Pretty soon, it'll just be a form to give women a pass to kill their husbands rather than simply leaving them.
Remember, there's NO CRIME OR ACT in Australia that a person can commit that will result in the death penalty and the law looks down on vigilantism. So why is it that we're slowly turning down the punishments, and stopping deportation, of people who take the law into their own hands and end the life of another human being.
The whole article is written in such a way to induce feelings that this poor woman was justified in taking a hammer to her husband's head and that she's really unfortunate to have to spend any time in jail. Notice also the headline is "Doctor who killed her husband" rather than "Woman who killed her husband". I don't see many articles where the career of a male perpetrator is used to describe him, except when he's done something positive.
Besides, who is to say that it wasn't the wife who looked up the perverted stuff to plant incriminating evidence against him? I know I don't look up that stuff, but I don't have a separate login to my wife, so she could potentially log in under our common login, type a bunch of sick searches into Google and when she kills me claim it was after years of abuse.
I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but remember that she wouldn't have been sent to prison if the if the judge/jury hadn't decided that she was responsible of the man's death BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. If a man breaks into my house and I knock him out I'm justified in protecting myself and my family. If I then kill the man after he's been incapacitated, then I'd be charged with the death, regardless of the man not supposed to being there.
I'm surprised she was sent to jail at all. I do note, though, that Rosie Batty intervened on her behalf. I guess birds of a feather got to stick together. I'll give more credit to Batty the day the full interrogation of her ex-partner by police is released UNEDITED. Those missing minutes before he just stands up and sits in the corner (which are clearly cut when a person looks at the time stamp) are clearly something where the police said something to antagonize the guy that the media and/or police didn't want us to see, possibly the police telling the guy they don't need anything more than Batty's word for them to act, maybe. I especially like the YouTube video where someone has pulled together all of the interviews with the supposed "witnesses" to her son's death and the cameraman has to correct a few of them on the weapon used, which is "a bat", then "a ball" and even "a knife". I'm amazed the media had the gall to even air the incorrect witnesses who couldn't even keep their stories straight.
I'm not going to turn this into an Anti-Batty rant, but we all have to agree that her story stinks and has lots of conflicting information and witness statements. The tragedy of her son dying shouldn't automatically mean nothing she did / said prior to or after her son's death should be taken as pure and gospel. She may have been a vindictive ex who was using the police to rough her ex up using the existing legal framework until he snapped. This possibility, however, can never be explored because she's politically untouchable thanks to her victim status. Please note, the real victim is her son who along with his father (her ex) can NEVER give any conflicting testimony to the events that lead up to that fateful day.