Or so many people believe. This case in which a mother murdered her autistic young adult daughter is another incredible display of justice favouritism towards women. While one can empathize with her difficulties, she deliberately murdered her daughter when she had other options. Who the hell gets 4 years imprisonment for murder? Oh right, a woman does.
Now supporters of this murderer are planning to protest that she was convicted and punished at all. We will endeavour to show up at their protests to voice another point of view. It’s not that we necessarily begrudge mercy being shown to this woman but it’s that such mercy is not shown to men, nowadays even regardless of the degree of provocation men are subjected to. Feminists claim to want equality so in that case we demand that female murderers are shown no more understanding and compassion than male murderers are.
Although mercy may be appropriate in this case, that needs to be balanced against the seriousness of taking a life and against the message provided to others who may be tempted to murder. The message now is clear: if you are a woman and your child (or male partner) feels annoying enough, it’s ok for you to kill them.
This case is another version of the redefined ‘provocation’ defence demanded by feminists, intended to be available only or almost only to women and that will entitle them to kill their partners. Real self-defence is necessary for an immediate threat, not as retribution for past misdeeds or some prediction of possible future misdeeds. And homicidal self-defence can only be justified when no other non-violent response is available, such as going to the police or one of the many women’s refuges we pay for. Similarly, provocation equals immediate circumstances or behaviour from another the emotional threat in which is likely temporarily to overwhelm the judgement and self-control of an average person. If time passes after those circumstances or that behaviour, our rational processes return and we have a duty to apply them to consider our options. Any decision following such consideration to murder someone when they are in a non-threatening and vulnerable position shouldn’t be acceptable, surely? ‘Slow burn’ provocation is just a convenient invention to provide women with a provocation defence after the much more reasonable and fair provocation defence was removed for men. The feminists and white knights will abide no restraint on the privileges of women, and the right to murder looks set to become yet another female privilege. This case shows how close we are already to that.
Note also that in none of the news coverage we have seen has there been any mention of the father of this child. Fathers are irrelevant it seems. And we know nothing about why this woman was raising the child by herself. Our government’s encouragement and reward of sole parenthood, paying mainly women for the irresponsibility of depriving their children of intact family units, will have contributed to this situation.