I want equality with women - jail her for life

[NicD]

Unbelievable story

Family's anger after wife who ran down and killed husband with her car following an argument is spared jail
Kareen Pope convicted in October of causing husband George's death. She had been giving him a lift when they argued and he got out of the car. She drove behind him before hitting him, trapping him under the vehicle

Mrs Pope was spared jail and was instead sentenced to community service

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873260/Wi...

[NicD]

cookie118 said:

And her being a woman had what to do with the sentence?

There's no comment about it anywhere in the article-just that the sentence is too lenient?

I am saying it. If the roles had been reversed and the wife had been run over and killed after a drunken argument, would the result be community service?

read the article:
''But instead of going inside, he started staggering slowly in front of the car and refusing to move out of the way, so I had no option but to drive slowly behind him to get to the end of the narrow street.
'The road was dark as it was winter, but I could clearly see him in front of the car bonnet and he stumbled slightly then disappeared.
Mr Pope pictured with his sister Christina - she says the sentence given to Kareen Pope is 'disgusting'

'I quickly did an emergency stop and looked at my son in a panic. I tried to reverse and, when the car wouldn't move, I realised George was under the car.
'I am a qualified nurse but I panicked when I saw him lying there. I just froze.
'He was my husband and I loved him and when I took his hand and held it, I knew he was dead.'
During the trial, Pope's lawyer, Manus Tolland, said: 'This incident is something that is going to live with her for the rest of her life.'
Sheriff Fife also told the hearing: 'This is a tragic case. She was careless, that is the bottom line, but I am not going to send her to jail. This is a very long and tragic case which has gone on for years.
'It is very sad.'
He added: 'I do not want to upset you. I am not going to send you to jail. You were careless and it had a terrible consequence.
'There needs to be an element of punishment for what took place. Now, you can put it behind you.'
Mrs McManus said she struggles to comprehend why the sheriff said he did not want to upset her son's ex.
She said: 'How can the sheriff tell her not to get upset and that he wouldn't jail her?

[NicD]

It shouldn't, that is my point.
She got preferential treatment first for the charge, then the sentencing.

If she had been sentenced for the initial charge of causing her husband's death by dangerous driving.
Here are the sentencing guidelines

Level 1
The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others
8 years custody
7–14 years custody
Level 2
Driving that created a substantial risk of danger
5 years custody
4–7 years custody
Level 3
Driving that created a significant risk of danger
[Where the driving is markedly less culpable than for this level, reference should be made to the starting point and range for the most serious level of causing death by careless driving]
3 years custody

For the offence: of Careless or inconsiderate driving falling not far short of dangerous driving

Starting Point: 15 months custody
Sentencing range: 36 weeks - 3 years custody

Nature of offence: Other cases of careless or inconsiderate driving

Starting Point: 36 weeks custody
Sentencing range: Community order (HIGH) - 2 years custody

[NicD]

cookie118 said:

NicD said:

It shouldn't, that is my point.
She got preferential treatment first for the charge, then the sentencing.

Nope-don't see it

It seems like an overly lenient sentence but I still don't see what her being a woman had to do with it.

Woman have formed very effective pressure groups to advance their cause. In addition, men are ingrained from an early age with a sense of chivalry towards woman. This is often manifested in court situations where doddery old judges favour women. The result is, woman are often given the benefit of the doubt, and more when it comes to motive and certainly sentencing.

[NicD]

Abagnale said:

I think you'll find if you look, that on a like for like offending basis, women do far more stir than men. Therefore you are full of st & a shocking misogynist who probably had his nose tweaked by the hottie bird at school & has been crying about it ever since.

show the facts big mouth.

[NicD]

Abagnale said:

It's your assertion that women get off light in the justice system, so over to you to prove it, women hater.

perhaps you are off your face but I have already listed the sentencing guidelines above

you on the other hand have made an assertion about 'stir' and a personal an unwarranted attack on me which I have reported you for.

so bigmouth, show your facts.

[NicD]

cookie118 said:

In this case I do feel the sentence is massively lenient.

So, we are in agreement. This thread is about this case.

[NicD]

Grumfutock said:

Wow, just wow! You really have some serious issues my friend.

Maybe the Mods could parachute in some specialist help.

[NicD]

BJG1 said:

Women are given shorter sentences than men for the same crimes. It's misandry

had to look that up, it receives so little prominence. From Wiki:

Misandry from the Greek misos ("hatred") and "man"), is the hatred or dislike of men or boys. Misandry can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of men, violence against men, and sexual objectification of men. The form "misandrist" was first used in 1871.

Misandry can take the form of the marginalisation of men, in which they perform the most dangerous occupations and are regarded as being disposable, men having lower life expectancy and higher suicide rates than women. It has been described as damaging to both men and women, preventing mutual respect between the sexes.

Although the word is relatively modern, there is evidence of implicit, even explicit, misandry in literature from the Ancient Greeks to Shakespeare and modern literature, such as The Vagina Monologues and even comic book heroes.

[NicD]

Come on, I only want fair.

where is the hate in that?

as for women, well, cant live without them, hard to live wiv em.

[NicD]

Grumfutock said:

And if you hit them with a shovel and bury them under your patio it is illegal, apparently! Who knew!

should we look there? What is your address?

[NicD]

Kermit power said:

So, there's some facts for you. Under Scottish sentencing guidelines, she could've been let off with just having to retake her test!!! That seems utterly bizarre to me, but it rather undermines your claim that she got preferential treatment for being a woman.

Not at all, my point was not that she was sentenced outside the range, but that she received the low end of the range for a substantially reduced charge. I believe that if the 'she' had been a 'he', then the sentence would have been (far) higher.

good on you for looking into it though.

[NicD]

Kermit power said:

Maybe Derek Smith's former neighbour was actually a woman in drag then?

???
I must have missed that one.

[NicD]

dandarez said:

Derek Smith said:

A chap two doors down from where I used to live ran over and killed his wife. Pinned her to the garage wall.

He was charged, death by dangerous. CPS, with the support of the police, dropped the charge after the chap gave up his licence.

...ran over and killed his wife. (I get that bit, so he's driven over her and she's a goner.)

...pinned her to the garage wall. (htf did it end like that?)

answers on a wall please.


As to the story itself, no comment really except one:
'the Jury found her guilty ...in less than 30 mins.'
There you are.

well, its NOT this one

A pensioner accidentally ran over his wife while reversing the car out of their driveway and then crushed himself to death against a wall after trying to go to her aid.
Tony Murphy, 78, was backing his automatic Ford Focus out when it lurched backwards suddenly and knocked his wife Fay, 76, to the ground.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328669/Pe...


`But this one is interesting

Trucker Graeme Lamb who crushed wife gets five years
Jun 22, 2010 00:30 By The Journal
A FORMER policeman who killed his wife with a 26-ton truck then set up home with a new lover only months later is beginning a five-year sentence behind bars.

[NicD]

Kermit power said:

Are you really going to tell us you can't see a difference between the woman and the guy who decided to get into a 28 ton truck whilst over the drink drive limit even though he knew his wife was somewhere in front of it?

are you really going to tell us that I said this???

[NicD]

Kermit power said:

Given that you created the whole thread to bang your little misogynist drum, I'd say it's a fair assumption to think you viewed it as evidence of women being treated too leniently.

I really hate it when (being charitable) know nothings attempt to put words, or worse, thoughts, into my mouth.

You can disagree with what I say, but not what you think I said..

can you grasp that?

and misogynist, dont make me laugh! wtf do you know about that or me?

Give us all the benefit of your equality chasing life, and how long is that?

[NicD]

Kermit power said:

What on earth is that supposed to mean? I'm a middle class white bloke in a middle class white bloke country. I've never had to worry about my equality for a day in my life.

Even if women did get preferential treatment in the courts (and once you factor in the impact of children's rights, I very much doubt they do), there are more than enough areas in life where I get the benefit of being white and male that I'm hardly going to begrudge them.

Good for you. I don't take the same attitude, that is my privilege, no, right, without you bandying around pejorative terms with gay abandon and no understanding.

[NicD]

Kermit power said:

Where are these pejorative terms that I've been bandying around with gay abandon? I've merely said that from what you've written in this thread, you come across as misogynistic.

As for whether or not I have any understanding of you, this is an internet forum, and as such, pretty much by definition my understanding of you is limited to what you've written on here. There may well be a perfectly valid reason for the apparent insecurity around women and sense of victimisation that your posts so far on this thread convey, but unless you choose to share it, then you have to accept that people will respond to their understanding of you based on what you have written. It wouldn't be much of an internet forum if we all refrained from commenting until we'd met face to face and gained an in depth understanding of each other's personal back stories.

in the same terms, you come across as a simplistic person who gets off on insulting posters.

but since you have now managed to put together a coherent post, why not show my quotes in this thread that demonstrate each of these accusations:
a. 'apparent insecurity around women'
b. 'sense of victimisation'
c. 'you come across as misogynistic'

Put up or shut up.
Frankly I would rather the latter since this thread started as just something I had read which seemed rather unfair and I wanted to share.

[NicD]

'What evidence do you have this case doesn't fall within the guidelines? 50% of the severity scenarios encompass non-custodial sentences. What have you presented, other than superficial few paragraphs, to show this case doesn't fit within those?


already answered above and are those Scottish guidelines as another poster has already pointed out?

[NicD]

'But no evidence to support that. '

what form would this 'evidence' take professor?

Are you saying that a lay person cannot voice an opinion of a particular sentence?

what planet are you from?