother while she is in prison, and potentially spend time in care as a result. I think there are far more important debates to be had regarding how mothers with existing children are dealt with by the justice system, and what could be done to mitigate the impact on their blameless children.

No-one "needs" to have children.

Murder should carry very long sentences anyway. Her fiancé will never be able to have kids. She should have considered that before killing someone.

I was just wondering what the OP's opinion would be if the woman had openly admitted that she didn't ever want children.

Imagine the appeals system if a right to have children was allowed in sentencing.

I think this is really unpalatable understandably for some but I think it comes down to how we view reproductive rights as a society. As I said earlier upon release there is no restriction on sex/reproduction imposed as we view a prisoner as having served their sentence and is hopefully rehabilitated.

It is an interesting question that links in with this discussion about whether rehabilitation should be an aim of our judicial system and if rehabilitation is successful whether an ex prisoner should enjoy full rights in a free society.

We do remove liberty for prisoners but we don't remove the right to free health care, exercise, education etc.and we sit the prospect of rehabilitation to be in scope. I personally think although complex is worth some consideration (in the general sense sense of what rights in reality prisoners should have).

No crime warrants such an approach. You're looking at this argument backwards, presumably in an attempt to justify lighter sentencing for women.

The point of the justice system is to sentence fairly via a set of static guidelines. Crimes are judged objectively, ie what punishment fits the perpetrated crime. Personal circumstances like fertility status are not and should not be taken into account and it's nuts to suggest otherwise.

Actually sex differences are sometimes taken into account when sentencing. If the offender is a mother with sole care of young children, it's not uncommon for the sentence be lower with the intention of mitigating the impact on her children.

no one has a right to bear or father children. People though, do have the right to life which she took from the man. Would you ask this of all the young men in prison on a long sentence?

Personally I don't feel that anyone has a "right" to have a family.

Nobody has a right to have children though. There is no such entitlement.

Reproductive rights aren't about the right to reproduce - they relate to women's rights to healthcare (contraceptive and other) and bodily autonomy (primarily in respect of abortion) while carrying a foetus/embryo.

She committed a heinous crime and is where she should be. She is a murdress and if she has such a short fuse, any child born to her would be in danger. I have no sympathy for her or your arguments but every sympathy with her fiancé's family, who, thanks to her, have not only had to contend with the grief of their son dying in the worst and most avoidable circumstances, but also have had the possibility of grandchildren from this son denied them in the cruellest way possible.

An ex prisoner does enjoy full rights in a free society because they have regained their freedom after serving a sentence which removed their freedom.

Rehabilitation has nothing to do with it, even those who aren't necessarily rehabilitated still have the right to conceive, until or unless they reformed and end up back in prison.

reoffend*

I have little patience with law breakers. OK they have a right to a family, but if they take another person's rights by killing them, then they have to accept restriction of theirs in paying for the crime.

Natural selection; she's removed herself and her psychopath/ anger management issues from the gene pool; it's not a major loss.

Criminals can’t achieve all types of education. They can’t become lawyers doctors or teachers for example.
exercise choices are limited to avaiabikty; no pools on site or spin class.

I don’t think that there’s a debate to be had here because I don’t believe in the right to have a family. The NHS should treat health issues that affect fertility and IVF for someone without children is fair enough but committing a crime means loss of rights and choices in life and I’d say someone so callous shouldn’t be a mother anyway.
What would she do when her baby is crying for hours? Or a toddler is whinging and waking her up at night?
I feel sorry for the families and partners of prisoners (especially children) but not for choices that criminals miss out on because of their own actions.

Good grief is my immediate response to the OP post.
Has it escaped from some academic nattering shop?

Whole life is extremely rare for women (in the UK at least).

The reason whole life terms are so rare for women is because it is extremely rare for women to commit the kind of crime that would warrant a whole life term!

There aren't lots of women going around committing horrific murders and being let off lightly because they're female.