by Englishman 7 Replies latest jw friends
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For the rest of the details click here:http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/ellis/1.html | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's 48 years since the UK judiciary executed their last woman. Now it transpires that Ruth Ellis may well have been suffering from battered wife syndrome, and as such, should have been tried on the lesser offence of manslaughter. This is how the BBC broke the news today:
I, for one, hope that a liitle justice may eventually be done here.
Englishman.
This is the main reason I do NOT support the death penalty. There have been to many cases of people being wrongfully convicted.
Back in 1986 I believe it was, here in NC, Army Sargent Timothy Hennis was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. A little over three years later his Lawyers, being pushed a bit by his father proved his innocence. Just one of many other cases i've heard of.
Whatever he had done, one way or another, She did exactly what you object to, e-man, acted as judge, jury & executioner. Also, it was obviously premeditated, as they are trying to bring in the boyfriend who showed her how to use the gun. It would'nt be exoneration by any means, just plead down to a lesser charge, & I don't even see how that could happen. Now, for the twist. If the bastard did cause her to lose the baby by punching her? I woul'dnt have even convicted her of manslaughter.
Sorry, I only read the above excerpt, not the whole story. I'll read it, & may change my opinion.
EM, If she killed him then aren't you against that too? Did they have an all male jury or something? Most women have always known that abuse is a reason for murder, right? But again she was guilty, right? So what type of change would there be in her sentence that would have her alive today..life in prison doesn't sound like life at all.
Panda,
Ruth Ellis would have been released within a few years if she had been convicted of manslaughter and not murder.
It's well worth reading the story in full.The sad part is that the week she was executed I was sat in Twickenham stadium listening to assembly stuff. I was 9.
Englishman.
E-Man,
Glad that you started this thread. I was thinking about her too!
I am so glad that I live at this time, and not back then! I do feel sorry for her in that she certainly would have stood more of a chance now - than back then. The legal system has advance in some areas -for sure!
Sorry about the assembly.
(not read all the details yet)
My first thought was that we indeed have come a long way in 50 years. There was not a lot of emphasis at all on battered wife syndrome, post partum depression, and other situations that might be associated with the commission of a murder.
Clearly, the woman did kill her husband. The findings now are that there may have been mitigating circumstances. That's very sad. It's too bad that she couldn't go to the proper authorities at the time to complain: such things would no doubt be taken more seriously today.
My general observation about the justice system is that we are getting increasingly more sophisticated today. Not that some people cannot be wrongfully accused: but with DNA testing, sophisticated forensics, and other technology, I believe we're going to be able to prove murder with more reliablity than we did in the past.
On the flip side, I just saw a documentary recently about a man who brutally murdered his fiance in the US. The unbelievable catch was that there was an eye witness (an ex-girlfriend) who actually shot photos of it. The ex-girlfried agreed to testify in a plea bargain, but she was not a credible witness due to her demeanor. The jury found the guy not guilty after just a few hours of deliberation. A few years later, when the guys home was sold, construction workers found an unusual stash under the floor in one of the rooms. Sure enough, it was the photos of the brutal rape and murder of the young woman, just as the witness had testified.
The guy apparently served a few years for perjury, but not for murder. He proudly said, "Of course I did it." But, due to double jeopary laws in the US, he'll never be tried for it.
The door swings both ways...
