Life term for wife who severed husband's penis

Jingle - I really don't think you are in a position to judge what my intentions are!

From what I've read, this woman has mental health problems and has suffered violence, but this was countered in court by her ill-treatment of him. To get a life sentence with a 7 year tariff seems a sensitive way of dealing with her. If she comes across as genuine during her sentence, she'll be paroled at the first opportunity, and she could appeal against sentence and convction, but if she turns out to be a bad 'un, she'll have to serve more of the sentence in prison.

The court may well have known all the circumstances. However, it doesn't always follow that the sentence is appropriate. Sometimes it's statutory and there is no leeway for the judge. Sometimes, mitigating circumstances mitigate rather more or less than common sense would suggest. For example, the man whose name I now forget who avoided a custodial sentence after killing his wife on the grounds that she was a nag. I thought that was positively medieval.

I can't say that I am at all sure about anything much to do with this crime or any other where I have not actually attended the trial. I know only what I have read in the media and we all know that newspapers etc. are not necessarily reliable.

If the offence she committed is classed as attempted murder or GBH, that might explain the severity of the sentence. Don't know if she left him bleeding profusely (Wayne Bobbit was minutes from death due to his severe bleeding), but that would aggravate the offence, too.

I've supervised female lifers who appealed against conviction and sentence because their spouse's violence to them provoked their attack. Appeals succeed where the woman has been able to show that attempts to escape have not worked, and/or enduring psychological harm has been inflicted from which they may never recover. If this woman can show this is what happened to her, her life sentence could be overturned.

I don't think cold-blooded FGM can be compared with the desperate crimes that some women commit following sustained abuse, but not in a position to know what motivated this woman. It would have a bearing on the outcome of her trial if was cold-blooded and planned, rather than an opportunity seized to prevent further abuse.

I am sure the court knew all the circumstances, and sentenced accordingly.

j08 That is an astonishing leap of logic and makes no sense whatsoever. You can't accuse anyone of wanting to excuse a crime simply because they want to know more about why it took place. There are sometimes mitigating circumstances - these are at least recognised in law even if you refuse to recognise them. However, mitigating circumstances are not the same as excusing a crime.

I would have thought it was obvious Greatnan. You wan't to know the background because you want to find a way of, partly at least, excusing her.

TBH your lack of comprehension astounds me.

Yes quite stansgran - oppressed people internalise the values of the dominant culture. There are many ways in which women can be sexist. I have seen it for instance when sitting with managers during interviews.
A parallel is a black person who uses the word nigger as an insult. Or who discriminates against darker skin and values paler.

Jingle - your logic baffles me. How can saying we do not know enough about this case be defending the woman?

@JessM a 'very low value put on female genitalia'. Any one been on Mumsnet recently? Swear words / female genitalia are the swear words of choice. They strike me as regressive. As if they have no respect for women because they call men behaving badly c***s etc.

Same thing?

Nobody has defended what she did - we just said there might have been more background to it than we know.

Perhaps it is getting more attention because it is a rare crime.

The woman has the possibility of getting out on parole in seven years time. Would n' t a man who raped violently and/or was a repeat rapist, get a long term of imprisonment? I think so .

We don't know yet how long a sentence a so-called "doctor" will get for FGM when the crime is committed in this country.

This man could have bled to death. Apart from anything else. There is no way you can defend what she did.

Well put, jess.

Yes the issue is not about sentencing as such but about the way the politics of gender have an impact on at law and how it is used. There would appear to be a great deal of value put on the penis - which is not a surprise if you accept a male dominated culture prevails. Meanwhile a very low value is put on female genitalia. The worst swear words are words for female genitalia. Mutilating attacks on female genitalia are not taken seriously. Rape is a violent attack on this part of the female body (varying degrees of violence I know). It certainly injures the genitalia of victims, sometimes very badly. Imagine if there were an equivalent number of attacks on penises around the world. As it is, there is international news items and a life sentence for one such attack.

Who could possibly think that the war against feminism has been won in the rest of the world?! We all see the news.

I think a contrast was being drawn between the punishment meted out to women who hurt men, and that meted out to men who hurt women.
An extreme example would be that of young girls who are raped and then punished for committing adultery when their rapists are married men.
I find it very sad when some smug Western women say the battle for feminism is won - it has hardly begun in many parts of the world.

Compensation payments for loss of various organs differ. I think it unlikely that this woman would have been given a life sentence if she had cut off an ear or even a hand. A prison sentence probably, but not life. Is the length of a life sentence in Canada known?

All of them?! Respect!

Too busy reading all the threads Jings

Have you got any contributions to the subject Ella?

And yes. I think she would have got the same sentence if she had cut off another part of a someone's body. I would hope so. She should be punished. And then assessed for the safety of the rest of society.

I did read the OP and thought it showed muddled thinking.

Well, I have already made some comments. Here they are again.

I don't see how the lack of prosecutions for fgm has any bearing on a case of a a woman mutilating her husband. The law does not work that way, nor should it. They are separate crimes.

I believe this woman should be imprisoned. You cannot go around cutting bits off of people, any bits. I believe her case will be looked at again in several years' time when the specialists in charge of her will be able to make a decision as to whether she will be any danger to anyone if she is released on parole.

Regarding FGM, I believe, and hope, that the first prosecutions in this country for this heinous crime are fairly imminent.