Penelope Jackson murder trial

I agree, age and cost shouldn’t be the driver. This is murder but a first and in all likelihood only offence. She doesn’t pose a direct risk to others. Many of the men convicted of killing their partners continue to be a serous risk to others, especially female partners.
We send far too many people to prison. We have far too few rehab schemes, or alternatives to custody.

Yes, it is.

However, I don't think any sentence should be adjusted to take account of age or cost.

It’s a complex case isn’t it.

Iam64

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

I stand corrected, Iam64, thank you, I thought she had confessed to murder which she did then changed her mind.
?

Jackson jotted down a confession on a notepad by the telephone, and when she was arrested on suspicion of murder, replied: “It’s murder now, not attempted murder? Oh good.”

But she would later deny murder, pleading guilty to manslaughter and saying she had lost control following years of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her husband.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

This is interesting. Male/ Femail prison numbers.

empathygap.uk/?p=215

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

Did I say I was shocked?

Perhaps I did.

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

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.

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

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.

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