Women killed by ex-partners. Is it time to change the kaw?

[Redebs]

Forty years ago a friend and work colleague of my mum was murdered by her husband in the presence of their nine-year-old child. She had just told her husband that she had met someone else and wanted to end the marriage.

He was given every sympathy by local people and during his trial, because despite his open affairs with a number of women, his wife should not have tried to leave him. He was allowed to go to her funeral.

I read this article this morning. It doesn't seem that much has changed over the years. Despite years of abuse, coercion and threats, a man who kills an ex-partner in her home commits a lesser crime and receives a much lighter sentence than someone killed by a stranger. Absolutely chilling.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/03/the-killing-of-joanna-simpson-she-was-bludgeoned-and-buried-by-her-husband-why-is-he-being-set-free

[sawdustformypony]

non violent decent men

I don't think notabat believes in such creatures.

[Bananarepublic]

I'm just resurrecting this thread because I've only just seen about it through JKR's twitter post.

I've just written to my MP. I hope many of you do too.

[maltravers]

We think we’re so advanced compared to say Afghanistan, but it feels like even in the UK there is an element of the authorities considering a woman to be her husband’s possession and/or responsible for his violence to her that informs these low sentences for harm to women in the home.

[IcakethereforeIam]

I feel like the law thinks men should be able to relax and feel safe to behave as they want at home. If that ability is infringed by the wife or if it includes being violent to the wife....well.

The women in this scenario don't seem to have that same right. Or not as much.

[SerendipityJane]

Not so sure the problem here is "the law". Last time I looked murder was still against the law, and I don't see how you can make it more illegal.

The real problem here is the substitution of manslaughter for murder. And that is down to the CPS decision at the time. And I suspect that decision was taken because in a severely underfunded public body it's preferable to go low for a conviction with the resources you have than to properly prepare a case for the higher charge of murder.

And that stems directly from the fact that when you start running down public services it will always be the most vulnerable in society that are affected first and most severely. See also: health, housing, transport, education.

Changing the law before addressing the underlying causes is lazy, counter productive and merely serves to weaken the concept of "Justice" such as it is even further.

[maltravers]

Maybe serendipity, but it’s specifically the domestic murders of women with these low tariffs.

[DarkDayforMN]

Changing the law before addressing the underlying causes is lazy, counter productive and merely serves to weaken the concept of "Justice" such as it is even further.

ahh the usual “after the revolution” bullshit.

OR we could prioritise fighting misogyny now and not put it off till the justice system is funded to your satisfaction.

[Dervel]

The ramifications of this violence are farther reaching than I thought. One of my American friends was at a fast food drive thru. The couple in the car behind were having some sort of altercation. The man then pulled out a gun and shot his partner dead, then blew his own brains out. Her six year old daughter was sat in the backseat the whole time, alive thank heavens, but how does a 6 year old process something like this? I’m not sure I can, and I didn’t even see it. I’ve been up nights with my friend as these events keep playing on repeat in her head. Not sure what else to do?

[Dervel]

Sorry that wasn’t clear as I read that back. The victims 6 year old was in the back, my friends kids thankfully were not present.

[turbonerd]

Yes, there is an awful lot of trauma. Both for children of dead mums and children of living mums.
My kids are thoroughly damaged by their Dad.
I thought I was doing quite well, you have to cope after all, but my health is shot -10 years after the (last) murder attempt. 🤷🏽‍♀️
It reverbates into everyday life; work, education, how the children try to protect themselves, anger and severely damaged social capabilities.

I was VERY glad to see one change in UK law though: prison sentence for non-fatal strangulation. It is a step in the right direction.

[Bananarepublic]

@SerendipityJane

Not so sure the problem here is "the law". Last time I looked murder was still against the law, and I don't see how you can make it more illegal.

The real problem here is the substitution of manslaughter for murder. And that is down to the CPS decision at the time. And I suspect that decision was taken because in a severely underfunded public body it's preferable to go low for a conviction with the resources you have than to properly prepare a case for the higher charge of murder.

And that stems directly from the fact that when you start running down public services it will always be the most vulnerable in society that are affected first and most severely. See also: health, housing, transport, education.

Changing the law before addressing the underlying causes is lazy, counter productive and merely serves to weaken the concept of "Justice" such as it is even further.

The man took a weapon to his wife's house. How can that not be premeditated?

There are guidelines to the law that are aggravating factors to killing someone. Killing your ex-partner or partner shouldn't be a mitigating factor, it should be an aggravating factor. As previously stated, you should feel safe in your own home.

No one seemed to want to challenge the lies propagated by this man about his wife's 'affair' or her criticism of him. It is part of the legal system that the Crown's own barrister saw the offender's coercive control as trivia. It is not acceptable to have these kinds of views going unchallenged. You don't change things by shrugging your shoulders.

We may also need to change funding. But it's both/and not either/or. Do you think a gang member killing another gang member would get off because he was a bit stressed. No, of course not.

[Zarataralara]

Who on earth could decide that as not murder? He took the weapon and had prepared the place he buried her. He had items such as disposable forensic outfit. Nothing less than whole life tariff is acceptable.
Will have to write snail mail to my MP as he doesn’t accept emails……..

[SinnerBoy]

RoseslnTheHospital · 03/05/2023 11:18

The allowing of the manslaughter charge instead of murder is baffling. 

As far as I understand (I'm not legally qualified, someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the CPS only usually charge manslaughter for gross negligence, or corporate manslaughter. Occasionally, they may add an additional charge of manslaughter to a murder indictment, if they feel that a killer may be acquitted of murder, or is obviously very mentally ill.

A jury is then empowered to give a not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, for whatever reason they determine.

In this case, the man was charged with murder, but the jury fell for his barrister's explanation that he was of unsound mind, at the time he killed Joanne. The judge made sceptical comments:

“An adjustment disorder,” he said, “is a mild disturbance which rarely leads to outbursts of violence. In your case, it appears to have disappeared almost immediately after killing your wife.” 

The judge was bound, because of sentencing guidelines and didn't feel able to pass a life sentence, although that is a possibility for manslaughter. 26 years is actually a pretty long term for manslaughter in the UK.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

The Sentencing Council Manslaughter Guidelines effective from 1 November 2018. They have a focus on culpability and they identify high, medium, and lower culpability factors. There is no such identification of Harm factors and the explanation provided is that the harm caused for all cases of manslaughter will inevitably be of the utmost seriousness. The loss of life is taken into account in the sentencing levels at step two.

Step two Starting Points for the highest culpability can be compared

• Gross negligence manslaughter - 12 years' custody
• Loss of Control - 14 years' custody
• Unlawful Act Manslaughter - 18 years' custody
• Diminished responsibility - 24 years' custody

If he'd have killed her more recently, he probably would have got two years less.

[Jux]

They've just run a piece on Ch4 News this evening about the awful wrench WitnessProtection Prog for women and children face when their ex refuses to abide by non mols etc and continue to harrass and frighhten and threaten etc; the cops will only suggest WP as a last resort and then paint it in hearts and flowers and give little to no support once it's done. The question was asked if the Law was doing enough, the obvious answer being no. (And nor are cops.).

What I want to know it why can't the man be relocated, required to sign in 3 or 4 times a day or more instead of the woman losing ALL her family friends support network, the children all losing the same? Why punish the victims twice like that?

It is truly astonishing.