Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Young woman imprisoned for murder - is the sentence harsh?

209 replies

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 05:57

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

Alice Wood - police mugshot

Alice Wood jailed for running over and killing Ryan Watson

Alice Wood, 24, "used her car as a weapon" on Ryan Watson after the pair rowed at a party.

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

OP posts:
Gobolina · 03/02/2024 09:49

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 06:10

@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?

Wtf am I reading?

Actions have consequences and deliberately murdering someone means you will (should) go to proson for a life sentence.

If she wanted kids she should have thought about that first.

And children are not a right. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should applies to a lot of useless people nowadays.

And this woman is hardly a prime specimen of the human race that you'd want bringing up kids.

Andthereyougo · 03/02/2024 09:50

Jurors heard she drove at Mr Watson three times before he was killed.

Then the car dragged his body 150+ yards down the road.

That was no accident.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. She had the choice to walk.

Gobolina · 03/02/2024 09:52

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 06:57

@Greatscottshesgotit

apologies I may have chosen a provocative case to make a general point simply because I read it in the press so I understand the reaction .

in a general sense imprisoning women can take away one night see as a fundamental right as a byproduct is sentencing. It is the intention of a prison sentence to deprive liberty for a period of time commensurate with the crime committed to act as puishment, to protect the public and allow rehabilitatiin.

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?

What if it turns out she isn't fertile or she doesn't want kids?

Should she be let out early on the off-chance?

Your posts are quite offensive in the assumption that every woman is fertile and every woman wants children.

Soontobe60 · 03/02/2024 09:53

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 06:10

@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?

Don’t be ridiculous! Having children isn’t a human right, it’s a biological process. She forfeited her choice to have children when she made a choice to murder someone.

RufustheFactualReindeer · 03/02/2024 09:55

JanuarySlog · 03/02/2024 08:04

I think it's a really interesting perspective OP. Often sex differences are something that are taken into account and corrected for in society, but not in the case of sentencing. It's a valid point to raise.

Ultimately if you are guilty of taking another life, you lose your liberty and everything that goes along with that. For many that means the opportunity to parent their living children, that obviously affects both sexes. For this woman it is the opportunity to physically bear children and that does affect her in a way it wouldn't if she were male.

I think it's a really interesting thing to think about. My heart goes out to her victim and his family though. What a devastating waste.

This

Star81 · 03/02/2024 09:56

By committing a crime you are responsible for the loss of any future you have lost. It’s your own actions that caused you to receive a sentence. So I don’t think you can blame the law and sentencing for her loss of potential to have children. Especially with a case of murder you know that is wrong - or should do - so it’s personal responsibility for your lost future not anyone else’s.

Clafoutie · 03/02/2024 09:56

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 06:18

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.

Surely the principle is that if you take away someone else’s right to life ( by murdering them), then you have your own rights, including the right to family life, taken away from you, for the duration of your sentence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

Longma · 03/02/2024 10:00

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines. at the request of it's author.

noctiscaelum · 03/02/2024 10:04

I really wish I didn't read this. What a silly opinion. I feel genuinely sick after reading this. What about the rights of people who lost ability to enjoy their life, because they are dead? Seriously.

TwoShades1 · 03/02/2024 10:12

I think if someone’s sentence is long enough to cover most of their child bearing years then they probably weren’t the right person to be having/raising children. They have made some very poor choice/s.

Pushmepullu · 03/02/2024 10:15

So should this be applied to men too? As sperm count decreases with age should men who are coming up to 60 for example have their sentences reduced so they have time to impregnate women?
Should older, but still of child bearing age, women have reduced sentences too?

gannett · 03/02/2024 10:16

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 07:53

@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.

This is the flaw in your argument though. There isn't a fundamental right to reproduce any more than there's a fundamental right to have a nice car or go on holiday. The legal right to family life pertains to your right to not be separated from your existing family, not your right to create a hypothetical one.

I'm actually an abolitionist in that I don't believe incarceration (and certainly incarceration in the current prison industrial complex system) is the road to a better society in terms of either rehabilitation or crime prevention. But a woman being unable to have children is not one of the reasons why and seems to be rooted in some strange beliefs about what a woman's role in society is.

TheBayLady · 03/02/2024 10:17

She made choices in life. I know our young think they can do what we want without consequences but in the real world consequences exist. Do you really think young women should be able to kill and get away with it because they haven't had children ? Do you think Scarlett Jenkinson should be released from prison ?If you do, you seriously need to give your head a bloody good shake and hope and pray none of your relatives are murdered.

Terrrence · 03/02/2024 10:19

What an awful way to die. Poor young man.

soupfiend · 03/02/2024 10:20

Yes thats the point of removing liberty, its a punishment and theres lots of things you'll miss out on in life, its the whole point

The other point is that you remove someone who is potentially dangerous from being around the public at large.

What a ridiculous thread.

Bubble2024 · 03/02/2024 10:20

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 06:18

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.

Maybe someone like that shouldn’t be reproducing?

Threecrows · 03/02/2024 10:23

Would you want someone like that as your mother?

she sounds like one of these women who would have made everyone’s life a misery around her for years - including any partner and kids.

Terrrence · 03/02/2024 10:23

If she had already had children I think the sentence would be harsher as they would suffer from the sentence as well. Life sentences for people with young children robs those children of a parent and has what could arguably be a bigger effect on their children than on themselves. This complication is not a factor in women without children.

wishingitwasfriday · 03/02/2024 10:24

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 06:18

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.

You do realise that she took away someone's chance of having a family, or indeed any of life's opportunities? Why on earth would it enter your mind that any desire to have a family of her own should be taken into consideration when sentencing her? I amazed at what I'm reading, I really am.

inamarina · 03/02/2024 10:26

Meadowfinch · 03/02/2024 06:33

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.

And it’s not just about values - I would be seriously concerned for those children’s safety 😞

Nanny0gg · 03/02/2024 10:28

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 05:57

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

Why on earth should it be????

KvotheTheBloodless · 03/02/2024 10:31

Society should be grateful she's not going to have children - someone who can snap like that is not going to make a stellar parent, is she?

The world is already full of children born to terrible parents, let's not add any more.

Mitsky · 03/02/2024 10:37

I’ve seen posts on here that suggest that people who can’t have children without medical intervention (ivf etc) shouldn’t have them. And yet we should let a convicted murderer out early so she can merrily go off and shag to her hearts delight to ensure she can reproduce.

Greenfinch7 · 03/02/2024 10:43

I also think this is an interesting point, which has to do with whether the law should take biological difference into account in sentencing. I'm surprised that people are so unable to have a discussion a bit more interesting than telling the OP that murder is bad, which she obviously is already aware of.

OP, you could argue that in order to make sentencing equal, men should be sterilised if they go to jail for murder. Of course, this would never happen in this country, as it would be 'cruel and unusual' to quote the American constitution.

RoseAndRose · 03/02/2024 10:44

mids2019 · 03/02/2024 06:18

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.

No it doesn't.

Indeed the right to family life is one of those circumscribed, in the sense that it can be removed as a penalty for crime (on assumption that courts are reasonably fair and sentencing is predictable - tests that all UK jurisdictions meet)

When it's murder, the harm to someone else's family is devastating. Their right to a family life is torn apart, and the victim will never have DC. Immediate incarceration is a very normal penalty, and yes that will have all sorts of impact on the prisoner, including whether or not they have hypothetical future DC.