Amy Ridenour wonders aloud why it is women who kill children often end up with light sentences. She's referring to a story in New York where a homeless woman suffocated her baby. It's a complicated story, so go to her blog for the details. (You might want to look around a bit while there, it's a great blog, well worth your time!)
Note that while she referred to "people" who kill their children, I'm saying women. That's because something liike 55% of children who are murdered die at the hands of their mothers. It's one of those sad-but-true facts of life.
Even sadder is the fact that most of those mothers get light sentences, much less than sentences given for other crimes.
Women, particularly mothers, are given a wide range of excuses upon which to draw when it comes to violent acts against their families. There is a very strong radical feminist influence here that has been firmly in place for the past three decades or so. They have insisted that women are, in the main, incapable of violence of any kind, and in those (according to them) rare cases when women act in a violent manner, it cannot be their fault. The victim or some outside influence must've been the cause of the act. Either way, they cannot be expected to take responsibility for their actions.
Under VAWA, officials from the cop on the beat to the presiding judge will have been schooled in feminist dogma, as it is now a requirement. Juries are likely to have many members who have swallowed the feminist party line.
Thus, a woman may kill her children or her husband and not expect much in the way of jail time. If the victim is her husband, chances are she may get off scot free. (Note in the Mary Winkler case, popular opinion has already decided, in absence of any proof whatsoever, that either the church or the victim was responsible for the death of her husband.)
It's just the way things are in these "enlightened" times.
Update: a story on child abuse at Human Events