By now it's not news that the UK has a two-tiered justice system for men and women; I've submitted about it before:

Two Tired justice system

Expanded post

We've seen the rule that women will only be jailed for serious crimes. I would always wonder "how bad is this going to get?" and have dystopian images of a system where women are literally allowed to murder men and get away with it.

Well, that is actually happening. The UK, women who murder men are being released from prison, or not even being found guilty at all even after confession. I've going to present 3 cases to highlight this, but of course, there are more. These cases are specifically being supported by the feminist group Justice for Women, as you will see below.

---

SALLEY CHALLEN

BBC

Guardian

Two articles here, apologies if quotes cut back and forth.

Salley Challen murdered her husband with a hammer. It was NOT in self defense, because she drove to his home and attacked him when he was eating lunch. She claimed to have been a victim of emotional abuse, which is the common theme in these cases- emotional abuse is obviously wrong, but does NOT warrant murder, especially in a example that was clearly not self-defense.

She was released because it was ruled that she was 'not mentally responsible for her actions'

Following the appeal, a consultant psychiatrist assessed Mrs Challen and concluded that, at the time of the killing, she was suffering from "an abnormality of the mind that substantially impaired her mental responsibility for her acts," the Crown Prosecution Service said.

Coupled with medical reports from a prison psychiatrist, this was a "significant change from expert evidence previously available and has led us to conclude there is no longer sufficient evidence to proceed on a charge of murder," the CPS said

As you'll see in the articles, one of the main facets of the emotional abuse was that he visited brothels after they separated...so that justifies cold-blooded murder? Keep in mind, it wasn't done in self-defense:

Richard Challen was unfaithful throughout the marriage and frequently visited brothels. Sally Challen moved out of the family home in 2009 but was said to still be emotionally dependent on her husband. When she discovered he had contacted another woman, she hit him more than 20 times with a hammer.

Challen was supported by feminist Justice for Women, led by self-identifying radical feminist Harriet Wistrich.

Justice for Women said it was fighting 10 other similar cases. Harriet Wistrich, the organisation’s founder, said the CPS had a commitment and obligation to understand domestic violence, “but you don’t see it in practice. You see them going ahead as though they just want to win these cases. I would like to see them honour their commitments.”

10 other cases...so they are working on making this the norm, and soon, it will be.

The shadow equalities minister hailed the decision, implying the feminists in government are supportive of the idea being made law:

The shadow equalities minister, Carolyn Harris, said on Friday it was “landmark case for victims of coercive control”.

She wasn't defending herself, she drove to his house. So if this is a landmark case, will it become enshrined in law?

This link is important because it shows what the 'strategy' is, and you'll see it again in the other cases:

Clare Wade QC said: "The lack of knowledge about the theory of coercive control at the time of the appellant's trial meant that the partial defence of diminished responsibility was not put as fully as it could have been."

Ms Wade told the court that a lack of understanding of the "theory of coercive control" meant that Challen's defence "lacked cohesion and the appellant's actions were not properly explained".

Ms Wade said: "Had the jury had the benefit of the evidence going to coercive control, as well as an understanding of the dynamic of coercive control, then they would have come to a different conclusion and the appellant would have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter."

Note manslaughter. Also, note the premise of 'coercive control', and how the argument was 'the court didn't understand what coercive control was at the time of the initial sentencing'.

Had the jury had the benefit of the evidence going to coercive control, as well as an understanding of the dynamic of coercive control

But this is of course something that feminists have defined, and only seems to apply to women.

"It achieves compliance essentially by making victims afraid and by depriving them of rights, resources and liberties, without which they cannot effectively defend themselves, escape, refuse demands or resist."

That's nonsense, because they were already separated...she drove to him, not the other way around. I cannot imagine a man being released from prison after killing his wife using this argument...

---

PACKIAM RAMANATHAN

Sky news

This one may be the most blatant example of getting away with murder. Packiam Ramanathan beat her wheelchair bound husband to death with a wooden stick.

Kanagusabi Ramanathan, 76, called out "don't hit me" as his wife Packiam Ramanathan attacked him on 21 September last year, the Old Bailey heard.

She told the court: "It was like I was in a trance. I hit him. I do not know. I did not know what I was doing. I could not feel this. I remember him saying don't hit me. I remember I hit him.

Confession. Remember, he is in a wheelchair.

The 73-year-old pensioner denied murdering her husband but pleaded guilty to manslaughter, citing his bullying and abusive behaviour throughout their 35-year marriage.

Note manslaughter again.

He said: "The fact it was done in the way it was - with a stick - means there was no planning.

Why?

After deliberating for half an hour, the jury found Ramanathan not guilty of murder.

Can you imagine this happening if the genders were reversed?

Again, everything rests on the claims of abusive behavior...but in neither of these cases do those arguments hold up. In the first, she drove to his house, in the second, he was disabled and in a wheelchair and she beat him to death. It seems like this is becoming an 'organized strategy' to free female murderers from prison. Self defense is one thing, but neither of these cases were- is that all it will take, is claims of abusive behavior, to allow a woman to kill a man with impunity?

---

FARIEISSIA MARTIN

Independent

Martin stabbed and killed her 21 boyfriend. She was sentenced to life (minimum 13 years), but has been granted an appeal:

A young woman who was sentenced to life in prison for fatally stabbing her former partner has been granted the right to appeal against her murder conviction.

Farieissia Martin stabbed Kyle Farrell, 21, during an argument at her home in Liverpool in November 2014.

Martin, who was 22 when she was convicted of murder but is now 26, was imprisoned for at least 13 years after being found guilty of murder at Liverpool Crown Court in June 2015.

Firstly, a man would be unlikely to get 'minimum 13 years' for murdering a woman, it would be true life without parole.

Secondly, why is she getting this appeal?

Her attempt to have her conviction overturned has been supported by campaign group Justice for Women.

Lawyers supporting Martin allege the mother of two endured years of violence and coercive and controlling behaviour at the hands of Farrell.

So there it is again...feminist group Justice for Women and the 'coercive behavior' defense...starts to look like a pattern....

..and in did, it is an intentional one:

“Due to the Sally Challen case, the court recognised the constellation of coercive and controlling forms of abuse that were present in the relationship. The full significance of those forms of behaviour was not put before the jury.

“There are too many women serving life sentences because the court does not properly accommodate the context of coercive and control and violence. We hope these cases change this.”

So, this is what is happening the UK right now. A woman can beat her wheelchair bound husband and be set free right away. Women who travel to kill men in their homes are set free. This is not at the point of "whats next?" this is literally murder being excused. It's the sort of thing I worried about 5 years ago, 'what will things progress to?" At first, prison reform for women was said to be for 'nonviolent offenders'. Now women who kill men are set free. Imagine how bad things will look in another 10 years.