I guess I’m showing my age. But these are the sentences that I normally see for child abuse. Setting a kid on fire is certainly more horrible than a beat down the glue mom gave her daughter.
I guess its fashionable these days to give out super long sentences. Throw the so and so in jail forever. What happened to rehabilitation? This woman had a severe drug habit. I see no reason why she couldn’t be a productive member of society. Make her serve 8 years and put her in a drug rehab in prison. Then her parole would be conditional on never having more kids. If she has kids then take them away and throw her back in prison.
She didn’t just beat her daughter, horrible though that is. She *beat the little girl so severely she went into a coma.
it used to be fashionable to let men rape their wives without consequence and to allow parents to physically abuse their children without consequence unless death resulted those days are over, thankfully.
And of course I endorsed a far briefer sentence than you did. In a sense.
I wonder if the sentence wasn’t designed, and forgive me if it has already been mentioned, to make it unlikely that the mom could be free before she could bear more children?
I image a judge looking at the crime and how many children she already has might have done the math to determine how long it could take before she was unlikely to become pregnant again, and based his decision on that.
After some particularly evil was perpetrated by a woman in Baltimore one time a cop mumbled to me it was his view that she should be flipped over and ‘filled with concrete.’ I was under the impression this was a phrase commonly used in the ranks.
Barring the option of sterilization I think that menopause was the goal of this sentence.
I thought I read that the judge in the Sandusky case selected a sentence that would both ensure the 68-year-old Sandusky never got out of prison and that would withstand appeal. FWIW, since I don’t have a cite handy.
In that sense, she got a better deal–i.e., a chance to get out some day.
Manson may have come up for parole, but his sentence is life in prison, just as hers is. His sentence is not lighter. And he never personally touched any of the victims of his crimes. He instigated, convincing other people to go out and kill and chosing the targets. There was a fear that he would get off with a light sentence, or no sentence at all. Fortunately, he was enough of a nutjob to be unable to refrain from showing off how slavishly his followers would obey him in open court.
[nitpick] Prison!. Not jail. She’s going to prison.
Jail is for people not yet convicted who are awaiting trial, or serving sentences for misdemeanors, or felonies with less than 1 year incarceration (for the most part.)
Prison is where convicted felons who are sentenced to more than 1 year of incarceration go. [/nitpick]
Are you really on the warpath because a woman who kicked and beat a 2-year-old child until the child suffered brain damage got a prison sentence that was overly punitive? Really?
I actually think this may be a first around here: RO because a child abuser got too harsh a penalty. Oh, who will think of the plight of the poor child abusers? When, as a nation, will we cease our unconscionable persecution of these individuals, whose only crime was the crime of beating small children until their brains were injured from the force of said beating?
Can we get the presidential candidates to address this in the next debate?
I agree that this woman committed a terrible crime, but the whole reason for sentencing ranges (and defense attorneys, for that matter) is so that appropriate punishments are given out for various crimes. Otherwise we’d just pick a certain point that we’d just call “too terrible” and sentence all of those criminals to torture or life in prison automatically or something like that.
That being said, we didn’t get to see the evidence that the jurors and judge did, so I assume it was sufficiently horrifying to support such a sentence.
Well, yes. I realize that my previous post sounded like I think all people convicted of child abuse should be given the death sentence. I do not think that. My point is just that I can’t really see being outraged at the amount of time this particular child abuser got, as though it’s some sort of injustice or whatever. She beat a little kid until the kid had brain damage. I’m okay with the amount of time the court sentenced her to and am surprised that the OP is coming to her defense.
I totally agree that any child abuser should get a tough prison sentence. But it should also be equitable with other crimes. If you’ll let a murderer out after 20 years then how can you possibly justify sending a child abuser to prison for 30?
I would feel differently if this was some sicko that got off on inflicting pain. Or if someone did something premeditated like pouring gas on a kid. But, from what I read this was a drugged up mom that snapped. Inexcusable, but that doesn’t make her a monster either. I can’t see how locking her up for thirty years benefits anybody. Even a 15 year sentence would be enough for her kids to grow up before she’s released.
fwiw I’m not super angry or even passionate about this. The sentence just struck me as an injustice. It’s been two decades since my Criminal Justice class but I’m pretty sure a sentence like this is grounds for an appeal.
Sincere question here, based on both this post and another post you made above.
Do you think an illegal drug user who commits a violent crime deserves a lighter punishment for their actions than someone who commits the same crime while completely sober?
(I could actually somewhat see an argument made for that point of view, although I don’t think it would prove to be a very popular one with the American public at large)