Aibu to think 6 years sentence is far too lenient for killing your baby.

Do you think other countries are immune from cases like this? If so, you are deluded.

Where was the father?

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-mother-who-killed-her-two-children-in-uk-mansion-spared-jail

I agree. This woman murdered her 2 children and didn't even go to jail.😔

A life sentence wouldn’t be enough for this murderer.

If she were to become pregnant she would be monitored during the pregnancy and the baby would almost certainly be removed at birth for adoption or care within her extended family.

In what way is that a good outcome…for the mother or the child? If a mother has clearly demonstrated that she is unable to care for her children adequately, to such an extent that the state has decided it will step in to make sure she cannot keep any subsequent children she may have, what is the objection to sterilisation?

Creating multiple adoptive children who have been torn away from the mother who murdered their sibling is not a success, though. If you're going to forcibly take any babies she gestates away anyway, traumatising both her and the child, why not just sterilise her? It seems kinder to everyone, and much safer.

This. Its likely the baby was dead already or at the very least she thought she was warming up

Death by neglect, but not murder

Im not sure what an appropriate sentence is to be honest. This doesnt seem long enough but I dont believe she murdered the baby

Awful situation. I also dont think its relevant what her background is. Once you become a parent your sole responsbility is that child.

Absolutely! You're going to keep someone in prison for say, 15 or 20 years longer than you otherwise would, with the intent of holding them until they're infertile? And you think thats more humane than keyhole surgery of the sort that people have all the time, with a shorter sentence? You think that's better for their rehabilitation? Better for the tax payer? Seriously??

At least give the criminal the ability to choose.

With the aid of thousands of pounds of cash, and it was so unusual that it made national headlines. One exception doesn't mean the system doesn't work, there are plenty of babies born safely as a result of these mechanisms, but they're not exciting or unusual enough to be reported in the press.

Well, exactly, she would be free to go wherever she wanted.

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon did that

At the very least she should be forcibly sterilised.

At best, she should behind bars for life.

I agree. In cases of child abuse/manslaughter/murder of their own child, those convicted should get the choice of a longer sentence, where they will serve the whole term, or a shorter sentence + voluntary sterilisation.

This may be a suprise to you, but when things
work, they don't tend to make the news.
I also suspect that the mum in this case doesn't have access to a tens of thousands of pounds of cash that would enable her to go into hiding, unlike constance did.

Appeal it. Anyone can

You rarely hear a sentence today that seems long enough.

Those mechanisms didn’t work with Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, though, until it was too late..

I don't think there's much mind blowing there. The general idea is that mothers form one of the strongest bonds in the natural world to their biological offspring and protect them at all costs, which for the vast majority is true. This natural bonding does not always extend to adopted children, and step children. Instead of instinctive bonding through natural pregnancy hormones and oxytocin, this initial bonding in adopted children itself must be built entirely through intentional care, time, and commitment. Also, in adoption the state becomes the child's guardian. The child is already here and has to be found a home. It is the responsibility of the guardian to do the due diligence.

Is...is this a serious question?

One option involves a longer prison sentence. The other is AN INVASIVE OPERATION quite possibly performed against her will.

Do you think this about people who get hooked on opiods after painful operations/injuries, including those with cancer?
Or children drug-addicted at birth from their mum using? Or children given drugs by parents, causing them to have addictions? Kids abused by parents, who fall in with bad crowds?
Maybe no one you know has ever been in any of these situations, but one day, they could be.

She wouldn't be continuously monitored in the sense of say, whether she starts a relationship, but it's exceptionally difficult to hide a pregnancy to full term and even more so to hide a baby once they've arrived. There are mechanisms in place if say, a pregnant woman tries to avoid scrutiny by moving area or going under the radar.

Well then you're just sterilising her by deliberately keeping her in prison until she's infertile; what's the difference?

I think something like the choice of either sterilisation and a more lenient sentence (10 years?), or a life sentence, seems reasonable for the government to offer in a case like this. Let her decide. She doesn’t appear to be a danger to anyone but her own children, so her risk of reoffending is nil if she can't have children.

(Although personally, if I was judge, jury, and executioner, I'd do just that as soon as the trial was done. But that's neither here nor there, as to everyone's relief, I am not.)

I can’t read the details of this case.
I couldn’t read the details of Preston Davey’s life and death either.
I’m not a believer in the death penalty ( I waver on this occasionally) but believe that people who inflict horrific abuse, be it physical or sexual or both, should be locked up permanently. No remission.
The victim is owed that much at least.

Yep, the monitoring is not really there tho and I very much doubt that it will be there when she's done her time. So, I fully expect after she's done her time she will walk out into another hellish situation.