Judge denounces mandatory sentences, then gives woman 50 years for shooting husband

[Tiassa]

Judge calls mandatory sentencing "wrong," then sentences battered wife to 50 years
Iowa woman shot husband, left body in home; 35 of 50 years minimum.

District Judge Charles Smith said, during the sentencing, "The mandatory minimum sentencing structure imposed on this court is in my opinion is wrong . . . It may be legal, but it is wrong."

36 year-old Dixie Shanahan will be required to serve a minimum of 35 years of the sentence for second-degree murder.

In her defense Shanahan, who lied to the police about her husband's fate, claimed to have shot him in self-defense after three days of beatings that came about because she was pregnant and refused to get an abortion.

Commentary:

I support this sentence for one reason. In the Drug War, people have been sent up for twenty-five years for possession of marijuana. Judges frequently called the mandatory sentencing structures "wrong," and some even apologized to the defendants before sentencing them. But this is the first time I've seen that logic stick outside the Drug War. Other mandatory, even voter-approved criminal-justice issues have been challenged.

So I support this sentence for the simple reason that it seems to aptly describe the problem of mandatory sentencing. This is our lamb; my heart goes out, but this is how it must be if justice is ever to be served.

And if there is a God in heaven, her prosecutors will be condemned.
____________________

• Associated Press. "Woman sentenced to 50 years for shooting husband." May 10, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/10/missing.husband.ap/index.html

 

[sargentlard]

HMM......Justice is blind.

She shoots an abusive man for her welfare and her unborn child's welfare but her only fault is she didn't end his miserable life when he was brutally attacking her....oh its self defense then but not when the fucker was sleeping, because as we all know sleeping abusive men are so much less dangerous then the ones who are beating on their pregnant wives.


...and 35 years? Should't the fact she was physically and emotionally drained for 18 years by constant abuse factor into her sentencing? First she gets fucked in her own house now she'll get fucked by society.

Call me an ass but I suggest suicide for her. Its clear no one cares for her anymore...not even her "god"

 

[Bells]

The justice system is, in itself, criminal. This would have to be one of the biggest jokes in law that I've seen in a while, and believe me, I've seen plenty.

How, or more to the point, why did the prosecutors even proceed with this case? Here we have a woman who had suffered abuse for 18 years and she finally defended herself when he beat her for several days for not aborting their child. Mandatory sentencing is a pathetic joke. As Tiassa pointed out, we've been witness to crimes such as majuanna possession getting 25 years. I've seen 18 year olds here in Australia being sentenced to 20+ years for extremely petty crimes. It's ridiculous.

This case has proven how mandatory sentencing is in effect, bad law. To be forced to sentence a woman to a minimum of 35 years for defending herself against an abusive husband should send some kind of messages to the legislature. Unfortunately, they have blinkers on and will probably find that justice is served with such sentences. I just like how the judge told her that 'no woman should have to put up with that' for the 18 years of abuse she'd suffered, but was still forced to give her the sentence.

Mandatory sentencing is taking away the ability of the judges to basically judge. Any discretion they may have had in sentencing is being taken from them, and this case is sad proof of where judicial discretion would have been preferable.

 

[Nasor]

Sorry, but you don't get to kill people just because they are abusive to you. Killing is only legally justified as self defense if your life in immediate danger - meaning that you're literally about to be killed in the next few moments. Perhaps this guy was a scum bag who deserved to die, but in a civil society people don't get to make that decision as individuals.

 

[Tiassa]

Sorry, but you don't get to kill people just because they are abusive to you. Killing is only legally justified as self defense if your life in immediate danger - meaning that you're literally about to be killed in the next few moments.

In theory. But come on ... this it the United States, where you can be shot to death for asking someone directions and that person will be acquitted. Why we have a fetish for empowering the victimization of women in this country is beyond me. But when someone learns that they cannot rely in any way on the civil society, they will sometimes make uncivilized decisions in order to restore civility.

In the United States you do not have to be in imminent danger of your life in order to kill someone. In addition to a slew of police murders being justified, there was a guy somewhere a few years ago who shot a 13 year-old for looking in his windows. The kid was apparently hungry and mongering for food. The homeowner's life was never in danger; his wellbeing was never threatened. He just decided that it was so he could shoot a child.

In fact, the only people who generally don't get to kill people at odd times are battered women.

This is America, man. We're a violent country that hates women. This happens every year.

In the meantime:

The governor declined to talk about whether the punishment handed down in Shanahan’s case fit the crime, saying he may have to consider a request from the woman for a pardon or commutation of her sentence.

Vilsack, a Democrat, said he supports mandatory minimum sentences in some cases involving crimes against people, but in other instances, such as drug offenses, he is not certain. (Quad-City Times)

It appears that much of Iowa is a little shocked at this. And it's not like anyone ever tried to help her, apparently:

Reports said she shot Scott and hid his body in the bedroom - that he'd been there for more than a year. They learned all that talk about Scott hitting Dixie and his mother was true. Some already knew it first-hand. Others heard about it at the post office or the country store . . . .

. . . . Marc Carl, a friend of Dixie and her husband, Jeff Duty, wants everyone who thinks the sentence is unfair to contact the governor.

"Maybe we can get her out," he said.

Carl testified at her trial. He told the court about Scott - that he was known as a violent man. He told about Dixie - how she came to work in pants and long-sleeve blouses when the temperature was 115 degrees inside . . . .

. . . . Carl's angry at the system, as are many in Defiance. Carl said Shanahan should have never been given his guns back. They were taken when he pleaded guilty to abusing Dixie, but the sheriff's office returned them so Shanahan could sell them.

"They shouldn't have given him those guns," he said. "This never would have happened" . . . .

. . . . She testified Scott beat his mother.

"I couldn't believe the jury didn't know the penalty," Schaben said. "They should know what she's getting. He beat the snot out of her. Scott was a spoiled brat. He beat his mother and his grandfather. He howled all night and slept all day." (Daily Nonpareil)

It just seems very strange--as I read through the press, it seems that I need to come to Sciforums before I find people who think her sentence is right.

I mean ... what a local authority--let's give the guns back to the violent criminal. It's just wife-beating. It's not like anyone's going to get killed, right? Right?
____________________

• Quad-City Times. "Vilsack says it’s time to reconsider Iowa’s mandatory sentencing laws." May 11, 2004. See http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1028092&l=1&t=Iowa+/+Illinois&c=24,1028092
• Daily Nonpareil. "Defiance liives up to its name." May 12, 2004. See http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11634498&BRD=2554&PAG=461&dept_id=507134&rfi=6

 

[Nasor]

Let me get this straight: you think that I’m “empowering the victimization of women” by suggesting that people shouldn’t be able to take the law into their own hands and kill anyone who they happen to believe deserves to die?

Of course there are cases of people getting away with unjustified shootings, and that’s terrible, but it doesn’t excuse what this woman did. Surely the solution is to raise standards rather then simply allow people to kill whoever they want?

 

[Xev]

Nasor:

Of course there are cases of people getting away with unjustified shootings, and that’s terrible, but it doesn’t excuse what this woman did. Surely the solution is to raise standards rather then simply allow people to kill whoever they want?

Please explain how treating a battered woman with some measure of clemency is "allowing people to kill whoever they wish". Your characterization is extremely inaccurate.

Certainly, a civil society ought to extend some sort of penalty to her - she was not in immediate danger and had a chance to escape rather than kill him - however, twenty years in prison is quite an immoderate sentance.

I don't see how a human being with any decency could argue that her sentance, as it stands, is appropriate.

tiassa:

In theory. But come on ... this it the United States, where you can be shot to death for asking someone directions and that person will be acquitted. Why we have a fetish for empowering the victimization of women in this country is beyond me. But when someone learns that they cannot rely in any way on the civil society, they will sometimes make uncivilized decisions in order to restore civility.

Quite well said.

 

[Nasor]

Maybe my view of the world is too black and white, but I don’t see why she should get any special leniency simply because she was abused by the person she murdered. I imagine that murderers are quite commonly mistreated in some way by their victims, but that in no way excuses or even mitigates the crime. The people of Iowa have evidentially decided that they want harsh punishment for all murderers. This woman should have considered that before she shot her husband.

 

[Xev]

Nasor:
Have you actually read the article?
He spent three days beating the shit out of her before breaking for a nap. Do you think that is conducive to rational thought? To a healthy evaluation of risk and options?

She was in effect tortured for years. I do not wish to mitigate her responsibility, but characterizing her as a mistreated person seeking simple revenge is ludicious.

Your view isn't black and white so much as outragously stupid.

 

[spidergoat]

I have sympathy for this woman, but she did a couple of things wrong. She could have called the police as easily as shot him, or just left, and, she covered up her act for a year, disturbing the crime scene so no one could really determine if it was self defence apart from her testimony.

 

[laughing weasel]

I am confused hadn't she already gone to the police and he plead guilty and she was back in the same situation? I am told that I am cold blooded at times but that seems pretty harsh to expect her to go to the police a second time and get beat for another three days. The law had failed her she did what she had to do to protect her child and they want to put her in jail for that? How does her incarceration serve society?

 

[sargentlard]

The law had failed her she did what she had to do to protect her child and they want to put her in jail for that? How does her incarceration serve society?

It doesn't, it doesn't at all. Calling the police would have only further enraged her husband. If she ran away you think he wouldn't have tried to find her....the man beat his own mother and grandfather, i doubt he'd give up so easily once she ran away.

The man was a useless fuck and she was overly docile like many women are when they are absued by their mates. She couldn't take it anymore and did the deed, she didn't care to hide her tracks or plan out the whole thing...after so much abuse one doesn't take percautions, one looks for the fastest way out.

The sentence is unfair anyway you look at it.