Nine years for starving a baby to death

[PropertyFlipper]

I’m struggling to see the justice here. This sorry specimen will be out in five years no doubt. Devastating.
Teen mother, 19, bursts into tears as she is jailed for nine years

where’s your compassion for poor little Asiah and what she went through? I don’t see it mentioned once in your post

It's not explicitly stated, therefore it doesn't exist, right?

Are you serious?

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

For the last time, we know she was troubled. Posters like myself object to the made up stories absolving her of any wrongdoing at all. Absolute drivel and disgraceful, once again, to the child who is the real victim.

No matter how many times you repeat this nonsense it doesn't make it any more true. Nobody in this entire thread has at any point attempted to 'absolve her of any wrongdoing at all'.

Drivel indeed

Give it up ffs, you are just embarrassing yourself.

They have, she was never a sex slave. Nobody would make up stories about a male seis killer acting under compulsion especially after they've been convicted. Very strange.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

I find it astounding that people think that just because someone has had a ‘hard life’ gives them a free passport to abuse a child

Yet more, baseless, hyperbolic nonsense.

Point out one single instance in this thread where a poster has said anything along the lines of 'Poor woman, she should be out walking the streets because it's not her fault her baby died'

You won't be able to because nobody has said any such thing, not even close.

People keep parroting absolute nonsense about 'apologists', 'excuses' and so on. You just come across as possessing no apparent ability to follow a discussion or grasp even the most basic of nuance.

This is an emotive subject, but to put it in terms I hope even the simplest of simpletons will understand, just because you are not jumping on board the "String her up/throw away the key/hanging is too good" bandwagon, or you might be participating in a discussion about what might or might not have been a contributory factor here, that does not mean you are 'Excusing' her, pardoning her, not holding her 100% responsible for the death of her child, or implying that she can not be blamed.

Is that clear?

Good, now stop with the complete crap.

Saying she had no control (made up theories about being held captive) aim to dismiss any responsibility. She can't be held responsible for child abuse and death if she had no agency, can she? Basically implying she was kidnapped is not excusing her?

Maybe you haven't RFTF, in which case, you look very silly because a few people were absolutely suggesting this

I've RTFT thanks, where we differ is I can evidently grasp that when people are talking about things like sex slavery, sexual abuse, being raped by a carer, or possibly being controlled by an abusive partner, they are speculating about factors that may, or may not, have been a part of this woman's life.

What they are not doing, is suggesting that any of this in any way absolves her of complicity in her child's death.

Had people suggested that the sentence was harsh, or that she should not have been punished, or indeed, that other individuals were in some way more responsible for the child's fate than the mother, then yes, I could in some way understand the allegation that people are seeking to diminish her culpability and make excuses for her, only that's not at all what is happening in this thread, hence my bemusement at the same few individuals who keep insisting that is exactly what is going on.

@EspressoDoubleShot

The flawed logic is,sterilisation after the event doesn’t prevent death. It’s simply a punishment to appease the public revulsion

No it isn’t. It’s a surefire way of making sure she doesn’t have more children to neglect.

Why would anyone have any compassion for someone who allowed their tiny child to starve to death?

Well lets extrapolate this a bit.

Say that in the fullness of time, it emerges that this woman had an absolutely horrible time as a child and into her early teens, was badly let down by not just Social Work or the LA, but by society in general. You would, presumably, feel a degree of empathy for any young woman in that scenario, No?

So this badly let down young woman, that we all agree deserves a degree of sympathy thanks to society failing her by and large, commits a heinous criminal act that results in the death of her child. Everyone is appalled and outraged, it's very difficult to retain any sense of perspective, or indeed, any of the prior sympathy for the woman herself.

Does any of that change the material fact that prior to the child's death the woman had been failed by society herself? No, it does not. So why does the criminal act give us the right to totally ignore how this woman may have been failed, and retroactively withdraw any sympathy we might have previously felt?

Similar to 'two wrongs don't make a right', the later behaviour changes absolutely nothing about what happened previously, so why do we get to unilaterally turn around and say 'Oh, well that's different now"?

We don't, it's just a convenient way of ignoring an even more unpalatable truth, that more often than not the 'monsters' in our society are created by society itself.

Keep bleating about 'evil' and stuff though, because that's obviously saving the lives of neglected and abused children.

I think the polarised views on the subject matter here are largely own to where on the individualist/socialist spectrum people are.

If you’re more toward the individualist end, you’ll see any suggestion of circumstances that could have contributed towards her behaviour as ‘making excuses’
If you’re more socialist, you’ll see it as ‘how can we prevent those circumstances from happening again in the future to others’ or ‘mitigating circumstances that do not absolve her of wrongdoing but could help to tailor a rehabilitation program’

If you’re more towards the individualist end, you may view rehabilitation as ‘too soft’ as you’re only thinking of how that affects the the convicted individual
More towards the socialist end and you’ll be thinking of how a decent and effective rehabilitation program could benefit the rest of society upon her release.

It’s tough one because it is emotional. I had a very strong reaction to that story and my use of language on this thread last night reflects that. I’ve since read some of the brilliant responses and am trying to view it more logically and rationally now.

When you follow each train of thought through, rehabilitation is the only logical course of action.

@EspressoDoubleShot

The flawed logic is,sterilisation after the event doesn’t prevent death. It’s simply a punishment to appease the public revulsion

Well, it would likely stop any more children being born and tortured to death by the likes of this woman.

@EspressoDoubleShot

Mary bell was a convicted child killer,who had her own child on release and didn’t reoffend again. Being a child killer doesn’t automatically mean you’ll reoffend. Some will, some won’t. Depends on the individual

Mary Bell shouldn't have been allowed to have children again imo but that aside she was about half the age of the woman that killed Asiah and did not imprison her victim in a room for 6 days eating and partying while her victim died a, slow, painful death. That woman is not fit to be called a mother. It's sickening and heartbreaking.

My train of thought, regardless of whether I want rehabilitation or not leads me to think offering tough choices including the offer of sterilisation so these people rehabilitation or not can't ever put another child at risk ever again.

There are a few nasty cases at the moment and the men involved and the women should all be offered sterilisation and castration.

"offered" or an on going life long monitoring and checking in situation.

I think many of these cases show, it's too easy for people around them too listen to weasel words and little more probing needs to take place, checking, looking at the bruises, the actions... Not listening to words.

Getting into the property, looking at where the dc sleep, signs of drugs... Asking to see the child.. Following up..

I cannot fathom why anyone whose hurt children often in on going premeditated and calculated ways are allowed to go on to have mote children? Their whims and wants count for more than the life of the children they have already had and murdered?

Mary bell was a convicted child killer,who had her own child on release and didn’t reoffend again

Mary Bell was ten. She wasn’t a mother. She wasn’t an adult. She had psychiatric issues for which she received treatment.

Kudi was 18. She was the child’s mother. She’s an adult. The judge was clear that she knew what she did was wrong and is deceitful and manipulative.

Spot the difference?

Yes, as the definition states, this sometimes involves 'making things up', as that is part of "speculation".

@XDownwiththissortofthingX oh FFS - for the 97th time… we have the FACTS in front of us, we have the comments of the judge and the detective who worked on the case. Not once do they mention sex trafficking or any suggestion that she went to London under duress. Speculating and making things up is not helpful and frankly, rather odd.

I cannot fathom why anyone whose hurt children often in on going premeditated and calculated ways are allowed to go on to have mote children? Their whims and wants count for more than the life of the children they have already had and murdered?

Well talking about this specific case, as and when it's deemed appropriate for this woman to be released, the 'punishment' part of her sentence is considered complete.

It's an essential part of a credible judicial system that once someone is deemed to have served their sentence, we do not then further 'punish' them for the same crime. She will be closely monitored of course, and there will be certain restrictions, of that I have no doubt, she will also have to surrender any future children into the care of SS (for a period, at least) at the point of birth, but none of that constitutes a continuation of her punishment.

There is no part of her sentence that prohibits her from having children in future. Rightly so, in my opinion, for reasons I've already detailed.

This part - "Their whims and wants count for more than the life of the children they have already had and murdered?"

Can you explain how, when her sentence is complete, whatever she chooses to do next, whether that perhaps means having more children, has any relevance to the life of a long-dead child? She has served the penance for that crime. Are you suggesting that in some way, we should decide an appropriate sentence for a crime, make the criminal serve it, consider it complete, and then punish someone who is free and regains their liberty again for the exact same criminal act?

That's unworkable.

No matter the length of sentence that you think is appropriate, at some point that penance comes to an end and the individuality regains their freedom. Not just in the sense that they are at liberty, but their freedom of action, within certain bounds.

I don't mean to be trite, but when a parent disciplines a child by withdrawing a privilege, you don't withdraw the privilege "FOREVER AND EVER!!". People understand that the point of the punishment is to amend the child's behaviour, so at a point where the lesson is deemed sufficient, normal business resumes. It's really no different here. The punishment has to be time limited otherwise it's utterly pointless.

oh FFS - for the 97th time… we have the FACTS in front of us, we have the comments of the judge and the detective who worked on the case. Not once do they mention sex trafficking or any suggestion that she went to London under duress. Speculating and making things up is not helpful and frankly, rather odd

For crying out loud. This woman had a life before she went off partying for six days

Can you even grasp the fact that people might be speculating about what happened to her as a child, or perhaps as a teen prior to her pregnancy, or in the interim period between the birth of her child and the events which led to her death?

You don't have the 'FACTS' about that part of her life.

Does any of that change the material fact that prior to the child's death the woman had been failed by society herself? No, it does not. So why does the criminal act give us the right to totally ignore how this woman may have been failed, and retroactively withdraw any sympathy we might have previously felt?

Again - plenty of people come from very difficult childhoods and backgrounds and suffer unimaginable hardships. Some have posted on this very thread in direct contradiction to your pontificating, if you actually bothered to read and respond to them.

You don't have the 'FACTS' about that part of her life

The judge and legal representatives did. I’m pretty sure the defence would have those FACTS in her mitigation if they existed.

Again - plenty of people come from very difficult childhoods and backgrounds and suffer unimaginable hardships. Some have posted on this very thread in direct contradiction to your pontificating, if you actually bothered to read and respond to them

Whoop-de-fucking-do for them. They turned out great, so evidently there's no reason at all why this woman should be any different, right?

Again, normal, well-adjusted women do not up and kill their children on a whim, so I genuinely am at a loss to imagine what on earth you must think is the causality here if it's not the woman's background and life experiences.

Can you even grasp the fact that people might be speculating about what happened to her

FFS! This is the last time I will repeat myself. There was NO MENTION of sex trafficking in the judge’s or detective’s comments on the case. It didn’t happen. Yet posters still come on here and speculate that she couldn’t possibly have gone to London partying on her own - she must have been trafficked or coerced. They are literally making stuff up that didn’t happen. What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

The judge and legal representatives did. I’m pretty sure the defence would have those FACTS in her mitigation if they existed

Does is occur to you that, for all the griping and moaning about why she 'only' got nine years, that perhaps this is the exact bloody reason why she 'only' got nine years???

The judge and legal representatives did. I’m pretty sure the defence would have those FACTS in her mitigation if they existed.

Precisely. But @XDownwiththissortofthingX knows better than all of them

Whoop-de-fucking-do for them.

What an absolutely vile comment.

FFS! This is the last time I will repeat myself. There was NO MENTION of sex trafficking in the judge’s or detective’s comments on the case. It didn’t happen. Yet posters still come on here and speculate that she couldn’t possibly have gone to London partying on her own - she must have been trafficked or coerced. They are literally making stuff up that didn’t happen. What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

Again, you fail to realise that the woman was 18 years old.

You are obsessed with what went on in the 6 days she was gone from her flat, and totally ignoring that she had 18 years of life before this happened, the 18 years that people are suggesting might have had some sort of impact on why she did what she did in those 6 days?

Like beating my head off a brick wall.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

The judge and legal representatives did. I’m pretty sure the defence would have those FACTS in her mitigation if they existed

Does is occur to you that, for all the griping and moaning about why she 'only' got nine years, that perhaps this is the exact bloody reason why she 'only' got nine years???

She got nine years because that’s virtually the maximum you can get for manslaughter. The judge had no mercy.

Judge Laing QC branded Kudi “deceitful and manipulative” and added: “You knew full well you should not be doing what you were doing. It is a particularly distressing aspect of this case that it is unlikely she would have cried for any time because she had learnt on many occasions there would have been no response.”

Yet posters still come on here and speculate that she couldn’t possibly have gone to London partying on her own - she must have been trafficked or coerced.

I agree that this is made up shit out of nowhere in reference to these few days, regardless of whether she may or may not have been trafficked prior. I would assume that as they know the different stories she told her various friends and the on-site staff about where the child was they may have spoken to them and verified where she went, and if she had the potential excuse of being held and unable to alert anyone she'd have used it and not gone to prison.

Does is occur to you that, for all the griping and moaning about why she 'only' got nine years, that perhaps this is the exact bloody reason why she 'only' got nine years???

You’re just making a fool of yourself now. Go read the comments from the judge and the police involved in the case and find me where they mention that she was sex trafficked or coerced against her will to go to London for six days and that it was a mitigating circumstance in her sentencing.