Oxford University student who stabbed her lover in a drink & drug fuelled row could be spared jail

[Miss Molly]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4510778/Student-stabbed-lover-spared-jail.html

What is the world coming to?

[Mick Mac]

Hmmmm. Seems soft obvs, but whether its more helpful than a prison sentence, who knows.

If she reoffends the judicial system will have serious egg on its face/possible blood on hands.

Perhaps the period between the offence and trial has shown her to be drug free etc.

[JoeLeg]

It's the DM, they have an agenda.

If the defendant hadn't been white, blond and pretty I doubt very much that this would be covered by them.

Having said that, I'm torn between my belief that the independence of the judiciary must be maintained, as results like this are part of that, and my feeling that escaping a custodial sentence because of what it might do to your future is not quite right when you've taken someone's life.

Overall I hope there's more to her case than is reported by the DM. On the surface of it this seems dodgy, but the Mail isn't a source I'd trust on issues like this. They like to bash judges.

[TE44]

Did she kill him? It's basically the same

story wherever you read it. But no reports on

How bad the injury was.wrong for a decision

to be reached on how bright she is etc.

Suppose it shows that the GMC

employing convicted criminals might not be

something that is questionable.

The junior doctor working in paediatrics from Lordship Lane jailed

for indecent photos of children (family

Roo) could be practising again.

Feels like not only the courts have laws that

can be individualy indiscriminate.

[Abe_froeman]

If the defendant hadn't been white, blond and pretty I doubt very much that there would have been a story at all because she would be in gaol, where she belongs.

[Nigello]

I think that it is less to do with colour and sex and more to do with "promise". Judges will have been through the academic grind, perhaps hving attended Oxbridge and other top unis as part of their training, and will sympathise with people they consider to be too promising to tarnish with a custodial sentence in their early years.

[Abe_froeman]

Education should be as irrelevant as ethnicity. For me there is no difference at all between an Oxford medical student and a gangbanger with no qualifications if they choose to stab somebody with bread knife.

[titch juicy]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Education should be as irrelevant as ethnicity.

> For me there is no difference at all between an

> Oxford medical student and a gangbanger with no

> qualifications if they choose to stab somebody

> with bread knife.

Yes. This.

I really struggle to understand the argument that because someone has a promising future they should be spared a custodial sentence. It's white middle class privilege at it's worst. They've had a privileged start in life, in my opinion they should be treated at least as harshly as someone that hasn't. Perhaps there's even an argument that the law should come down harder on them.

[Nigello]

Would you, titchjuicy, be OK with the judge doing exactly the same to a promising, female Chinese or black, etc. student, one that isn't tainted with "WMCP"? If you remove the colour and class, are there no other privileges to be taken into account (such as, perhaps, the privilege of being naturally academic or the privilege of having parents that are especially invested in your education even if they are poor or even the privilege of having been born in the right time and the right place to allow you to even consider to go to college)?

[DaveR]

It's absolutely par for the course to say in mitigation for a young defendant "he/she has a really bright future, this was a one off, please pass a sentence that isn't going to f*ck up their life for ever". Obviously you need no/few previous convictions to stand a chance of getting this off the ground, and to have a realistic prospect you need to have some good evidence, but it's certainly not unknown, and in fact some judges are known to be more open to this sort of argument than others. It's also not limited to academic middle class type stuff - in my experience you can also get a result with 'promising young footballer, on the books of a good pro club' or (in front of the right kind of judge) 'serving soldier, has/will risk his life for his country'.

Also absolutely standard to say, where drugs are a factor in the offending, "he/she is now clean so no/little risk of further offending", and similar caveats - judges will have heard that one before a hundred times, at least.

So nothing unusual in this case about those elements, but the particular offence and offender make it 'interesting'.

[titch juicy]

You can remove all the labels for all i care.

It simply boils down to a question of why one person should be spared prison because she might have a promising future, whereas someone that might not doesn't get the same privileged treatment from a judge.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Personally, I wouldn't want a surgeon who had a history of drug addition anywhere near me.

I would say it's a prime example of pretty white priviledge and that the judge probably fancied her

[KidKruger]

Her fault she was on drugs.

Her fault she was on alcohol.

Her fault she attached victim with a knife (and other weapons).

Why are intoxicants persistently used as the basis for leniency, like it was something done 'to' them ?!

Most people with a 'troubled' background don't knife others during arguments - not a justification.

If you've got a lot of promise and talent, and you've worked hard to get to where you are to forge a great future for yourself, then it's down to you to ensure you protect that future as best you can - not use it as an excuse to justify heinous acts. If you've a lot to lose, then don't squander it - others will learn (and benefit) from your loss.

What about precedence - will the next 'person of good character' now use their promising future as a caveat for whatever imprisonable offence they commit, citing this case as why they should be let off ?

And finally, it's like a 2-tier viewpoint, where less privileged persons may get heavier sentencing just because they don't (yet) have the options available to the subject of this case.

It's total bollox.

[JohnL]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Her fault she was on drugs.

> Her fault she was on alcohol.

> Her fault she attached victim with a knife (and

> other weapons).

> Why are intoxicants persistently used as the basis

> for leniency, like it was something done 'to' them

> ?!

> Most people with a 'troubled' background don't

> knife others during arguments - not a

> justification.

> If you've got a lot of promise and talent, and

> you've worked hard to get to where you are to

> forge a great future for yourself, then it's down

> to you to ensure you protect that future as best

> you can - not use it as an excuse to justify

> heinous acts. If you've a lot to lose, then don't

> squander it - others will learn (and benefit) from

> your loss.

> What about precedence - will the next 'person of

> good character' now use their promising future as

> a caveat for whatever imprisonable offence they

> commit, citing this case as why they should be let

> off ?

> And finally, it's like a 2-tier viewpoint, where

> less privileged persons may get heavier sentencing

> just because they don't (yet) have the options

> available to the subject of this case.

> It's total bollox.

Except I'm sure I've heard the "He never stood a

chance coming from where he came" argument used also

in mitigation,

[KidKruger]

Like I said: "Most people with a 'troubled' background don't knife others during arguments - not a justification".

[DaveR]

"I would say it's a prime example of pretty white priviledge and that the judge probably fancied her"

I would say that this says more about you and your prejudices than shedding any light on the case, but there you go.

[uncleglen]

She's 24 and a trainee medic- she should therefore have known better on several levels and should be dealt with harshly. How could she avoid the temptation of free drugs with her attitude at 24 years old?

[Jules-and-Boo]

really? what do you think that says about me?

moot point, as I was not involved in making decisions about a drug addict with a propensity to uncontrolled violence having a future as a heart surgeon

[TE44]

Money talks, the best barrister, date when a certain judge is on, who you know, or maybe, as another poster said, can relate with background.

I think the judge said something like its a one

off, or exception to the rule shit.

[Mark]

"Having sat through the entire case and heard the facts I am in a position to make a considered judgement" said...

a) The Judge

b) The people who read an article in the Mail

I'm glad people's sentences are decided by judges and not the majority, but it would make a top TV programme. Imagine... Time or No Time - you hear the prosecution and the defence for one minute each then you decide what people get: green button for freedom, blue button for community service, yellow for prison or red button for a hanging. Choose now and we'll be back with your decision on their life after the break...

[red devil]

TV series Crown Court from the 70's had fictional cases with actors but the jury were formed from the public...Mark's version obviously sexes it up

 

[TE44]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Having sat through the entire case and heard the

> facts I am in a position to make a considered

> judgement" said...

>

> a) The Judge

> b) The people who read an article in the Mail

>

> I'm glad people's sentences are decided by judges

> and not the majority, but it would make a top TV

> programme. Imagine... Time or No Time - you hear

> the prosecution and the defence for one minute

> each then you decide what people get: green button

> for freedom, blue button for community service,

> yellow for prison or red button for a hanging.

> Choose now and we'll be back with your decision on

> their life after the break...

Most of the papers have got the same story telegraph etc but as has been said, no detail on injury. It might seem like a fun game show, but

It's not about the public deciding the sentence

It's about having an opinion, if your son, brother

was imprisoned doing 2yrs for carrying a knife

after being attacked several times on his estate, the last time he used the knife causing a cut which needed stitched on the victim (assailant) arm. The judge took into consideration it was first conviction so showed leniency. Then you read a story like this,

Yes people make assumptions. No we were not in court yes we have media that does not put over

the full story and encourages a divide. It is also assumption to think people are only being led by the daily mail etc rather than from a more personal view.

[TE44]

http://www.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/graduate-admissions-policy/graduate-applicants-previous-criminal-convictions

From what I can make out from this link specifically Cambridge Uni, she may still be allowed to study there after a prison sentence.

As they have already made a decision on returning,

she'd be sorted.

[TE44]

Same for convicted sex offenders, in a hospital

situation, or any other criminal offences.

[Help-Ma-Boab]

I came across this blog re the case:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/05/16/an-oxford-medical-student-stabbed-her-boyfriend-with-a-bread-knife-so-why-is-she-not-going-to-prison/