This is disgusting ...

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

I guess our laws (or judges) are nothing but crud if she could get by with only 15 years. Everyone knows that she won't serve a full 15, and I'm not even sure if the crime was an 85% rule/statute.

But she'll be on probation for 15 years after that, so there's that. Which is nothing! She should be doing life.

 

[Mike_60]

I guess our laws (or judges) are nothing but crud if she could get by with only 15 years. Everyone knows that she won't serve a full 15, and I'm not even sure if the crime was an 85% rule/statute.

From what I've seen, crimes against children don't usually carry the same penalties as crimes against adults.

 

[Billybob]

This x 1000. I'm sure that any on this board that have gone through custody hearings can attest. As a male you walk into a courtroom with a strike against you already.

Some contend if it's only one strike you're lucky.

 

[Mike_60]

Just to put this into perspective, with regards to whether the father was active in the child's life/support/upbringing or not, the mother in the case is still the dirtbag. Regardless of what "Dad might have done," Momma did an evil thing that had she been a moral woman, wouldn't have happened. And to try to blame the Dad for what the Mom did is despicable.

Now, had Dad done something and these actions of the mother had been a one-time event, I might think otherwise. However, this appears to have been a long-term event with multiple cases of Mom being evil.

I'm not trying to get mom off the hook and I think my statement about her earlier is clear.

IMHO, today too many people have a cavalier attitude about their responsibilities as a breeding adult. As a result children suffer both mentally and physically, and in this case, the child was murdered. Children aren't something that should be just ignored and hope they go away. Most of the time kids like that end up in trouble and become a burden on society, other times, like this one, they end up dead.

 

[BadgeBunny]

ahhh the victim syndrome. I know loads of people who are trapped in this cycle. I can only be around and tolerant of them for extremely short periods of time or else I will end up damaging their delicate psyche even more with a pull yourself up by your bootstraps speech.

Some I feel sorry for if whatever crisis caused them their pain is fairly recent but it just seems that so many people get stuck in a time period in their life where something terrible may have actually happened to them, they just keep dwelling on it and reliving it over and over and over and pretty soon its 20 yrs later and they still act and think the same way/time period as their event.
If they start hurting people especially children because of a selfish need for sympathy then I say dole out the same treatment to them. In this case poisoning her to death with salt is fine by me.

Me, too ... Imagine that, huh? I had a hard knock life there for a while and I had no one to blame but myself and my poor choices for it. Still, it never occurred to me to HURT one of my children to get "help" or attention ... I'm kinda thinking that she should have to suffer the same fate as her child ... only never quite enough to kill her ... just remind her every single ****ing day of her miserable life what she put that baby through ...

This x 1000. I'm sure that any on this board that have gone through custody hearings can attest. As a male you walk into a courtroom with a strike against you already.

This is, unfortunately, a true statement. We saw it all the time in contested divorces. In fact, the attorney I worked for had every single one of his male clients keep a diary of EVERYTHING ... and I mean EVERYTHING ... receipts for any money spent of kids or mom, notes of conversations, dates and times of visitation and witnesses to any and every interaction with mom and kids no matter if things were going good or bad ...

We had several dads wind up with custody because of those notebooks. I've told several guys here who have asked for advice about visitation and custody battles to keep a notebook ... YOUR notebook (that is obviously not made on the fly and documents events both good and bad) holds a LOT more sway in custody battles than the "he said/she said" battles that so often goes on.

Everything you just said validates my stance. He probably has never had anything to do with the child. His probable only contribution was getting the mother pregnant and then disappearing. Morally, and ethically, If the child was biologically his he had a responsibility to it - which he didn't keep. I know the concept of personal responsibility is a bit old fashion and even odd these days, but, maybe that is a big part of what is wrong with the world now.

This ... It doesn't matter how hard the mom makes it on the man to keep in touch with his child, it is his responsibility to be a part of that child's life ... and I don't mean writing a check every month and calling it good.

I worked with a woman that had a 3 years old girl that had been sick from pretty much the day she was born. Turns out the woman was making her sick. The hospital started to get suspicious and put a camera in the little girl's room. They caught the mom putting, are you ready for this, feces in the girl's catheter. Once they took the baby away from her, it got healthy and has stayed healthy. The woman basically tortured the child for 3 years to get attention.

She's doing 15 years.

I don't even know what to say but I would be willing to bet $100 and a dinner that this happens a lot more than any of us really know.

I've talked about my mother here before but you guys would not believe the lengths she went to for attention ... not for her husband or her kids but for her ... I have no doubt that she is mentally ill and we all suffered because of it. I have absolutely no doubt that the only reason she had seven children is because of the attention she got when she was pregnant. After we hit the ground she really didn't have much use for any of us except to the extent that, again, it got her attention.

One of the worst beatings I ever got was when some woman in Montgomery Wards mistook me for my littlest little brother's mom (he is 12 years younger than me) and asked my mom how she liked being a grandmother ... Somehow that was my fault ...

These women are as bad, in my mind, as rapists and are, for all intents and purposes, absolutely fall within the realm of some of the most dispicable people on the planet ...

 

[JacobDaddy]

She's doing 15 years.

She should be doing 15 years on the end of a rope!

 

[Billybob]

This happens much more than we realize, is there an ingrained gender bias in both the divorce and criminal courts in America?

women-who commit less than 13 percent of all violent crimes in the United States-commit about 50 percent of all parental murders...

A 1969 study by Dr. Phillip Resnick, the "father" of maternal filicide (the murder of a child by a parent), found that while mothers convicted of murdering their children were hospitalized 68 percent of the time and imprisoned 27 percent of the time, fathers convicted of killing their children were sentenced to prison or executed 72 percent of the time and hospitalized only 14 percent of the time. More recent British studies by P.T. D'Orban support these findings...

Illness may explain how some women eventually snap and behave violently. But it doesn't begin to explain why they direct this madness so disproportionately toward their own offspring. Even taking into account that some small fraction of the mental illnesses associated with maternal filicide-most notably postpartum depression-are triggered by the births themselves, the illness theory doesn't explain why mothers suffering from other mental illnesses, or who aren't ill at all, act out with their own children rather than strangers. The illness theory doesn't explain why we don't consider fathers who kill their children to be sick. Pulling murderous mothers out of the field of ordinary criminology and viewing them as fundamentally different raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps murderous mothers are no crazier than fathers. Perhaps murderous fathers are even crazier than mothers. Either way, the failure to view these crimes as morally or legally equivalent reflects a more central legal truth: We still view children as the mother's property. Since destroying one's own property is considered crazy while destroying someone else's property is criminal, women who murder their own children are sent to hospitals, whereas their husbands are criminals, who go to jail or the electric chair.

Why does the legal system treat a mother who kills someone else's child as though she were a sociopathic killer while showing mercy toward a mom who drowns her own? For the same reason the law treats individuals who burn down other people's houses as criminals and institutionalizes those who burn down their own. Men are disproportionately jailed for filicide not because they are more evil than women but because we believe they have harmed a woman's property-as opposed to their own...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2002/03/when_parents_kill.html