Woman Convicted In Boyfriend's Death Set Free

[Rage for Order]

http://www.koco.com/r/27371157/detail.html

A teenager who said she "snapped" before fatally running over her boyfriend was allowed to go free on Wednesday. Jasmine Cotter, 18, pleaded no contest to first-degree manslaughter. As part of a blind plea, she received a 10-year deferred sentence.

In October, investigators said Cotter told them she snapped during an argument with Damian Ruston along Highway 1 just outside of Ada. Investigators said she told a highway patrol trooper that Ruston had spit in her face, "flipped her off," then cursed at her and she ran him over, killing him. According to the arrest affidavit, she failed a field sobriety test before being arrested.

Part of Cotter's sentencing includes 500 hours of community service. If she violates her deferred sentence anytime in the next 10 years, she could go to prison for four years to life. Ruston's friend's said they can't believe Cotter was allowed to go free. "That's murder. You know, to me, that was murder. She said, 'I'm gonna run you over,' and then done it and then gets to walk on it -- it's ridiculous," Ruston's friend, April Rawlings, said.

The sentence has been a major topic of conversation at the diner where Rawlings works. Many have asked what the punishment would be if the roles had been reversed. "If the situation had been reversed, would it be like this? I think they would have just sent him to jail -- it wouldn't be nothing like this," Rawlings said



More at the link. I think the question of what would have happened if the roles were reversed is legitimate. Would everyone, including the justice system in particular, be ready to let bygones be bygones, as was done in this instance? Somehow I don't think that would be the case.

[Liquorice]

1. Men get away with murdering women much more frequently than the other way

around. But I guess you could argue that it's probably because they murder so many more women than women murder men.

[Kitty Herder]

2. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

4. So that makes this okay?

Jesus.

[Liquorice]

6. That makes what okay? It's never okay to murder someone. nt

[Orrex]

5. Those aren't murders.

They're "domestic disputes."

[Rage for Order]

8. So do you regard this as simply evening the scales a bit? n/t

[Liquorice]

12. You asked what would have happened if this was the other way around,

and implied that a a man would never get away with such a thing. But men get away with murdering women a lot more frequently than women get away with murdering men. That's my point.

[Rage for Order]

16. In sheer numbers, yes. But what about as a percentage of offenses?

I'd be interested to see what percentage of men get no jail time in cases like this. There's no question of motive or guilt, just a sympathetic judge and a victim's parent who asked for leniency.

[Liquorice]

18. That's what I wrote in my original post. "But I guess you could argue that

it's probably because they murder so many more women than women murder men." Men are murdering women at rates that can't come close to the rates at which women murder men. Doesn't it bother you that men are murdering women so much more frequently, or do you just care that this woman got away with murder? Your concern is only whether more women get away with murder by percentage?

Perhaps we should go over some of the many cases in which men have gotten away with the murder, rape, and beatings of women. The numbers are quite alarming.

[Xipe Totec]

3. I can see both sides

Had the roles been reversed, yea, probably he would go to jail for life.

On the other hand, what is the purpose of our corrections system? To punish, or to rehabilitate.

If she stays clean for ten years, and serves the community, then I say it was worth while; she was rehabilitated and the system worked.

What we should be looking for, is for men to be given a chance to rehabilitate too, rather than driving toward the lowest common denominator which is to punish her because that's what we do to men too.

This is a sad event. Let us hope we can salvage some human lives from this wreckage.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I think prisons should be for people who harm or kill others through violence.

We're locking up pot smokers, for fuck's sake. Why don't we start with them for "understanding" instead of an actual killer?

[Rage for Order]

11. The primary goal of prisons should be to punish

If there's a chance to rehabilitate an offender then give it a shot, but always remember that first and foremost the prisoners are there because they are being punished.

[Xipe Totec]

15. If that's the case, just kill them and be done with it.

Far cheaper.

If the purpose is to punish, not to rehabilitate, then you can never release a prisoner. Ever.

Without rehabilitation, there is no point in ever releasing a prisoner back into society. Period.

Punishment for punishment sake is vengeance.

[Paradoxical]

19. The primary goal of prison SHOULD be rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, our "justice" system is more worried about bullshit vengeance.

[pnwmom]

9. After she's rehabilitated, she could be First Lady some day.

Laura Bush did it, right?

[Samantha]

13. Well, even unrehabilitated, she could manage Sarah Palin's campaign

Probably a natural for that.

[Orrex]

14. Yeah, but first you have to marry a draft-dodging DUI cokehead

Is it really worth it, in the long run?

[pnwmom]

17. Yeah, that would be the biggest barrier.

Definitely not worth it!

[Paradoxical]

10. Assuming there isn't prior abuse (which there could have been), this is straight up murder.

She shouldn't be let off the hook with time deferred.