Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Should This Woman Have Her Sentence Shortened?
30 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
She was party to a plot that put her own children at risk of death, which is what indeed occurred. I have no idea what pressure she was on but to go along with it, but she did so, and it sounds to me like a 17 year sentence is the least she could expect. She is part of the group that failed to grasp the concepts of morality and the basic need to not put folk, especially their own family, in danger. She should have refused to go along with it. In any case it'll be shortened for good behaviour, or something, anyway.
The Court of Appeal do , probably unintentionally, show humour. I knew of one sentence of 17 years for armed robbery. The Court said that 17 years was too much and wrong in principle. The Court would take the opportunity of giving guidelines. We all thought that this was good news but then Lord Justice Lawton said that the sentence would, accordingly, be 15 years instead of 17. They might do the same in this woman's case.
A lot of people here seem to be answering as if she was guilty of murder whereas of course she was found guilty of manslaughter.
17 years seems a rather long sentence for Manslaughter given the guidelines
Actually - I would have thought that:
Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 ('DVCV Act') ,causing or allowing the death of, or causing or allowing serious physical harm to be suffered by, a child under the age of 16
Would have been a more appropriate charge from what I heard - that carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
That seems to me to be about where this should lie - it's clearly the sort of offence that was intended at the time.
But frankly it should be considered carefully by the appeal judges dispationately and legally without the assistance of a lot of wild public opinion being kicked up by the media
17 years seems a rather long sentence for Manslaughter given the guidelines
Actually - I would have thought that:
Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 ('DVCV Act') ,causing or allowing the death of, or causing or allowing serious physical harm to be suffered by, a child under the age of 16
Would have been a more appropriate charge from what I heard - that carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
That seems to me to be about where this should lie - it's clearly the sort of offence that was intended at the time.
But frankly it should be considered carefully by the appeal judges dispationately and legally without the assistance of a lot of wild public opinion being kicked up by the media
Oh dear, we can always rely on JTP to come to the defence of the gulty.
Read what the judge said at the trial and sentencing of this piece of garbage
read about how she lied and lied and lied, how it was proven that she thought the risks were worth taking etc etc.
everything she did she did in full control of her senses and of her own free will, as was proven at the trial.
She has gotten off lightly and she may well find that they decide to increase her sentence
Read what the judge said at the trial and sentencing of this piece of garbage
read about how she lied and lied and lied, how it was proven that she thought the risks were worth taking etc etc.
everything she did she did in full control of her senses and of her own free will, as was proven at the trial.
She has gotten off lightly and she may well find that they decide to increase her sentence
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.