@mowglika
Sorry but the apologists really anger me, the jury themselves didn’t take this bs low IQ argument into account. So let’s IQ test everyone in jail and lower their sentence as they could have been subject to undue influence hmm
Let's unpack that.
"Apologists" anger you.
So you get emotional when confronted with the possibility that a woman's mental state may have contributed to her criminal behaviour.
That's understandable, it really is, it's a hugely distressing crime. But here's the thing, normal people do not kill their children. And if we want to stop children being killed, we need to understand what puts them at risk. Clearly we don't understand or recognise all the risks yet such as those of the parents being in coercive and abusive relationships.
Regarding the jury, they are random people, highly unlikely to be able to pass informed judgement and very likely encumbered with both conscious and unconscious bias.
That's why judge-alone trials are so much safer.
But even the judge can only work with information presented and their experience. And while considerable, there is a dearth of intelligence around vulnerabilities. It's one of the reasons that social workers, professionals trained to work with vulnerable people, still misstep.
And your final assertion about all inmates being IQ tested and then having their sentences reduced accordingly. I think this is long overdue. Research tells us that as many as 95% of prisoners have previously undiagnosed SEN.
Point is, it's tempting but not helpful to demonise people. We make no progress as a society until we investigate, learn and change.