Woman in Britain gets 2 years suspended sentence for killing her son

[Bono]

MOTHER SENTENCED FOR KILLING SON

(Wednesday November 2, 1.30pm) Wendy Markcrow, the Long Crendon pensioner who killed her Down's Syndrome son on March 29, has this morning been given a two-year prison sentence, suspended for 18 months.
Markcrow, 67, from Harroell, Long Crendon, admitted killing her 37-year-old son Patrick by plying him with sleeping tablets before smothering him with a plastic bag.

The pensioner confessed to police after admitting to her husband what she had done. She was arrested and taken to Aylesbury police station where she was charged with murder, a charge which was later scaled down to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Markcrow's two other sons stood by her after the tragic events and the close knit village community also offered unwavering support throughout her ordeal.

She made a full confession to police, saying that she 'could not cope' with the burden of being the primary carer of her son for 30 years.

Markcrow was sentenced at Oxford Crown Court this morning.
02 November 2005

[Bono]

If ANYONE ELSE had posted this, it would have about 4 pages of replies.

[Alcon]

If ANYONE ELSE had posted this, it would have about 4 pages of replies.

In International General in 14 hours?  Doubtful.

Again, I got to tell you, man.  If more than 60% of your new topics are articles with little commentary on your part (and with you it's more like 90%), then you won't get many replies.  People would rather talk to a person than an article even if that person is just using concepts from articles.

[Jens]

Perhaps a reason why she got a suspended sentence would help the discussion

[Bono]

Perhaps a reason why she got a suspended sentence would help the discussion

Apparently becuase she was depressed.

[Bono]

If ANYONE ELSE had posted this, it would have about 4 pages of replies.

In International General in 14 hours?  Doubtful.

Again, I got to tell you, man.  If more than 60% of your new topics are articles with little commentary on your part (and with you it's more like 90%), then you won't get many replies.  People would rather talk to a person than an article even if that person is just using concepts from articles.

THis is a news srticle.
I barely post opinion articles anymore.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Perhaps a reason why she got a suspended sentence would help the discussion

Apparently becuase she was depressed.

No, not really. Apparently she had been looking after her severely handicapped child for decades during which time he had tried to kill himself on several occasions.

[Peter]

BBC article on this story

Frankly, I don't think they could have gotten a murder conviction had they tried.

It looks to me like she had generally been failed by the local authorities in caring for her son, and undoubtedly the emotional toll of having to care for a son in that condition must have been tremendous. I don't condone what she did by any means, but I can certainly see how somebody in her position would have been motivated to do it.

The sentence may appear lenient, but I doubt that a custodial sentence would have actually served any purpose whatsoever: There is no risk of re-offending or any danger to the community and there is little need for rehabilitation/retributive justice because it is reasonably clear to me that her actions were manifested by extreme emotional circumstances and that her living with what she has done will be punishment enough.

[Democratic Hawk]

Where's Richard and his tradmark tirade against 'liberals'?

Dave

[Richard]

Here I am...  This is how liberals, in general, decide to protect society.  Two years suspended sentence for first degree murder.  What a wonderful island Britain has become.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We don't have degree's of murder

[Emsworth]

On the whole, I do not think that the English criminal justice system is necessarily too lenient on criminals (although this case is clearly an exception). On the contrary, the rights of defendants have been excessively eroded.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is perhaps the most clear example. The act swept away one of the most fundamental protections of defendants, the prohibition of double jeopardy. Even worse, the law applied retroactively to crimes committed before its passage. Other measures adopted under David Blunkett also come to mind.

[Richard]

We don't have degree's of murder

But I do and that is how I decided to phrase it.  I couldn't care what you decide to call it, but she murdered someone in cold blood and you let her go.  Great going there guys.

[Bono]

On the whole, I do not think that the English criminal justice system is necessarily too lenient on criminals (although this case is clearly an exception). On the contrary, the rights of defendants have been excessively eroded.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is perhaps the most clear example. The act swept away one of the most fundamental protections of defendants, the prohibition of double jeopardy. Even worse, the law applied retroactively to crimes committed before its passage. Other measures adopted under David Blunkett also come to mind.

They need a new Oliver Cromwell.

[Speed of Sound]

2 YEARS?!? SHE GETS 2 YEARS FOR KILLING HER SON WITH A PLASTIC BAG?!?! WHAT THE HELL? That is unbelievable!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here I am...  This is how liberals, in general, decide to protect society.  Two years suspended sentence for first degree murder.  What a wonderful island Britain has become.

and what the hell does this have to do with liberals? We have no clue of the political affiliation of the judge.

[Richard]

Here I am...  This is how liberals, in general, decide to protect society.  Two years suspended sentence for first degree murder.  What a wonderful island Britain has become.

and what the hell does this have to do with liberals? We have no clue of the political affiliation of the judge.

Liberals are in power.  Liberals are soft on crime.

[Alcon]

Here I am...  This is how liberals, in general, decide to protect society.  Two years suspended sentence for first degree murder.  What a wonderful island Britain has become.

and what the hell does this have to do with liberals? We have no clue of the political affiliation of the judge.

Liberals are in power.  Liberals are soft on crime.

So, why is it not the Republican's fault when lax sentences are handed out in the United States?

[Speed of Sound]

Here I am...  This is how liberals, in general, decide to protect society.  Two years suspended sentence for first degree murder.  What a wonderful island Britain has become.

and what the hell does this have to do with liberals? We have no clue of the political affiliation of the judge.

Liberals are in power.  Liberals are soft on crime.

Yes. Its the liberals fault. Thats why most of the liberals on here find it absurd. (Especially me.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here I am...  This is how liberals, in general, decide to protect society.  Two years suspended sentence for first degree murder.  What a wonderful island Britain has become.

and what the hell does this have to do with liberals? We have no clue of the political affiliation of the judge.

Liberals are in power.  Liberals are soft on crime.

The Liberals haven't been in power since 1922. And accusing the current government of being "soft on crime" is just plain wrong.

[Michael Z]

Here I am...  This is how liberals, in general, decide to protect society.  Two years suspended sentence for first degree murder.  What a wonderful island Britain has become.

and what the hell does this have to do with liberals? We have no clue of the political affiliation of the judge.

Liberals are in power.  Liberals are soft on crime.

As Al said, liberals aren't in power and haven't been in power for a very long time. Besides, how would you know the political affiliation of the judge? This "liberal" here thoroughly disagrees with the sentence, as do several other "liberals" in this thread.

Of course, if liberals are so bad, perhaps you'd like to go back to the days when homosexuality was still illegal? The danger, throughout history, has never come from liberals, but from Fascistic "I'm right, you're wrong" ideologues.