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

This

I think any parent in the sole care of children would have that taken into account if it were possible, male or female. Breastfeeding an infant might be the only truly sex based difference I can think of that would significantly impact sentencing.

It's amazing how many people on here are incapable of applying sociological thought to scenarios. ShEbADLAdYsHeGoToJaIL seems to be the default thought. Well, yes, but she's not a criminal in a vacuum of all other considerations.

Are you actually kidding OP??!! She took a man’s life. If it means that she can’t have kids then that’s on her. The dead man also can’t have kids and has lost his life. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever heard to be more lenient on women.

When women fight so hard for equality on pay etc, they have to accept that equality runs through everything and that includes prison sentences. You can’t pick and choose.

As you say the right isn't taken from men in the same way.

On account of the laws of nature!🙄

Men often get lesser sentences for killing. As they can claim more they snapped and get manslaughter.

A woman who kills generally has to plan more (ie do it when he is asleep on in a car) due to the man's greater strength. Therefore easier to prove murder as it was planned - ie intended to kill/cause gbh.

So how exactly would that work?

"Defendant A, your defence team have stated you wish to have children in the future, I therefore sentence you to 3 years"

"Defendant B, your defence team have stated that you wish to remain childfree, I therefore sentence you to 20 years"
Defendant "B" then claims she's changed her mind and gets a vastly reduced sentence on appeal.
Men then claim it's discrimination and so appeal their lengthy sentences, which increases the chances of more convicted murders getting out.

That can of worms should never be opened IMO.

Advocating for treating women like walking incubators is never going to end well for womens rights

Oh yea and she was probably just hormonal and being 'hysterical'. What a stupid concept OP. No one has a right to reproduce, just like no one has a right to murder. Fertility has no baring on punishment for murder.

No one has a 'right' to children
Removal of liberty means removal of things associated with liberty. That is the punishment for committing a crime
So this is not discrimination. It is the consequence of breaking the law

The other considerations being...?

She wasn't solely caring for children or breastfeeding at the time of sentencing.

You seem to think you have posed a real conundrum that's very complex, deep and intellectual. However the flaw is this is that it would reduce women to having a sole purpose and desire to reproduce, its backwards, minimises crimes women commit, minimises the impact on the victims family, makes an assumption that's all we're 'made' for, and doesn't count for women who don't want children but would abuse the leniency offered.

It's not unpalatable, it's bloody stupid.

No difference between a man or a woman being deprived of their chance to have a family life. We are equal under the eyes of the law and the consequences should be the same. Society needs to be protected from her and she needs to be punished.

I've never come close to murdering someone in an argument. She drove over him several times.

I think it's ethically unjustifiable but raises an interesting point.

In a perfect justice system we'd have the ability to look deeply into the lives of those involved and the circumstances of what happened. We'd make sentencing decisions that took this into account and balanced justice for the victim with punishment for the offender, the risk to the public and the likelihood of genuine rehabilitation.

Many wormen have trauma as a contributing factor to their offending. Meaning some don't have the same impulse control as those without due to impact on the physical brain and cognition. The prison reform trust says this:

Many women in prison have been victims of much more serious offences than those they are accused of committing. Over half the women in prison report having suffered domestic violence with 53% of women reporting having experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child.

There is an argument that in a patriarchal society that places women at this higher risk, it is only right that sentencing considers it as a mitigation. Far better to tackle DV and SA of course.

However, women are just as capable of committing cold-blooded murder as men. Where there is no evidence that these factors come into play, they should be treated just as harshly.

I don't think anyone has the right to have children and I'd actually argue that anyone who has behaved in a way that results in them being put in prison for a long time (it's very much a last resort these days) probably shouldn't be having children anyway. Even if fully rehabilitated on re-entry into society there will be compounded trauma from being in prison and difficulties in reestablishing life outside etc that makes it highly unlikely they will have the skills and support to provide a stable upbringing for a child.

Reproductive rights aren’t about the right to have a family they are the legal right to contraception, abortion, fertility treatment, reproductive health, and access to information regarding same.

If you are sentenced to imprisonment you loose the right to most things in life. You’ll be fed and your medical needs met but you forfeit the right to choose.

Eh? God no, a crime is a crime no matter what the gender & having children, or the possibility of it, shouldn't come into it. It's not something that a judge will consider & quite rightly, when considering a case

Why would we want her genes being passed down? She’s a convicted murderer, she lost her chance of having kids and so did her victim.

You've said everything I wanted to say, including the pseudo intellectual/academic slant. It's actually very reductionist as in women = babies, and also ripe for abuse.

we do not prevent make prisoners from going on to have families (despite the nature of the crime) on release on the basis of human rights so should consideration of reproductive rights be a consideration when sentencing females to custodial sesntences?

But it's not the custodial system preventing women from going on to have families - it's nature.

A young man who is on track to have a career as a professional athlete when he is jailed for decades would also be unable to do what he was planning to do with his life when he eventually gets released - not because the courts made that choice but because that's how nature works and bodies deteriorate over time.

Like a PP, I am also very uneasy about the implication that women have some sort of purpose or duty to have children. It's a choice people make, but obviously not an option that's on the table if you've committed a crime and are serving your sentence in prison. There are lots of things people in prison for murder will miss out on - that's the consequence of committing the crime.

what If it was your son she killed? Of course she shouldn’t be out playing happy families because she’s fertile and young. Get your head screwed on, OP

This. You took what I couldn't articulate and put it into words.

I am about as lefty liberal as you can get and involved with a charity that works on prison reform and I think the OPs suggestion is crazy. The woman deliberately ran her boyfriend over and then lied about it. Her possession of functioning ovaries has nothing to do with her sentencing. If could be proved she had fertility issues would you be happy for her to be banged up longer?

Everyone has a right to fertility, ie they shouldn't be sterilized by the state, but not everyone has a right to children. Her choices made her not able to have babies for a while, just like someone who doesn't have a partner might end up childless.

I do think though that a woman's existing children should be taken into account though, assuming they are capable of looking after their child and it's a non violent crime. Imagine coming home from school and your Mum is gone because she is suddenly in jail. Horrible and punishing the child for their Mother's crimes / mistakes.

Regardless of gender, you commit a crime, you go to prison.

This woman took a life.

The side consequences of her or anyone else is what comes with being a killer.