I do think all this hand wringing about her awful childhood and how it should have been taken into account at the time that she was sentenced is dangerous tosh.
I think that because if it becomes an accepted, official view then it won't be very long before it is abused.
Every rapist and murderer-and in most cases the victim is a woman or child-will be able to ask for his woes as a child to be taken into account and you can bet your bottom dollar that his defence team will become adept at finding these woes.
Over time, the definition of an awful childhood will be widened so that it there is a real possibility that a criminal who had his legs slapped by his parent will be judged to be a victim.
That's the way our current world turns.
A bad childhood, no matter how bad, should never be a reason for a reduced sentence and most women should be very wary of putting that forward as something to be attained.
In this particular case, a horrific murder was committed by a woman who then went on to try and commit another one in gaol. I see that a poster has already popped on to try and present that attempted murder as a good deed.
All this is rubbish.
No childhood should be taken into account when a crime has been committed because it makes no difference, it can not be a get out of gaol free card-and it will, it really will, be exploited.
Sorry, Betty, your rapist was sexually abused when he was a child so try to accept that when he raped and blinded you, he was also a victim so he will get a reduced sentence.
And then, 3 years later
Sorry, Doris, your rapist had PDA when he was a child and so he was also a victim when he raped and blinded you, so he will get a reduced sentence.
And then, 8 years later.
Sorry, Doris. Your rapist was brought up in poverty while his mother was at the pub and so he was also a victim when he raped and blinded you, so he will get a reduced sentence.
No-one's childhood should be taken into account for their adult crimes. It's not a discount card.