This is just one of those things you scratch your head over and think, “I just don’t get it.”
Sounds to me like she plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter to avoid the death penalty. The judge accepted her plea. I think this is a preferable outcome to a decades long legal battle over whether or not the state should kill her.
Sounds like another Susan Smith story, also from South Carolina, but this one is a bit wiser.
As one of the comments (on the link) noted, the prosecution felt it had enough evidence but it wasn’t overwhelming. Juries are much more likely to aquit women then men. If this was the father and not the mother I’d doubt it’d be the same plea
But this way the mother gets some jail time.
From the Australian soap opera Prisoner (Prisoner: Cell Block H)
Yeah, okay, she does some jail time. But she KILLED HER KID.
Maybe she was crazy at the time. Maybe she is crazy. But she seems calculated enough, sane enough, to aid her own defense and get as little time as possible. Maybe she was crazy and isn’t now… who knows. I just think it’s very sad that a woman could kill her son and get out of prison in time to have another kid.
She took over 60 years of life from someone, and it only costs her 8 years of prison time. During that prison time, she can still communicate with the outside world, unlike her victim. Maybe she hated her kid enough that 8 years in the joint is worth paying.
There is something wrong when the equation works like this.
It does seem to me like the justice system is easier on women than men. People have a hard time believing that women can actually be callous and cruel.
It is possible there were issues of the mother’s sanity which would have made a jury trial a little more risky. Trot out a young woman in front of a jury, who has a tale of woe and perhaps a legitimate problem, you may have some trouble convicting. Remember, in a plea bargain, the prosecution has to accept that bargain as well. Me thinks we lack all the data.
I don’t see where a capital murder prosecution was ever even considered.
Well, at least she had the sensitivity to accuse a fictitious white guy.
So, if she got 12 years in prison, you think other mothers would think twice before murdering their children? What, exactly, is the state trying to accomplish here, and how is this sentence adverse to that? Is 20 years in prison better justice? 60 years? There’s no answer, so we let judges struggle with that question. Maybe you would have imposed a longer sentence, maybe I would have too. In the end, her kid is still dead, so I’m not sure it matters.
So why have prisons at all?
True. Perhaps we are overcoming racism. Yay.
The article seems to have plenty of outrage but not a lot of facts. If it was such a slam drunk case why would the prosecution accept a plea?
I always assumed mothers who kill their children wouldn’t get a whole lot of sympathy from a jury - but I suppose if they could cast doubt on her mental state at the time it would make a difference.
That was my first thought - it’s clear to the reader that she intentionally murdered her son because it says so right there in the headline, but prosecutors may thought it might not be so clear to a jury. They may have had problems with physical evidence, lack of apparent motive, etc. There may have been a hard decision made that giving her 8 years and letting her do an Alford plea was better than seeing her walk.
Sidebar, please: what’s an Alford plea?
I’ve followed the story since it happened, and there haven’t been a lot more facts made public than were in the article. And I agree that the prosecution might have had trouble with a murder conviction, and were willing to go for a lesser charge, but eight years was the best they could do, wow. . .
And since Susan Smith was brought up, it’s possibly worth mentioning that just before Susan Smith’s case went to trial, there was another highly-publicized child murder case in the state, although it didn’t get any national attention. A woman took her handicapped (CP) stepson somewhere and clobbered him in the head with a brick or something. The hapless father sat in prison for months, because he was the suspect, and he wouldn’t speak out against his wife. Anyway, he got out, and she got life. Once that verdict was announced, it was assumed that Susan Smith would probably also get life.
An Alford plea is procedurally more or less the same as a no contest plea. The defendant may assert factual innocence but admits that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, and a judgment of guilt is entered. Prosecutors usually dislike agreeing to them in plea agreements for serious crimes and prefer an outright admission of guilt, so the fact that they agreed to one here kind of seems like a red flag that they may have had some problems with the case.
Of course IT MATTERS! What a ridiculous position!!!
BS. If the prosecutor had so much difficulty, why the hell would she make the PLEA???
Pretty much the same reason anybody takes a plea - because if they turn it down and take it to trial instead, the consequences could be much worse. If she decided to roll the dice with a jury trial and lost, she could be counting her time in decades instead of years.