Wife Killer Jailed for 11 years!

Re: Wife Killer Jailed for 11 years!


Source

Well, that's one of the reasons, why only a few countries still have juries.

Your probably right Walter. Still, a lot of our judges are not much better.

Wife killer jailed for 11 years
By Marc Moncrief
December 9, 2004 - 12:23PM

Convicted wife killer James Stuart Ramage has been sentenced to 11 years jail for the manslaughter of his estranged wife Julie Ramage.

Mr Ramage, 45, in October was found not guilty of murder after a Victorian Supreme Court jury agreed with the defence argument that Ms Ramage had provoked him with verbal taunting and gestures.

Outside the court, Ms Ramage's twin sister, Jane Ashton, said the sentence was too light. She said her family had been let down by the system which continued to allow the lawyers to invoke the defence of provocation.

The jury was told Julie Ramage provoked her husband by telling him she had met someone else and that sex with her husband repulsed her.

Ramage bashed and strangled his wife of 23 years at the family home on July 21 last year, a month after she had left him and moved into a Toorak apartment.

Ramage dumped her body in a shallow grave near Kinglake and attempted to cover up the crime.

He surrendered to police that night after sharing dinner with his teenage son and meeting lawyers, the jury heard.

The manslaughter verdict sparked outrage by community groups and led Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls to vow to abolish the provocation defence.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission's defences of homicide final report also urged the government to abolish submitting provocation as a defence for murder.

In Victoria the maximum sentence for manslaughter is 20 years.

Trial judge justice Robert Osborn ordered Ramage serve a minimum jail term of eight years before being eligible for parole.

Justice Osborn told an impassive Ramage: "I am satisfied the killing was deliberate and done with murderous intent.

"The killing was brutal, involving an overwhelming and continuing assault on a smaller and weaker victim."

He said the case was not one of "objectively extreme provocation".

The judge said he was not persuaded that Ramage had expressed real remorse for the killing.

Protesters outside the court said the sentence was too light.

Ms Ashton said the judge's comments implied to her that the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which include an end to the defence of provocation, would be applied.

"This type of case hopefully will not be seen in Victoria again,'' she said.

The 11 year sentence, which carried an eight year minimum, means Ramage may only serve six-and-a-half years after the time he has already served is counted.

"If it was murder, that would not be the sentence,'' Ms Ashton said. "It's the system that's let us down.''

Ms Ashton said that, apart from the defence of provocation, the rules of evidence banning hearsay had worked against her dead sister, who could not speak for herself.

"Julie's voice wasn't heard,'' she said. "She was demonised and her character was brought into question. And his character, he was portrayed as a pitiful, distraught man.''

"A man who has been an abuser for a number of years, that history has to be taken into account.''

"The judicial system's been out of step with society for a long while and that the old boys network and the patriarchal system, which is the courts, is on its way down.''

"Society is saying that domestic violence will not be tolerated.''

Liz Olle of the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre said: "Given that 20 years is avaiable for a manslaughter charge, 11 years in insufficient."

- with AAP

The issue here is whether "provocation" should be accepted, leading to the verdict being manslaughter rather than murder. There had apparently been a long history of violence & abuse on the husband's part in this marriage, however this was deemed inadmissable in the court. The wife's admission of a new relationship to her husband (with no other witnesses) was accepted as being so provocative as to lead him to kill her in an act of passion.

Yes, but it seems a lack of common sense to me. Surely a persons life is worth more than 8 years. If i was the parents of the woman killed, I would be outraged that he could be back out after 8 years. It seems crazy.

In terms of the law there's a difference between the sentences for manslaughter & murder (homicide). The jury decided that Ramage's crime was manslaughter, on the basis of "provocation". There is a lot of disagreement about verdict, as you can see. Even the judge seems to share this view. There is now a lot of debate about the validity of the "provocation" defense.

It doesn't seem much like justice to me. But my heart always go to the victim and victims family rather than to the person who committed the crime.

It's really good, if the heart goes to the victims and their families, not only in murder cases.

However, it's quite good to have a criminal law as well instead of judgements based on "It doesn't seem much like justice to me" as well.

Too right Walter. That is why I would never make a good judge. My judgements would be made with my heart, rather than applying the relevant law.

An US soldier was sentenced to three years in prison for murder of a wounded Iraqi - murder of a 16-year old wounded, to be precise.

Just wondering, why you didn't complain about this as well ...

Completely separate situations. One is by a soldier in war time conditions, the other a husband killing his wife. It is sad that you find domestic violence so mundane.

Obviously I miss the point, which leads you to this judgement.

I don't approve of a us soldier killing a 16 year old boy. But in a war like situation, it is hard to judge actions of soldiers. It would be absolutely hell being there, having insurgents firing at you all the time, seeing your friends blown up or shot, who knows. Have you seen the film black hawk down? It gives you a realistic understanding of why so many innocent somalians died as well as the soldiers. You are getting fired upon all the time and don't have time to rationally appraise who is the bad guy and who is the innocent. I would hate to be a soldier in iraq at the moment.

Walter, It is sad that Germany is losing its cultural heritage. Because of the war and hitler, Germany now is at the other extreme where it is over tolerant of foreigners. Not only, does it let such huge amounts of refugess and turkish into the country, but it gives them government benefits, subsidised health, free german language classes and all sorts of other benefits. How it can afford it? I believe that because of the war, that the German government feels it has to over compensate for this and wants to show the world how liberal and multi cultural it is. But it overdoes it. Germany virtually has no culture now. It is sad. It should forget about the war, the past is past, and worry about building a better future for the german citizens.

Thanks for your careful thoughts about my home country.

You can count yourself lucky to live in a country, which remained free from immigrants and could preserve its thousands of years old cultural heritage.

Thanks. A lot of German people I know want to pack up and come to Australia.

I have nothing against personally against the turkish immigrants that come to Germany. I just think the German government is too liberal. And they should definately not pay unlimited benefits to them either. It sends the wrong message. It is saying " Come to our country. We will pay you and you don't even have to work". People will take advantage of that.

I love Germany and go there all the time. That is why I care about the country's future and culture retention. If I didn't like the country, I wouldn't give a stuff what happens to it.

We were ruled quite some time by conservatives. They invited the Turkish.

And it's just the crux that we have this constitution of us, created by this Christian belief of it's creators, who created the "social wellfare state" as well.

Yes I know. But the problem is, with such high welfare payments, germany has a rapidly ageing population and the birth rate is reasonably low. Plus the high debt due to the reunification of east and west.

As I said before, all the people I know are bavarian so maybe they are more to the right than the rest of germany. Munich is very expensive to live as well, so there would be less turkish immigrants than say hamburg or berlin.

Berlin is worldwide the 28th most expensive city, Munich the 43th.