To think an 11 year sentence for Rosdeep Adekoya is perfectly appropriate

[ArsenicyOldFace]

despite what the tabloids will say?

Why ??

It doesn't seem very long for killing a child on the face of it but in haven't read further as to why it was deemed to be that length so can't really comment further yet.

Will you say why you think it's appropriate please, OP?

Not familiar with the case can anyone do a link?

11 years for beating her child then letting him suffer and die, followed by telling the police he had been kidnapped, using huge amounts of police resources along with the many hours given freely by the public in the hope of finding a child that she knew to be dead....er no 11 years is not enough

Because this is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do, isn't it?

Considering the full detail of the medical and psych reports, setting a sentence that balances the (awful) crime with the mitigating factors?

There will be an outcry now, including calls for her to be killed. I'm just pausing to appreciate our system for a moment before it starts.

I am very glad not to be in a country with capital punishment.

The most important thing now is the psychological recovery of the surviving siblings. I don't think execution or whole life tariff would support that.

Just my opinion of course.

No, it's not long enough.

She will not last at corton vale though.

No. Not long enough by far.

Would you like to expand on your clearly goady OP?

pigwitch you can Google the name.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28926241

It's not, she will be let out in less than that. No not enough for killing another person. The justice system does not always get it right.

I think that our sentences for serious crimes are often not long enough and I think this is a problem. I also think that 11 years in prison, of which generally half is served in prison, for the systematic abuse, repeated beatings and ultimate murder of a three year old child is not an acceptable outcome.

If she is mentally ill and this is the cause of her abuse and murder of her son, then prison is inappropriate and she should be in a secure hospital, receiving treatment and it is unacceptable that she has been put in a prison which will not be set up to care for severe mental health problems, is going to make her mental health worse and will mean that she is at risk of physical harm from other prisoners instead of receiving treatment for severe mental health problems. If she is not mentally ill and prison is appropriate because she knew and understood what she was doing, then 11 years, out after half, is insufficient consequence for the abuse and murder of a child.

It is a very unusual case with very unusual circumstances (compared with other unlawful child deaths).

I don't she's a danger to society so I wouldn't expect her to get as long a sentence as those kind of offenders.

The average murder sentence is 14 years and I do think these circumstances warrent less than that, mostly due to reduced intent to kill.

There's another thread in chat, where the OP is expressing 'disgust' at 11 years - yet no-one is accusing them of being 'goady'.
We don't really know if 11 yrs is appropriate, nor how long she will serve, nor what her life will be like when released.

She wasn't charged with murder. She pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of culpable homicide. So the Crown bears some responsibility for the sentencing outcome if it was prepared to accept the plea to the lesser charge, I guess.

it would be really useful for someone to post about what 11 yrs actually means in terms of this sentence - the English system is fraught with problems about interpretation re sentencing practice.

It is within the sentencing guidelines. As such it is appropriate.

It's not meant to be goady 3stripes.

I was very struck by something Ruth Ellis's daughter, Georgie, wrote about how she (very slowly) realised what had happened to her mother. It was upsetting.

The calls to kill people and lack of thought about how that would doubly traumatise the survivng children always make me feel a bit ill.

If you look at it ONLY from the DC's POV, the priorities seem quite clear (to me).

i only live 20 miles from this .and no 11 years is not enough .if deemed mentally ill .she will be hospitilised in edinburgh or carstairs .other wise go to cortenvale womens prison .she beat up her child .when he died she stuffed him in suitcase .took her other children to school and nursery .then drove to her sisters house in fife .and left him in scrub land behind the house .went home reported him missing .started a huge man hunt ..but then pleaded culpible homicide .or manslaughter if you were in england .she should be locked up for life .our justice system thinks more about the offender half the time than the victim .

And let's face it, she'll never be 'free' again. She'll never live with children again, have unsupervised access to children again.

She'll be scrutinized and hounded forever. She won't have an enjoyable life. Which is the price she pays for an awful crime.

she should be hounded for the rest of her miserable bloody life .

our justice system thinks more about the offender half the time than the victim

I understand that anger april.

But what about from the point of the view of the little boy's siblings? Of their best recovery? You don't think this is better for them?

So she disappears of somewhere, under strict parole supervision when she's released, and they get to embark on their adult lives after (hopefully) a LOT of therapeutic help through their childhoods?

She beat a child to death.

Are we supppsed to feel bad she will never live with her kids or enjoy life?

11years for a life of a three year old child.

No justice for him there

She didn't love her son and she couldn't work out why (she was searching on the Internet for answers). She should have gone to the doctor and this might never have happened, but she didn't. She put her own fear about losing her children above her son's safety.

She beat him, and she couldn't understand why she did this to him when she didn't feel this way about her other children. She should have put him somewhere where he would have been safe from her, but she didn't. Again, was she afraid of losing her other children? Being judged to be an evil person? Sadly, she put herself first with tragic consequences.

No, from what I've read she didn't want him dead and didn't plan to murder him. She was responsible for his death and her actions lead directly to it. At any time before he died she could have taken him to the doctor and she chose not to do that.

She will live with her actions for the rest of her life. She will be separated from her surviving children, potentially for the rest of her life and I should imagine their relationship will be permanently damaged whatever, plus she will know that she has damaged their childhoods and put them through horrific trauma.

I don't think she's a danger to the public. I don't think she will hurt a child or anyone else again. I think the sentence is proportionate and the loss of her liberty and her family is a severe and just punishment.

I'm not saying she shouldn't april. I'm just pointing out that her life after release won't be the picnic some people seem to think.

She's ruined her own life by her own decision to kill. So, in or out of prison it will be tough. That's fine.

So then I think, what's better for the surving children? And I think if she stays inside for 25 or 30 years, it is always hanging over them. The press will revive the story every time the possibility of parole comes up, or an anniversary etc.

I do wonder whether concerns about the DC formed part of the mitigation.