FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Preacher's Wife gets 210 days imprisonment for killing husband

   
Author Topic: Preacher's Wife gets 210 days imprisonment for killing husband
BaoQingTian
Member
Member # 8775

 - posted      Profile for BaoQingTian   Email BaoQingTian         Edit/Delete Post 
Story

quote:

SELMER, Tenn. --A woman who killed her preacher husband with a shotgun blast to the back as he lay in bed was sentenced Friday to three years in prison, but she may end up serving only 60 days in a mental hospital.
Mary Winkler must serve 210 days, or about seven months, of her sentence before she can be released on probation, but she gets credit for the five months she has already spent in jail, Judge Weber McCraw said.

In light of the thread about the 17 year old boy who was sentenced to 10 years for sex with a 15 year old, I thought it would be interesting to get some Hatrack reactions on this. Most people agreed that the sentence was too harsh in the above case. Does anyone think that the sentence was too lenient in this case?

I haven't really been following the case closely, but she shot her husband in the back with a shotgun as he lay in bed. She cited physical and emotional abuse as reasons. Now, I have a few problems with this. One, is that the dead man, on that she killed, has no way to defend himself. It seemed like a lot of 'he said she said' without the he. Another is that she claims that he forced her to have 'unnatural sex.' As evidence for this she produced a black wig and platform shoes. Finally, I just find it unbelievable that a person can kill another in cold blood and get 210 days in prison.

Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ricree101
Member
Member # 7749

 - posted      Profile for ricree101   Email ricree101         Edit/Delete Post 
I she could clearly demonstrate that there was abuse going on, I might be ok with this sentence. But in general, this sentence does seem far too light.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I would be very surprised if that ruling is not appealed.

I need to think about it some more but even if she was abused to the full extent that she claims I think this sentance is far too light.

I get the distinct impression there is information we are missing here.

But blowing somebody away rather then divorcing or simply leaving to live with family seems foolish.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post 
If she was indeed physically abused, then a mental facility may be the proper judgement. I don't really understand a connection between the two cases. One thing is for certain though, I don't think either article gives enough information on the cases, and how the juries reached their decisions.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe he was the one wearing the wig and shoes...

All joking aside, what a sad case.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Phanto
Member
Member # 5897

 - posted      Profile for Phanto           Edit/Delete Post 
The fair arm of that goddess Justice is weighed down by a few, dark laws.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Qaz
Member
Member # 10298

 - posted      Profile for Qaz           Edit/Delete Post 
If she was abused, she could have left while he was sleeping. People do.

This shows one of the serious problems we have with the legal system. Her sentence is ball-park similar to that of the man who was convicted of using someone else's wireless system (someone who did not object) to read his email. It is just too random. I think the way jury selection is done is to blame. Lawyers get to bar jurors who have common sense, to make them easier to manipulate. I don't think you could easily find a random group of 12 people who would consider shooting a sleeping man in the back to be no big deal, but if you pick easily-swayed people and sway them for a couple of weeks anything can happen.

We also know there are serious problems with the legal system because when DNA evidence came out a significant percentage (over 50% IIRC) of those on death row were found that they could not have committed the crime. Maybe it was lower, but it was a lot. But I have not heard of any organization anywhere that is interested in reforming the legal system. Some want to abolish the death penalty and some want to promote it, some want to establish thought crimes, some want to reduce prison rapes (and that would be a good thing), but nobody in the system wants to put any energy into making convictions more accurate and sentencing more reasonable. I was surprised when I found this out. I would have expected it to be obviously good to almost everyone.

Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
"I think the way jury selection is done is to blame. Lawyers get to bar jurors who have common sense, to make them easier to manipulate. I don't think you could easily find a random group of 12 people who would consider shooting a sleeping man in the back to be no big deal, but if you pick easily-swayed people and sway them for a couple of weeks anything can happen."

This is why if I ever go to court I will waive my right to a jury. I would rather have professionals of the law judge me than a bunch of idiots off the streets. A jury of my peers is a misnomer. I don't know them and probably never will. Not to mention it is so easy to (intentionally or not) rig the jury for people of a particular stance.

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Megan
Member
Member # 5290

 - posted      Profile for Megan           Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with BB that there seems to be something missing from this story--that there's likely much more to it than has been revealed. However, for those of you suggesting, "She could have just left," remember that frequently in cases of abuse it isn't as simple as that. While I have no personal experience with it, abuse carries with it psychological ramifications as well as physical ones that may make it feel to the abused that there is absolutely no way out. I'm not saying this is justified; all I'm saying is the "she should have just left" argument may not be taking the full situation into account.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hitoshi
Member
Member # 8218

 - posted      Profile for Hitoshi   Email Hitoshi         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow. 10 years for sex with a minor with two years age difference apart, and 210 days for murdering your husband. We definitely have our priorities straight.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 8624

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte         Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder how long before we start taking violent action against such stupidity.

I'd say never, because no one really cares enough.

Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2