am IBU to be ablsolutely disgusted that baby Ps mother

[issey6cats]

will be released after serving just 4 years in prison for the murder of baby P shes still young enough to go on to have other children, and its a disgrace that what baby P suffered is thought to only carry 4 years punishment

No, not at all. I'm saying IF she doesn't understand that not being sterilised/failing to use contraceptive, means she will go through pregnancy/birth with a child she has no hope of keeping. Then it should be considered, if the act is applicable. If she fully comprehends the choice she's making and becomes pregnant again, the 2005 act is irrelevant.

Surely she will be offered sterilisation though? With strong words of advice to consent to it?

I seriously doubt that. There's no medical reason (as far as anyone knows) for her to require sterilisation. If she would like to be sterilised, she will have to take the initiative herself

It must be preferable to be sterilised than to go through a pregnancy knowing the child will be instantly removed?

Some women choose not to terminate pregnancies even though they know they will lose their baby at birth, and will not seek sterilisation afterwards, and will then have multiple pregnancies. It's very sad but ultimately it's their body, their right to have sex, and their right not to have their internal organs mucked around with without consent, with potentially serious medical problems resulting. They don't have the right to parent, the courts can and will remove their children, perhaps permanently

If she doesn't understand that choice, would she then be subject to the 2005 act?

No

No, not at all. I'm saying IF she doesn't understand that not being sterilised/failing to use contraceptive, means she will go through pregnancy/birth with a child she has no hope of keeping. Then it should be considered, if the act is applicable. If she fully comprehends the choice she's making and becomes pregnant again, the 2005 act is irrelevant

Still no. Some women, as I said, do choose to have many children, in the hope that one day they will be permitted to keep just one :(

Surely if she is given a new identity and sent to live in a new area, she's under licence, so will have someone in contact with her all the time? She wouldn't be able to disappear and give birth to new children iyswim.

The 2005 Mental Capacity Act is about people who cannot make decisions, not people who make decisions you think are misguided. S.1 is very clear: "For the purposes of this Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain."

It's not there to yank into operating theatres people who have made decisions you think are a bit sketchy. And you don't want it to, either. Do you seriously want the state to start sterilising against their will women who have had a couple of difficult births and where future pregnancies risk their health? On the grounds that they were offered, but declined, sterilisation and therefore must be thinking a bit wrong? Because as night follows days, that's the inevitable consequence of weakening this sort of protection.

Not forever though womma, surely there will come a time when she would be "free"

I don't know Tiny, she had an indeterminate sentence. At least it would cover her childbearing years.

I agree op, I am disgusted that baby Peters mother concealled and took part in the most horrific abuse to the authorities, and made sure that poor little baby could not get help, and suffered until he died. The sentence that was handed down was appealing, and I suspect if she did have any children she would have them swiftly and quite rightly removed from her. I am sure that she will be closely monitored by relevant authorities and not be allowed to disappear. Anyway who can conceal a face like that, she would need major surgery, not just a bit of make up.

'Who actually CARES who 'did' the final deed? They were all disgusting as each other, whether it be they sat back and let it happen, or the scum that did it.'

I can totally see what you're saying Shake, and agree. I was mostly saying that because posters were saying about the very short sentences they got.

I've had time to look at Wiki connelly, owen and the brother (connelly had pleaded (plead?) guilty) were guilty of causing/allowing the death of a child. Him and her were cleared of murder because of insufficient evidence, brother found not guilty of murder.

'I find it very very uncomfortable to read post after post filled with violent fantasy regarding these people.
It doesn't make anything better, talking like this.'

Fantasising about the violence you'd mete out on someone who allowed the torture and murder of their child is completely justified. The bond you have with your child for a lot of parents can be the closest relationship you've ever likely to experience, people get very passionate when they see that relationship betrayed.

A consensus of rage/horror when such things happen knit people together in deciding what kind of society they want to have - for their children.

Thankfully the criminal justice system tries to take the heat of emotion out of the way things are balanced up, but what people privately think and publicly say don't go any way to inciting people to violence themselves, they're just expressions of how strongly they feel for these very small vulnerable children.

If suddenly started to torture my children to this extent resulting in death, but not proven I would totally agree that part of my release back into society would to be to agree to get sterilised.

I would accept that my right to have children was over, this was because I had children and could not protect nor take care of them and indeed tortured them.

I would accept that to be free once more, this would be part and parcel of the price to pay for the crimes.

If I did not agree to sterilisation but still wanted to be free, parole board can take it I have not understoond the extent of my crimes yet.

As for the men, yes, I think again, part of the rehabilitation process and acceptance of mis doing would be sterilisation.

From what you've posted there I still don't agree that it shouldn't apply to women such as Tracey Connelly (and I also think it's in incredibly poor taste to describe the murder of Peter and the rape of his sister as "a bit sketchy"). I would argue personally that her actions- or lack of- were absolutely indicative of a disturbance of mind or brain. It is quite simply not a psychologically normal way to behave.

The alternative is to think that she continued to breed knowing she had no interest or ability in caring for them at even a basic level, and knowing that they would in all likelihood be subjected to severe physical and sexual abuse from their father. I just cannot accept that.

I'm more concerned about the male offender:

"Barker was jailed for life with a minimum of 10 years for raping a two-year-old girl and given a 12-year term to run concurrently for his ''major role'' in Peter's death."

12 years is nothing for someone who tortured a toddler to death and raped another child of the same age. He should be in prison for life. Anyone capable of that is not safe to be out in society. There are people serving life in prison for the murder of adults - why do the courts undervalue the life of a child so much?

I agree Avery, he should be given a whole life sentence, like Bradey, and April Jones killer

From what you've posted there I still don't agree that it shouldn't apply to women such as Tracey Connelly

But it doesn't. The rest of the act makes it quite clear the circumstances under which it applies.

12 years is nothing for someone who tortured a toddler to death and raped another child of the same age. He should be in prison for life.

He is. He has a life sentence, with a ten year tariff. The concurrent 12 year sentence is irrelevant to that.

There are people serving life in prison for the murder of adults

And he's serving life in prison for raping a child. He wasn't convicted of murder. As he is serving life, it is for a parole hearing to determine when he is released, and he will then remain on life license (which, unlike in the case of an indeterminate sentence, he cannot be released from).

If you're asking for a whole life tariff, then your sentencing compass needs calibrating. Everyone with a whole life tariff has been convicted of at least one, and usually more than one, unambiguous murder, usually with grossly aggravating factors. Mark Bridger is at the lower end of this category.

"She will obviously be given a new identity, so how will anyone I.e a midwife / health visitor / social services know who she really is?"

Reports say she isn't being given a new identity, but will be advised about stps she can take herself (which might include deed poll name change). She will have a probation officer and probably a social worker who knows the background, but there won' be a need for all branches of officialdom to know everything.

Nor indeed for the general public to know anything other than fact of release. After all, we have no idea about what medical procedures she may have already had.

I don't know Avery, it's bewildering isn't it? So he'll be eligible to be out of prison in 11 years if people generally serve half a custodial sentence?

Was TC given any kind of sentence for her DD's rape? I know that trial was very hushed up, but I understood that she knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it. Doesn't appear she was.

The stepfather's brother also had four kids that we're living with them in the house in Tottenham. I wonder what happened to those poor kids as well.

I know I'm not alone, but this all hit me really hard. I'd just had my DD when it all came out, and it absolutely overwhelmed me with despair knowing what happened to Peter and his syblings.

So he'll be eligible to be out of prison in 11 years if people generally serve half a custodial sentence?

Concurrent, not consecutive. The sentences run together, not added together.

So he'll be eligible to apply to a parole board for release at the end of his tariff, in ten years. He would have been eligible for release half way (ish) through the 12 year determinate sentence, but that does not trump the tariff on his life sentence.

It is for the parole board to decide what to do for the best. Less than 10% of first-time parole applications succeed. I was kind of hoping we weren't in Daily Mail land in which parole boards are hopeless wet liberals easily deluded into releasing dangerous criminals, but it would appear not.

Connelly was profoundly damaged by her abusive parents, and gathered around her other damaged men. They committed a horrible crime (or crimes) for which they are, justly, being punished. Parole boards will see evidence of what progress they make as people, and on the vague assumption that we life in a civilised society that believes that people are capable of redemption, I'm happy for parole boards to make that judgement. The recidivism rate for people released from life sentences is fairly low and in this case, the chances of them having access to children again is approximately zero.

Although it makes everyone feel better to imagine these were scheming cold-blooded evil men and women, they appear to have mostly been stupid, indolent and vile. Psychopathy is hard to fix; the effects of poor upbringings (which all of them had) might be repairable. It is for parole boards to decide that, a job they usually do pretty well.

Me too Womma, took me a long time to come to terms with what happened, it deeply affected me.

I just think we need to be tougher on people who hurt children, I do not think we are sending out tough enough messages.

I would like our society to say enough.

Yes Friday, it was stupidity and indolence that caused Connely to stuff that little boy in a push chair when the HC came to visit, with his broken back and sit and talk about how well they were doing in spite of the circumstances of her sad life.

That of course was "stupidity", not cold blooded scheming to save her own neck .

The thing about sterilisation is everyone seems to agree that she should have any future children taken away at birth - that doesn't seem to be controversial?

So why is it more civilised to allow a woman to carry a child and have it taken away? And if everyone can agree that in this case she is a wholly unfit parent, why does it cross a line to sterilise? We seem to have agreed that she shouldn't ever be allowed to parent a child, so why not stop it at source?

And yes, I believe this applies to the men.

But this is academic because I would bring back capital punishment for cases like this. I don't believe these people can ever be rehabilitated to lead acceptable lives and they are a waste of oxygen and resources.

That of course was "stupidity", not cold blooded scheming to save her own neck

Such a shame that we have courts and juries and stuff, rather than just getting you to decide.

But this is academic because I would bring back capital punishment for cases like this

Sally Clark. Discuss.

So Connelly was profoundly damaged by her parents, so what.

We have to send out a message to STOP people being profoundly damaged by abusive parents by saying:enough, the buck stops here.

I fear for any woman who looks vaguely similar to Tracy

So do I. For some bizarre reason SIL was accused of being Maxine Carr when she was released (extraordinary as SIL has lived in the town all her life and as is well known as a midwife). It was not pleasant.