Our thanks to Francis for this. From the article, a statement from Rachel Woods, Lynda Holmes’s defence counsel:
“She had clearly seen the red mist and just lost control of her own senses and behaviour for what was a relatively short period of time.”
Well, that’s all right, then. The time-honoured ‘red mist’ defence, surely encapsulated in the legal system – though I can’t recall having seen it employed in a court case to exonerate a man for striking his female partner over the head several times with a metal hammer, even for ‘a relatively short period of time’.
If the judiciary exonerates women who kill men Justice cannot be blind.
Discuss.
I never say never to anyone. As to the rest of your post, and please forgive me for laughing while I type this, I have a suspicion that the owner of this blog shares my sense of humour.
Why on earth do you not apply the same “never” to a woman hitting a man?
It must NEVER be acceptable in the court of law to not punish a violent woman. Whether the hand which pulled the trigger is male or female .makes no difference to the victim. And if our justice system is blind to this,then it needs reforming,along with the culture which tends to tolerate Su h behavior by women.
Well, he must have done something to deserve it. As for the rest of your post: it is never (not never, ever, never) acceptable to hit a woman, even when she’s stoving your head in with a hammer.
Got that?
I have to commend J4MB for bringing the very clear double standards of our criminal justice system. One might expect the defence lawyer to play a “card” like “red mist”. What is clear is that the Court’s sentence trivialises the assault and the victim. as in so many cases you have shown.