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.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe he was the one wearing the wig and shoes...
All joking aside, what a sad case.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
The fair arm of that goddess Justice is weighed down by a few, dark laws.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
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.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"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.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
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.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
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.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I wonder how long before we start taking violent action against such stupidity.
I'd say never, because no one really cares enough.