Re: 25-year-old woman beats up her 29-year-old boyfriend and he dies a
The death seems like an unintentional consequence of their drunken fight to me from the limited information presented here. So, while I agree that some form of punishment is necessary, is "throwing the book at her" in order to fulfill some real or imagined gender disparity really the answer?
If the boyfriend killed the girlfriend instead, would we even be asking the question? I doubt it.
Is making a point by sending this woman to prison for so long that her kids effectively lose both parents the best option?
Again, if the father killed the mother instead, would he be considered the best option to raise them? Seems like they're gonna live elsewhere regardless of the outcome here.
I don't presume to speak for other people or society at large. I can only speak for me. If the roles were reversed but the circumstances the same: intoxication possibly leading to diminished capacity, no history of domestic violence, both parties involved in escalating the situation instead of simply leaving, and the death (seemingly) being an accidental result of trying to subdue the spouse, I would want the court to take that into consideration and determine whether removing the parent (mother or father) from the rest of these children's lives entirely was the best option.
There's no doubt that the parent is going to removed for a period of years regardless, and the kids are going to have to live elsewhere for that time. I'm just saying that there's a difference between someone with a repeated pattern of abuse (which there is no indication of here at this time) and someone who had a fight that got out of hand one time and tragically resulted in a death when there was no apparent intent to kill.
Why would this mother (or father) be considered a likely threat to her children as a result of this incident when she has no prior history of spousal or child abuse that we know of? If she's not, why should she never get the opportunity to raise her children again? Are we just throwing out all pretense of giving criminals a chance to rehabilitate themselves and be productive members of society again?
Of course, that depends on things which we don't have access to yet, like whether she's regretful of her actions and willing to take steps (like getting in a treatment program) to deal with her drinking and anger issues.
Suspect that most guys that kill their wife/gf regret it at some point or other, but taking an anger management class doesn't make it better.
Only reason they haven't already locked her up for a nice long time is because the gender roles are reversed. A guy in the same situation wouldn't stand a chance...
I also suspect that most guys who kill their wives have a long history of spousal abuse leading up to that final deliberate act rather than apparent accidental asphyxiation while trying to subdue them. So, the regret part doesn't really carry the same weight as someone who doesn't have a history and committed their crime accidentally.
And it's not just because the gender roles are reversed, though that certainly may play a significant part for some people. It's because this isn't a typical black-and-white, open-and-shut case of spousal abuse leading to death. To treat it as if it were to make a point about how unfair the legal system is as the OP seems to be doing is disingenuous at best.
Point out where I said otherwise. Where the drinking and her intent comes in is in what type of manslaughter she is charged with.
Intent is the only thing that distinguishes this between manslaughter and murder. Her alcohol consumption that day is irrelevant, it doesn't come in to it at all.
Not sure what Ohio's position on diminished capacity is, but the alcohol consumption certainly could play a part depending on that. And there are varying types/degrees of manslaughter she can be charged with, so the difference between murder and manslaughter is not the only consideration.
