Was this woman right to do what she did?

  Cymro. 17:10 22 Jan 2010

click here
I am rather surprised that the above story has not made it to the forum. Perhaps it has and I just missed it if so then I apologise.

  bremner 17:28 22 Jan 2010

In law this lady committed murder. She carefully planned what she was going to do and then having previously failed in an attempt killed her son.

She was correctly convicted, I just despair at what the two jurors who did not convict were thinking about. They clearly ignored the evidence and let their heart overrule their heads.

The question is whether the lady deserved a 9 year sentence or whether the judge could have shown greater understanding of the pressures that led her to this terrible action.

We do not know sufficient detail of the case to really give an informed opinion. I just hope none of us are in the same position and have to consider the same action.

  Chegs ®™ 17:45 22 Jan 2010

There is too little detail of her sons brain damage in the reports for me to decide whether she was acting out of compassion,as a jury has convicted her of murder I am of the opinion that it is right she serves a lengthy sentence.

  realist 18:47 22 Jan 2010

There is another similarly sad case going on at the moment where a woman is accused of murdering her terminally ill daughter.

In my opinion these are both vindictive prosecutions where compassion should have been shown.

Having had to watch my own son die of a brain tumour I do know what I'm talking about.

  bremner 19:16 22 Jan 2010

It would take an incredibly harsh person not to feel sympathy with those who have to watch a loved one suffering or dying a painful and undignified death.

However the law is quite clear. Euthanasia / assisted suicide are currently illegal as is the taking of anothers life.

It is simply never a question of vindictive prosecution.

Until the law is changed and that is very unlikely in even the long term each case has to be dealt with by its merits, in the only place possible and that is a criminal court.

It is for a judge to listen to all the evidence and if a conviction occurs use that knowledge to compassionately and sensitively apply the appropriate sentence.

  Forum Editor 19:40 22 Jan 2010

She planned the killing, and tried twice - succeeding the second time only by impersonating her sister , and threatening to spit at a nurse, telling her she had AIDS.

It was murder, and that fact isn't altered by the dreadful circumstances surrounding it.

  robgf 20:02 22 Jan 2010

I'm surprised that the charge wasn't manslaughter, rather than murder.

But the 9 year sentence isn't a surprise, that is the authorities maintaining their power base. It has nothing to do with the offence, rather because she took the law into her own hands, which always annoys the authorities.

  bremner 20:04 22 Jan 2010

Why would it be manslaughter?

Premeditated, no diminished responsibility and had tried to do it before.

  robgf 20:27 22 Jan 2010

"Why would it be manslaughter?"

Because she killed without malice (one would assume).

fourm member:
Sorry about that, I think I just had a senior moment. I was thinking about the two chaps who beat the other chap with a cricket bat and got a bit mixed up.............

  peter99co 20:50 22 Jan 2010

How far will mothers go?

click here

This one could have killed her son for greed.

"sadistic fabrication of non-existent symptoms" amounted to "24-hour-a-day torture".

  bremner 21:53 22 Jan 2010

The mens rea for murder is malice aforethought. The House of Lords in R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 held that nothing less than intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (g.b.h.) would constitute malice aforethought: merely foreseeing the victim's death as probable was insufficient.

I think she had the necessary malice.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Huawei MateBook X Pro review

8 digital brands that designed custom typefaces to save millions

How to speed up a slow Mac

Comment résoudre des problèmes d’impressions ?