When I first saw the headline for this article I thought the same thing. Then I read the whole thing and the fact that she’ll be eligible for parole in 30 years. Reading about the violent way she beat her child and also that she has 5 children makes me agree that she should never have any more children or be in contact with her own. This sentence accomplishes that.
People who abuse children are, in a way, killing them.
She super-glued a toddler’s hands to the wall and then punched and kicked her into a coma in front of her siblings, leaving her with a severe brain injury. She can be in time-out for the rest of her miserable life, and that’s fine with me.
Thirty years before she’s up for parole sounds like* just *enough time to give her kids to prepare themselves for the possibility she might be walking around on the street again.
Five years? Seriously? That sounds right to you? Even if she completely lost custody of her kids, she already had four at twenty-three. This does not sound to me like someone who should be walking around in the sunshine while she still has viable eggs.
I have a strong reaction to child abuse stories and as a mental health counselor who worked in the foster system with the children who were defenseless victims of stories like these, I think she deserves it.
The damage she has done to her children is huge…will carry on with them for the rest of their lives.
So based on my experiences in the field and also as a mother, I am mostly allowing my emotions answer your question and say that 99 years in not excessive.
People that murder little kids get sentences that harsh and harsher. In Texas, it’s capital murder when you beat a kid to death, so 99 years for almost beating a kid to death seems about right. Also in Dallas.
I understand this woman never needs to be in charge of kids again. I think there’s been cases where children born to former abusers are immediately taken by child protective services. But I can’t think of a specific case.
I was just surprised with the sentence. We just don’t lock up bad people forever. Even Charles Manson has come up for parole many times.
I’ve read other cases of child abuse that was far worse. 5 to 8 years is serious prison time. Maybe 10 years is better with possible parole at 7 or 8.
I do find it strange that the headlines are “Mom gets 99 years for gluing toddler to wall” and not “Mom gets 99 years for beating toddler into coma”. I guess the first one sounds punchier, but almost makes it sound like she got life in prison for a prank. The beatings and other abuse are the important part.
They want you to read look at the ads, which you won’t do if you just see another ‘Mom beats kid’ article. So they want you to wonder why she gets 99 years for gluing the kid’s hands to the wall, and then look a the ads when you go to find out why.
Manson was supposed to be excuted but stayed alive as a result of the Supreme Court voiding the CA death penalty laws. And there is 0 chance that he will ever leave prison alive.
What sort of politically correct world are we living in where a parent can beat their child into a coma and get 99 years in jail? What happened to spare the rod and spoil the child?
Especially because the odds of all 5 kids, born to a (now) 22-year old woman, having the same father is 1 in 10,000.
I can’t believe that there isn’t some better alternative for at least some of the 5 kids.
It’s a shame they can’t legally force Madre Dearest to permanently relinquish custody so that someone can maybe go ahead and adopt the children, giving them a shot at a real childhood.
What makes you think rape, robbery worse then abusing a infant/totter? Why are you placing a rapist at 20yrs but placing child abuse by a parent, a much worse crime IMHO, at 5-8 yrs, I think you have your values backwards.
Apparently this guy still believes in “spare the rod, spoil the child” and used it as an excuse for beating his 5-month old son to death.
He made a plea deal and got 18 years in jail. The mom who was guilty of child abuse was originally offered a plea deal of 45 years in jail but turned it down. That seems like a huge difference in punishment, but of course the man who killed his son was in Georgia and not Texas. It seems like the man who killed his son should have received a harsher sentence.
99 years sounded extreme to me in comparison to the sentences other crimes get. I can’t even begin to estimate what the “right” prison sentence should be for the crime she committed, but comparatively it seemed excessive. Andrea Yates was originally sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period just 10 years longer for drowning her five children.
Some murderers don’t get sentences that harsh. Rapists are out in 20. Robbers that beat elderly victims only get 10 years at the most.