http://www.cnn.com/2007/law/06/08/w...
I'll sum it up if you don't know. A woman shot her preacher husband with shotgun while he slept. She said he abused her and forced to have sex she didn't want to. There was zero proof of any of this except a wig and platform shoes which she more than likely wore willingly. 10 out of the 12 jurors were women. The foreman who was a man said that they wanted her to get off clean.
When a man murders his wife he is rightfully thrown in prison for life or given the death penalty. Here a woman is virtually getting away with cold blooded murder and no one seems to be outraged. This seems to be common place.
2007-06-08 19:30:21 · 10 answers · asked by Chuckwalla 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sorry, here is the correct link.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/08/winkler.sentence.ap/index.html
Someone said something about the death penalty. This has nothing to do with it, she will probably get 2 months for murder.
2007-06-08 19:41:44 · update #1
I agree with this case. I watched it on tv yesterday and was shocked.
~faith
2007-06-08 19:35:46 · answer #1 · answered by faith♥missouri 7 · 11⤊ 2⤋
Actually, she isn't any different than many men who get put in prison rather than get the death penalty but, most men do serve more time. That is where the injustice is here is she will do very little time for what she did.
She claims she didn't know how to shoot or load a shotgun and yet she was able to somehow think it out and figure out how to shoot him in the back. How is that not premeditated murder?
And she was involved in money schemes and had written alot of bad checks ~ that is why she and Matthew were arguing over things and from one account I read, they were supposed to go to the bank that day to try and resolve some of the issues. Why shouldn't he be upset with her over doing some of that?
I don't think there was all the abuse that she claimed either. I think she made up a great deal of that up so she would get the sympathy vote ~ and boy did she. What is sad is Matthew wasn't there to defend himself. Now she has not only taken his life but she has painted him as a horrible person and he can't defend himself or prove her wrong.
Then her sister gets up and cries and says she isn't complete without her children..... excuse me? And she has the right to her children because? She lied to her oldest daughter after she killed her dad, something that came out later when the girl talked with her grandmother.
And she wasn't supposed to be drinking or be in bars while she was waiting for sentencing and yet someone put it online on the Tube which showed her sitting at the bar drinking and smoking with others.
She should have gone to jail for at least 10 years, no time off, to give her more time to think about what she did. Even "if" he was abusing her, she could have packed up the kids and left and gone home to her father ~ she didn't have to kill him. There were other choices other than murdering him.
Too many things just don't add up so shame on the jury for the bad decisions on this one.
2007-06-09 04:23:31 · answer #2 · answered by KittyKat 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because socially as a people, men and women included, people don't like to put women to death. It feels wrong for them. It is the same mentality that prevents the military from having women on the front lines, men value the lives of women more than other men, it causes them to make poor combat decisions. I think this dates back to the fact that one man can have countless babies simultaneously but needs a woman for each and every pregnancy. That means, survival of the human race requires more women than it does men, I believe this leads to the subconscious desire to keep women alive.
2007-06-09 02:36:21 · answer #3 · answered by Heather 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Ask OJ and a guy a few cities over from me.He got away with it for over ten years before they linked him to the crime. I feel most sorry for the kids.He'd raised them for ten years,and he'd killed their mom.
2007-06-09 02:41:12 · answer #4 · answered by Babylove 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is the western style liberty of women. It's the Jurors who connived.
2007-06-09 02:36:00 · answer #5 · answered by RexRomanus 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The same reason men like OJ get away with murder
2007-06-09 02:38:02 · answer #6 · answered by copestir 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
because the beaten wife syndrome is a plausible defense in this country and they will use it.
2007-06-09 02:36:05 · answer #7 · answered by Steven C 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The link says "page not found". :(
Now we're even -- you got away with "murder" for that broken link!
2007-06-09 02:34:50 · answer #8 · answered by Ms Ghost 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
maybe their good looks convince the juges theyre innecent
2007-06-09 02:34:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋
Mmm, not sure. Please ask OJ.
2007-06-09 02:35:12 · answer #10 · answered by raichasays 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋