Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I watched it too. It is a perfect case of the legal system failing
    miserably. Had justice been served, not only would the woman be free,
    but her husband would still be alive. The failure of the courts to stop
    domestic abuse is a black eye for our entire country. Had the man been
    locked up (as he should have,) she wouldn't have had to kill him (have
    him killed).
    
    It was also quite bothersome that the evidence of abuse was not allowed
    in court. Despite the fact that the murder for hire precluded a self
    defense plea, the history of abuse should have been allowed as
    pertaining to state of mind.
    
    The prosecutor was a young man. It appeared to me that he had never
    been the object of domestic violence, nor did he ever really know what
    goes on in such a case. He was completely unable to understand the
    horror of abuse.
    
     The judge was quite simply a jerk. I could've slapped him about twenty
    times. Every time he opened his mouth he made himself look more
    ignorant.
    
     The only good news is that the Washington State board of appeals has
    recommended that she have her sentence commuted to time served plus
    parole. Now all that's needed is the governor's John Hancock. Let's
    hope the governor of Washington has some common sense.
    
     The Doctah

    Premeditation and "malice aforethought" are required for Murder 1.  It
    would seem that both these elements were present, and that the jury has
    already provided some relief in finding the woman guilty of Murder 2
    rather than first degree.
    
    Premeditation: planning, sequential thought (can be in a matter of
    seconds or minutes);
    
    Malice Aforethought: evil state of mind, intent to injure or harm or
    kill...always inferred from conduct.
    
    I don't support vigilanteism, and feel this woman probably received a
    fair trial, and of course she has the right of appeal.
    
    Marge

    There was no trial. There was no jury. The woman pleaded guilty to 2nd
    degree murder (a plea bargain) and simply had a sentencing hearing in
    front of the judge. The prosecution asked for 10 years, the Washington
    State department of corrections asked for 5 years, the defense asked
    for probation. She got the full boat.
    
     The Doctah

    Interestingly, history of abuse has been allowed in some courts as a
    mitigating factor - even where it was a for-hire murder.  It was felt
    that it went to the state of mind and the ability to form intent.  The
    cas I'm thinking of was that of teen ager who hired someone to kill her
    sexually abusive father.  I need to go back and check the book because
    I don't remeber if there was a jury verdict or a pelas bargain before
    it actually went to the jury, but she was convicted of a lesser charge
    and only served a few months.  In determining the sentence, the judge
    felt that he couldn't give the message that this was ok by giving her
    no jail time but that the circumstances had to be considered.  
    
    I don't think that those of us who have half way decent self-images and
    have never lived in an abusive situation cannot begin to understand the 
    thinking/feelings of someone who has.  Very often, murder seems the
    only way out for theses women.
    
    I agree that the court system doesn't do well in handling domestic
    violence.  It's improved a little but not nearly enough.  And we as
    a society need to do a better job of helping women and children (and
    more rarely men) in these abusive situationa find and believe in viable
    options to going back.  If we don't the abuse continues generation
    after generation and people end up dead or wishing that they were. 

    I seem to recall that the wife said something like "I wish he were
    dead."  It was a sister-in-law who actually went out and hired the man. 
    The wife was considered guilty because when she heard about it she
    didn't try to stop it.  The sister-in-law also received some kind of
    sentence.
    
    
    
    Even when there is no physical abuse, constant nagging and bickering
    can wear you down.  That's why I had to leave the state when I left my
    husband.  When he would phone, I'd simply say "my brother is here, I'll
    put him on the phone" and whats-his-name would hang up immediately. 
    
    As a footnote, I also could have been a widow at that time, but chose
    to leave the state instead.  I don't know what I would have done if I
    hadn't had three generations of loving family to fall back on.
                      

    I believe very strongly that justice is too blind.  I'm not sure
    how the issue of past abuse (if there was no associated conviction)
    should be handled, but I think that past records should be admissable
    as well as "illegally obtained evidence".  The latter should be
    handled as charges against the obtainer, which has no bearing on
    the case they're used to prosecute.  Yes, Justice is too blind.
    A blindness that turns it into Injustice in many cases.  This one
    seems to be one.
    
    But on the other hand, there is a good side.  Let's consider a case
    where someone marries for money or falls in love with another. 
    In either case, the marriage may be too burdensome.  This person
    kills the spouse and claims that it was the result of abuse.  Perhaps
    even gets some "witnesses" to testify about the abuse.  This could
    "unjustly" prejudice the jury/judge to let them off because of the
    appearance of self-defense when in actuality a cold blooded murder
    was committed.
    
    This is the irony of a human Justice System.  It's virtually a
    contradiction.  Our rules that would assure justice in one case
    would preclude justice in another.  Justice defies coding.
    
    Bud

    	Just heard from a coworker that the governor of Washington
    	has granted the woman clemency. Supposedly, she was released
    	from prison last Friday.
    
    	Well, regardless of what anyone thinks, the governor made
    	the right decision.
    
    	Scott

    Is the sister in law still in prison; was she ever?
    
    tnx,
    marge

    	I have no idea.
    
    	Maybe 60 Minutes will have an update in one of the upcoming
    	shows.
    
    	Scott

 I believe the sister in law served her time (she was sentenced to 1 year).

 The Doctah