The honeymoon killer : plea bargaining and intimate femicide : a response to Watson

In October 2003, US citizen Christina Thomas died while scuba diving on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef. Following over five years of delays, her husband David Watson accepted a plea bargain to which he pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of criminal negligence. Watson was initially sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, however this was later increased on appeal to suspension after 18 months. Using Watson as a framework for analysis, this article examines some of the limitations of an inefficient justice system, with a particular focus on the private nature of the plea bargaining process, and the potentially favourable representations and sentencing of men who kill a female intimate partner. The authors argue that the need to respond to court inefficiency and under-resourcing in the criminal courts creates pressures that can result in a desire for increased efficiency being prioritised above other justice concerns, and this allows for existing flaws within the operation of the criminal justice system to be exacerbated, and excused.

‘Till death do us part : judging the men who kill their intimate partners

This paper examines the construction of masculinity in judge’s sentencing remarks across seventeen cases of male perpetrated intimate femicide sentenced between March 2005 and May 2007 in the Victorian Supreme Court. Using a narrative analysis of sentencing transcripts it investigates how ideal understandings of hegemonic masculinity are used in judicial decision making to condemn or sympathise with male offenders of intimate femicide. The findings illustrate the profound influence that traditional understandings of masculinity and fatherhood still have on current sentencing practises despite the current climate of homicide law reform both within Australia and overseas. Whilst this paper did not directly assess the impact of recent homicide law reforms, specifically provocation, it is explicitly concerned with the continued influence of gender norms and bias at the sentencing stage of the legal process. As such, it provides a preliminary illustration of the key role that judges play in advocating or rejecting change within the criminal justice system, and more broadly legitimising attitudes about male violence against women throughout society. In condoning the use of extreme violence, in any context, judges send a message to society that such behaviour is either generally or specifically acceptable and accommodated within a legal framework.