should she go to jail?

[Asguard]

i was reading this story and wondering, what benifit is it to send this women to prision really?

I mean she has lost her husband and she will have to live with this for the rest of her life, it wasnt delibrate, she wasnt trying to kill or even injure him and it was HIS choice in the first place. Not only does she get prision but she gets labled as a murder and if she works in health or education would probably lose her job and be unemployable and for WHAT?

Wife kills husband during kinky sex session

Adelaide Now
CHRISTINE FLATLEY
August 08, 2008 01:00pm


A WOMAN who accidentally killed her bondage-obsession husband during a kinky sex session has been jailed for 12 months.

The Brisbane Supreme Court heard Geoffrey Braunack, 47, was obsessed with being tied up boasting he could escape from any situation.

The three-day trial of Jean Margaret Meiers, 58, was told Braunack died at the couple's secluded home at Beerburrum, on the Sunshine Coast, on November 1, 2004.

Prosecutors detailed how Meiers taped Mr Braunack's mouth and used rope, tape and a dog chain to tie him to a concrete post on their patio.

She then left him while she took a shower. When she returned, Mr Braunack was not breathing.

Attempts to revive him failed, with an autopsy later finding he died of asphyxiation.

Meiers told the jury she had tied up her husband hundreds of times before the final fateful occasion.

She said Branauck had been hassling her to be tied up since the early afternoon.

She eventually agreed so he would stop annoying her.

Meiers said there was nothing different about the way she tied him up on that occasion – and that she had no reason to harm Mr Braunack.

"I expected him to escape while I was in having a shower," she said.

Meiers said she had previously tied Mr Braunack up and then left him alone for extended periods of time – and he always had escaped.

On one occasion she went to work and remained away from the house for 10 hours.

The jury today took less than a day to find Meiers guilty of manslaughter.

Justice Ann Lyons said it was clear Meiers had not intended to kill her husband but that she should have foreseen the possible consequences of her behaviour.

"You engaged in a dangerous practice and he was clearly bound too tightly and he was not supervised," she said.

Justice Lyons sentenced Meiers to three years jail, to be suspended after one year.

viewed 08/08/08 at 15:30

 

[shorty_37]

Geoffrey Braunack, 47, was obsessed with being tied up boasting he could escape from any situation.

Guess he won't be bragging now.

Meiers taped Mr Braunack's mouth and used rope, tape and a dog chain to tie him to a concrete post on their patio.

Gives new meaning to "being in the doghouse"


It's all fun and games until somebody dies on the patio with a dog collar on and duct tape.

 

[greenberg]

i was reading this story and wondering, what benifit is it to send this women to prision really?

I mean she has lost her husband and she will have to live with this for the rest of her life, it wasnt delibrate, she wasnt trying to kill or even injure him and it was HIS choice in the first place.

I agree with the judge:

Justice Ann Lyons said it was clear Meiers had not intended to kill her husband but that she should have foreseen the possible consequences of her behaviour.

"You engaged in a dangerous practice and he was clearly bound too tightly and he was not supervised," she said.

Freely going along with another person's desires does not absolve one from responsibility for the outcome of those actions.
Had the woman been coerced or be temporarily insane at the time of the action, things would be different. But what happened was that she freely engaged into an action that she could reasonably foresee was potentially harmful.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Meiers told the jury she had tied up her husband hundreds of times before the final fateful occasion.

How do we know that this is a true statement?

What if she deleberatly tied him up and made it look like an accident?

Perhaps she wanted to get rid of him for someone new?

To many things could have happened here , to me, to not give her even more time in prison. Just because she made up this story doesn't mean she's telling the whole truth about what happened, is it?

 

[Asguard]

umm cosmic the same could be said about the kid who shot that women "thinking she was a bear"

i assume as the judge belived her (as stated in the ruling) that there was coberating evidence

 

[cosmictraveler]

coberating evidence

You mean her word that her husband did this all the time and her word that he enjoyed doing it? I really don't think that is corroborating evidence.


corroborating : to support with evidence or authority : make more certain

 

[Asguard]

umm cosmic did you actually sit through the trial?
maybe his x turned up, maybe his friends agreed, maybe he had a diary, i dont know. Either way im quite happy to belive the judge who oviously belives her.

the point of this question wasnt to debate her story but to ask "accepting her story as true should she have gone to jail"

 

[cosmictraveler]

umm cosmic did you actually sit through the trial?
maybe his x turned up, maybe his friends agreed, maybe he had a diary, i dont know. Either way im quite happy to belive the judge who oviously belives her.

the point of this question wasnt to debate her story but to ask "accepting her story as true should she have gone to jail"

No, I wasn't at the trial and am only assessing this case as it is presented to me here. I don't know more than what was stated and in that statement you posted nowhere was their anything about corroborating evidence mentioned. If it was brought up why didn't this article mention it? Don't you think that something as important as that would at least get mentioned here in this statement? Why leave that important evidence out?

 

[Asguard]

because its a statement of judgement not a statement of evidence?

as i said i dont know if there was corroborating evidence or not, im willing to take the judges sentancing remarks at face value, she oviously belives the women so im willing to belive her too.

now can we get back on topic?
accepting the judges remarks as correct that this was just an accident should she be in jail?

 

[cosmictraveler]

I'd say she got away with murder myself so she deserves this and more.

 

[Eidolan]

That was really stupid of her and her partner. They should have known that you have to have someone there to be safe if you are going to do that.

I agree with the sentence that she received.

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

"She said Branauck had been hassling her to be tied up since the early afternoon.

She eventually agreed so he would stop annoying her. "

That's enough for me. No.

 

[Asguard]

i agree with you Eidolan it was stupid but i also agree with Betrayer0fHope it was a tragic acident. hinesite is 20:20 after all, if this was a ritual for them im sure they didnt even think of it as dangerious anymore, just fun. its sad but its still an acident, we all do potentually fatal things everyday without even thinking of the risk

 

[Orleander]

I think it would fall under manslaughter here. Yes, she is where the rules say you should be.

 

[Simon Anders]

How do we know that this is a true statement?

What if she deleberatly tied him up and made it look like an accident?

In a sense that is beside the point. The judge thought it was not intentional AND sent this person to jail. You are raising a different kind of ethical issue.

 

[cosmictraveler]

In a sense that is beside the point. The judge thought it was not intentional AND sent this person to jail. You are raising a different kind of ethical issue.

Why would it be a different issue? She killed her husband didn't she? I stated what I thought MIGHT have happened with only the information that I read. I wasn't there, as was already stated, so I didn't get to hear everything that was presented. I'm basing my answer only on what I was given in the OP. I really don't see anything that is besides the point when I suggest it was murder if all I have is the statement given by the OP. Tell me, why wouldn't it be murder if say she set the whole thing up herself so that he wouldn't "get out" of his being tied up and gaged? What if her intentions were nothing more than having a way to cover her tracks without being convicted of murder?

 

[John99]

If it is obvious he volunteered thEn NO. Absolutely not.

 

[skaught]

I think its appropriate for her to spend some time in jail. 12 months might be a little lengthy, But really, she should have been more careful. I think it also serves as a warning to other people who want to engage in dangerous behaviors that if something goes wrong, there will be consequences to serve. I'm sure the woman feels terrible, but theres really no way for her to prove all of this:

Meiers told the jury she had tied up her husband hundreds of times before the final fateful occasion.
She said Branauck had been hassling her to be tied up since the early afternoon.
She eventually agreed so he would stop annoying her.
Meiers said there was nothing different about the way she tied him up on that occasion – and that she had no reason to harm Mr Braunack.
"I expected him to escape while I was in having a shower," she said.
Meiers said she had previously tied Mr Braunack up and then left him alone for extended periods of time – and he always had escaped.
On one occasion she went to work and remained away from the house for 10 hours.

My guess is that she got annoyed with him, tied him up much tighter than normal due to being frustrated with him, and left him unattended. But of course she wont admit that because it sounds like she's playing the victim. And he certainly isn't around to say what really happened.
Putting her in jail sends the message to people who engage in these practices that they will need to take more precautions, or they will serve jail time, even if it was an accident.

 

[vslayer]

jail should be a last resort for people who are incurable dangerous criminals and need to be removed from society, not a place of punishment for people who make stupid mistakes.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Manslaughter is not the same thing as murder, which is why we have the two different names for them. So she is not a murderess.

She engaged in a highly reckless behavior, but I am on the fence over whether it was so reckless that it deserves to be called manslaughter. On Law & Order, I'm sure they'd settle on this being "Criminally Negligent Homicide."