Spared jail?

[WeLoveTheMoon]

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/oxford-student-spared-jail-extraordinary-talent/amp/

Having a debate with dp about this. Can I ask your opinions on if this is harsh enough or not

The proof will be in the pudding. Seems very lenient, but it should be all about the rehabilitation. If the judge is convinced they won't do it again, and are genuinely remorseful.... Then I'm ok with this.

I don't agree with it, she didn't just stab him, she also punched him and threw objects at him so it wasn't like it was one thing in a rage, it was several.

If she was a man, there'd be outrage on here and elsewhere, just like the cricketer who (wrongly) avoided prison until people got up in arms and he was then resentenced.

She should go to jail like she clearly would if she was working class.

No I'm cool with the extremely privileged white person punching and stabbing their partner being spared jail because they might not get to do exactly what they want later on

See dp said the same if he had done it to her then hed of got jail no thoughts given.
Although I agree it all seems to lenient I feel there must be more to all this?

He told me to post to (prove me wrong) haha

there was a lawyer on the radio this morning and he said that it is very unlikely that her intelligence/oxford career had been the deciding factor. The issue for the judge would have been her willingness to be in rehab and how successful it was. The media has, as always emphasised the wrong thing.

I was gobsmacked by this. Any type of violence whatever class she comes from should be punished. If it was a man he would be jailed, and no questions asked no matter how talented he was.

Shameful.

So it's now ok to behave that way if your "clever" or "talented"?

I'm sorry but actions like that deserve consequence regardless of its a male or female behaving that way.

No I don't think it's ok she got a lenient sentence at all, and I'd feel the same way if a man behaved in that manner and was let off becuase his clever or talented

All it says to me is One Law for those with , and One Law for those without

If she was Sharon Smith from the estate she would be doing time . Even if Sharon Smith was intelligent as well . Money talks . She should be in Prison

I beg to differ about if it was a man, he would have been jailed.
I can only speak about my personal experience and experiences of the partners of men in the military.
So many men were not given custodial sentences because they were going"into theatre"
This was most often a lie, but the head honchos' do what they do to protect servicemen and I suppose servicewomen.

A man would have got jail time. And people think women are the worse off, poor vulnerable ones.

It's disgusting op

If it was a man he would be jailed, and no questions asked no matter how talented he was.

Can people stop saying this and combinations of this? Men routinely don't see the inside of a Court for DV and rapes. Then they routinely get let off, get short sentences or suspended.

The exact same logic was used for that Stanford rapist. Had there not been male witnesses, I doubt anything at all would have happened to him.

I agree that she should have been given jail time, but lets not pretend men dont get away with offences all the time.

steppemum

Thats exactly my point. There must be to all this?
But now I dont know haha. Clearly I am wrong haha

She's a medical student - it doesn't matter how contrite she is, the GMC takes a very dim view of drug abuse & criminal records among doctors & medical students.

She hasn't been sentenced yet.

The judge has deferred sentencing for 4 months for probation reports to see how well she is interacting with the drug treatment and anger management and whatever else she has to do.

He may still give her a custodial sentence, but said he was thinking about other options. This is in accordance with the sentencing guidelines for unlawful wounding which can be googled. Category C unlawful wounding offences start at community orders especially where the defendant has entered a guilty plea as here. That automatically reduces the penalty - either by a 1/3 of the sentence, or potentially to another tier.

There was a previously thread about this which was deleted, so be prepared for this one to go poof.

Judges have a sentencing guide for all crimes, and apparently the judge stuck to it on this occasion.

I can see that it's best for everyone if she is remorseful, gets her addictions under control, and goes on to get a job and serve society, not go to jail at taxpayers' expense.

BUT it also depends on the average sentences given to men for similar crimes. I don't have the stats on these, so can't comment.

The Times reported this in a balanced way:

'Woodward will be sentenced on September 25. She was given a restraining order and it is likely that she will receive a non-custodial sentence as the best way to help her to beat her addiction.

The psychiatric and pre-sentence reports recommended against sending her to prison. Pending sentence, the judge imposed conditions on her, including that she could not drink alcohol, take drugs or re-offend, and that there had to be regular updates on her behaviour.

Francis FitzGibbon, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “It would be wrong to see this as some sort of leniency because the girl went to an Oxford college. If he gives her a non-custodial sentence, that will be entirely within the [Sentencing Council] guidelines.”'

(www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/extraordinary-student-could-be-spared-jail-for-stabbing-boyfriend-jmvb372vm)

It's completely wrong! Her sentence should be lessened if she didn't inflict much damage however...

What Quimby said

Her Facebook account is eye opening.

I completely disagree that if she was a man she would have got jail time.

There are so many cases that have been in the news recently of men who were let off/had reduced sentences because of their careers.
A PP mentioned the cricket player who has now been sentenced but was let off initially as he supposedly had a cricket team looking at him.
The young college student who sexually assaulted a girl in the US recently who had a 6 month jail sentence reduced to 3 months because he was a very good swimmer.

Clearly she should be punished for what she has done, the same as anyone should, but it's certainly not a case of 'if she was a man...'

Just looking at this from the opposite angle going from the Times reporting. What does the fact that she studies medicine and the fact that she is from Oxford University have to do with anything.

The sentence was within the judges guidelines and she is agreeing to the conditions of the sentence so why shouldn't she receive this sentence.

My view is that it is not newsworthy other than the fact that the press love it when an Oxbridge student turns bad. It wouldn't be newsworthy if it was 'Kate from the Estate'

I feel sorry for her in a way and this is possibly a kind of inverse 'class' discrimination that it is even news.

If she was a working class woman then they'd have thrown the book at her and made an example of her but because she's a Oxford undergraduate with desirable aspirations for the future then it's acceptable that she gets away with a bad temper which resulted in uncontrollable violence. It's the same situation that saw Karen Matthews criticised for being a bad parent whilst other high profile parents are given sympathy and funding.

I'd be interested to know whether those of you who are saying she'd have been treated differently if her sex, occupation, class or whatever were different have much experiences of cases like this. Because, as a few people have pointed out, this is comfortably within Sentencing Council guidelines (which of course don't come into play for the many cases that never get reported or prosecuted). If you don't agree with the law, you think violence should be automatic prison or whatever, that's fine. But a different point entirely to the issue of whether she's had special treatment.

Do agree though the GMC are likely to want a look at this.