Penelope Jackson murder trial

Some are ok.
I couldn't eat a whole one, though.

There is no excuse for what she did. She was no victim, she gave as good as she got even he4 daughter said that. They sound a very unsavoury couple, but what she did to her previous husband, the father of their children, telling them their father had died, clearing the house, leaving him broken, was inexcusable and cruel. She had a history of leaving husbands and volatile behaviour. Why didn’t she just leave him like she did the others?

Nobody is excusing what she did.
Some people are shocked at the sentence.

Ilovecheese

No, of course not all men are bad, nobody has suggested that at all. But the two men who got five years and four years for murder were believed, why are women not believed.

Women are believed it is just this particular one that is not and if we had sat through the trial we would probably know why she was not believed.

those other two cases were not sentenced for murder, were they ?

homicide is not the same as murder.
murder is a specific crime, which is to be proved, if no guilty plea.
it was so proved in this case.
and sentenced accordingly.
there is a lot of muddled commentary on here, ignoring legal facts.

Indeed, welbeck

Legally if one is found guilty of murder a life sentence is imposed.

No need to be shocked about it, MissAdventure. It's quite clear.

www.gov.uk/types-of-prison-sentence/life-sentences

Claims domestic abuse. Very difficult to dispute. But we can't just automatically believe the woman. That's just wrong. Same way we can't always believe a man who excuses his crimes for domestic abuse. It doesn't work that way.

No, it should not be believed without proof.
Evidence, even under oath, may not necessarily be true.

Did I say I was shocked?

Perhaps I did.

I think I have said throughout the thread that I believe her to be guilty.

Oh, I nearly did, and just a couple of posts back, too.
However, you haven't caught me out yet because I only referred to "some people".
So, ner ner!

Ilovecheese

No, of course not all men are bad, nobody has suggested that at all. But the two men who got five years and four years for murder were believed, why are women not believed.

Exactly. There is a very blatant gender bias in the courts and the legal system. In relation to murder, crime, violence. Look at the rape conviction rate.

Men get light sentences. Women get the book thrown at them. AND even other women defend this.

Men get light sentences. Women get the book thrown at them. AND even other women defend this.

I don't think posters are saying this. I think most are surprised at the length of this sentence, whilst believing in her guilt, as well as believing that some sentences handed out to men are far too lenient.

The conviction rate for rape is appalling.

MissAdventure

Oh, I nearly did, and just a couple of posts back, too.
However, you haven't caught me out yet because I only referred to "some people".
So, ner ner!

Good grief.

I am not trying to catch you out.

ner, ner?

I don't think I'll continue on this thread.

That's fine by me.
It was a joke, but take it however you see fit.

She didn’t need to be believed. She committed a murder. It was on there from the 999 recording to the bodycam footage when the police arrested her. She killed him, she intended to kill him, she wanted him dead. That’s murder and there is only one sentence for murder and that’s life imprisonment.

tickingbird

She didn’t need to be believed. She committed a murder. It was on there from the 999 recording to the bodycam footage when the police arrested her. She killed him, she intended to kill him, she wanted him dead. That’s murder and there is only one sentence for murder and that’s life imprisonment.

Why doesn't this apply to men, then?

tickingbird

She didn’t need to be believed. She committed a murder. It was on there from the 999 recording to the bodycam footage when the police arrested her. She killed him, she intended to kill him, she wanted him dead. That’s murder and there is only one sentence for murder and that’s life imprisonment.

Sentences for murder do vary from 15 years to a whole life sentence.

Where the offender the offender took a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to (a) commit any offence, or (b) have it available to use as a weapon, and used that knife or other weapon in committing the murder the normal starting point is 25 years. This increased minimum term does not apply in relation to a life sentence imposed for an offence of murder committed before 2 March 2010.

For all other offences the appropriate starting point is 15 years.

She took the knife to bed with her which she claims was for her own defence or in order to commit suicide. Had that not been believed and it was thought that her intent was to use it to murder her husband, then her sentence should have been longer.

Nobody can deny that she murdered him, but what purpose does such a long sentence serve for a woman of 66 , at a cost of £45 k per year ? Rapists have been given much lesser sentences and are then free to carry on abusing women when released. Is she considered to be a danger to society ? I suppose so, but I don’t think she’s going to find a fifth husband any time soon.

This is interesting. Male/ Femail prison numbers.

empathygap.uk/?p=215

Atqui

Nobody can deny that she murdered him, but what purpose does such a long sentence serve for a woman of 66 , at a cost of £45 k per year ? Rapists have been given much lesser sentences and are then free to carry on abusing women when released. Is she considered to be a danger to society ? I suppose so, but I don’t think she’s going to find a fifth husband any time soon.

Exactly this. She poses no threat to the general public. She has been convicted of murder so a prison sentence is appropriate. But 18 years?

Yes, she is very unlikely to commit another murder, whereas a man who strangled a woman to death and couldn't even remember doing it could well find himself in that position again after his measly 4 year sentence.

Ilovecheese

Yes, she is very unlikely to commit another murder, whereas a man who strangled a woman to death and couldn't even remember doing it could well find himself in that position again after his measly 4 year sentence.

She confessed to murder for which the minimum term is 15 years.

Presumably a jury found him guilty of a lesser charge.

I'm not saying that's right, btw.

I thought she confessed to manslaughter but the charge was murder. Otherwise I don’t think there would have been a trial, just sentencing.

For all those questioning the sentencing. I repeat - the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment. The judge can set a minimum time to be served but murder ALWAYS receives a life sentence.

I don’t wish to get embroiled in the ins and outs of any case but man or woman, if you are found guilty of murder you will always receive a life sentence. As this woman blatantly murdered her husband as she showed intent no other sentence was open to the judge.

I agree tickingbird but - specifying 18 years is what I’m querying