feeling uneasy about Jason Owen re Baby P being released?

[Mitmoo]

I know he didn't hurt the baby but he didn't stop those animals hurting him anyway. I know he can't be kept inside indefinately and at some point will be released but I still feel uncomfortable about this.

One of the trio jailed over tragic north London child Baby P's death could walk free from prison this week.
Jason Owen, 39, is serving a six-year sentence for causing or allowing the death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly exactly four years ago.

He is expected to be eligible for release at the end of this week, halfway through his jail term, taking into account the 289 days he spent in custody on remand before he was sentenced.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021943/Jason-Owen-allowed-Baby-P-die-released-jail-week.html#ixzz1UFMoQprV

Mitmoo

Birds I know what you are saying, but to live in a home where one child is being tortured, even if you are fed, isn't being well cared for. But I know what you mean it just reminded me of trilogy I had read detailing how bad it was to watch a sibling being abuse. I'll see if I can remember the name of it now. DOHS at self.

He got six, he is entilted by law to release after three if he has behaved inside, which he presumably has. There is no discretion and a good thing too. I would not want anyone's release date to be determined by how much the tabloids wrote about them.

Got it "A child called it" David Pelzer was one of them.

The Death Penalty 'machine' in the USA is massivley expensive because of the publicly-funded costs of all the necessary appeals and hearings. And even then they execute innnocent people. And under 18s. And people with severe mental impairment.

Sorry I meant people who had committed their crime when they were under 18.

They also put to death "coloured" people on a disproportionate rate IIRC.

Andrew-his original sentance was over ruled on appeal. It was over the top to begin with. Had the original sentance been 'just', under the legal system, the appeal wouldn't have happened.

To many judges are now getting caught up in the media and getting it wrong at the beginning.

He could have been given a greater mininium term.

I know of people who do more time for crimes against, the state/property/financial services, that has got to change in the UK.

Our child porn and sexual abuse sentances are a disgrace.

The UK does the same but with sentances, not the death penalty.

Indeed, Birds, but his sentence ended up as six, and that was the point I was making.

He's also the one who was living in the house with a 15 year old girl wasn't he? Having left his partner and children? I think they suspected he was also part of the abuse of the baby but couldn't prove it.
He sounds such a dangerous man and beyond help. He is going to need to be watched for life and if they let him have plastic surgery, that's actually really irresponsible as it gives the next vulnerable young teenager less chance of protecting herself and her family against him.

Jason Owen has been paroled after 3 years of a 6 year prison sentence and will be subject to supervision until his sentence is complete.

Will that be the same level of supervision that was given to Learco Chindamo, the lifer who is currently on trial for robbery?

Although not clinically insane, there are many murderers, rapists, child abusers, paedophiles, and the likes of Jason Owen, who should not be considered for early release.

The answer is simple. In order to protect the public, the government should urgently review its early release policy and build more prisons.

I remember posting on another site, before Baby Peter died, asking whether in that sort of situation (ie where they knew there was abuse but couldn't always prove it) there should be CCTV cameras installed in the child's home without the parents' knowledge. Or even with their knowledge.

It was in response to a conversation my sister and I had had - she had worked in a secure unit for very young children who were damaged by their upbringings and who weren't considered fit and able to live in the community. However, occasionally, after a while, they were allowed to go home for the weekend, where they often came back even more disturbed.

Almost without exception everyone on that site (equal mix of male and female) said that it shouldn't be allowed.

What do you all think?

"Noir....when I was in court with my ex, it turned out he had become subject to mappa conditions. The judge had no idea what mappa was, but it does seem effective."

Yeah MAPPA and its domestic violence equivilant are highly secretive, to be honest I only posted it after checking that knowledge about MAPPA is already out there, given that there is a wikipedia page about it I thought it safe to post.

I would be horrified at that Imperial.

And not just because of some abstract idea of not wanting covert surveillance on the scene, or seeing the similarities between what you describe and telescreens in the book '1984'.

A boffin in Scotland in 2007 wanted to do this to parents who have a problem with drugs, but I don't think anything came of it.

To me it depends on whether there is already evidence that the child is being abused, if there is they don't need more and child shouldn't be in the home.

If there isn't and it's 'just in case', well then, you'd have to put them in everybody's house because anyone can abuse a child at any time.

Unfortunately the best ways of dealing with child abuse cost money and it's always the most vulnerable who can't shout loud enough who get the least when it comes to budgets.

Do you agree with putting them in peoples houses Imperial?

Cameras in parent houses has been done. An LA was taken to court last year for placing a camera in the bedroom of a couple with LD's, not because abuse was suspected but 'to keep an eye on them'.

I personally don't think that they would achieve anything.

"To me it depends on whether there is already evidence that the child is being abused, if there is they don't need more and child shouldn't be in the home."

With all due respect thats just not true. In order to remove a child a Local Authority has to prove to a court that 'on the balance of probability' a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. It can sometime take years from the point of initial contact with a family to accrue that level of evidence, even if you know in your heart of hearts that abuse is going on. I've had cases (as a social worker) that have been open on and off for years with bits of evidence popping up here and there but without a disclosure from the child/children or forensics we were unable to get them out. Im not sure where I stand on the use of CCTV in particular but certainly surveillance of some sort would have saved a whole lot of time and suffering.

In fact in extremely rare cases I believe some LA's have in the past commissioned surveillance for this very reason, its certainly not and never has been the norm though. I would guess Article 8 of the Human Rights Act has made it harder for LA's to use surveillance.

well, with respect to his release, I have just 'defriended' somebody on FB who was bleathering on about how he should be tortured, have 'bits' cut off ( my euphemism, not hers...) etc etc, blah blah. You can imagine.

I will bring it right back down to basics. Two wrongs do NOT make a right, and that's as far as I want to enter the entire debate. Her disgusting self-justification for an inhumane act that she was against when HE was implicated in abuse absolutely sickened me.

Unwinnable. Any which way you call it....

I can imagine frustrating isn't the word when you see the effects of something horrible happening with a child but not be able to prove it noir.

It's where the boundary between working on behalf of 'us' the public to intervene in intimate relationships and private homes, and the right of a person accused but not convicted to the presumption of innocence, is drawn.

In the extreme hypothetical cases it would be pretty black and white to think a person with obvious problems deserve it (especially with something that can be seen as self inflicted like a problem with drugs), and if they're not doing anything wrong then what's the problem?

But it's the grey areas, like when Birds said 'keeping an eye' on the 'types' of people flagged up as a higher risk group to abuse their children somehow, that I find sinister.

I would never argue that what I think is right though because it's only my opinion, and if 'they' can't work out how to put a stop to a crime with such long term and devastating consequences, then what I think means nothing.