BABY P's 'mother' gets 10 years

[shinyshoes]

Must serve a min of 5.

Told ya, that's exactly what I said yesturday

Cunting disgrace

is there any evidence to support the "too afraid and ground down to do anything" theories being bandied around?
genuine question, because if there is it's possibly relevant to my opinions on the case and i'd be interested to see it.
if there isn't then it just seems like people trying to excuse a mother of violently abusing her children for no other reason than we don't want to believe a mother could actually do this, but are quite happy to accept,fuck it we even half expect, the father to be capable.

but the sentence isn't just the imprisonment. It's not just as simple as "right they're out of the prison sentence finished" - that's why you see people getting a life sentence but with only X years imprisonment.

MQ: I don't know as have tried to stay away from reading too much about this (i really don't feel a need to know the details). Just in general, it's more usual that there is some DV and a not-very=bright woman who is easily manipulated. I suppose I was thinking of Maxine Carr - but then Maxine Carr didn't atually harm anyone, all she did was provide a false alibi to a man she believed a the time to be innocent and there were still calls for her to be strung up.

Women's prisons are full of women seperated from their children aginst their will as a consequence of their conviction. They are not going to react at all well to this woman - however long she's in for it's going to feel like an eternity to her. I understand we want to see a sentence that seems to be in line with the horror of the crime - but that simply doesn't exist. Some things are so broken - we just can't fix them.

I have posted on another thread about this. Best sentences in the circumstances. Because they couldn't prove who killed him the murder charge couldn't stand in court. So the lesser charge of causing his death stood. She pleaded guilty and got a discount on her sentence for this. (Whatever you think about this it is a good legal principle as it discourages rapists etc taking people to court for trials etc)

The imposition of an indeterminate sentence is good. The minimum is half of what the max sentence would have been should they have been given a determinate sentence. The judge looks at what he would have given should it have been determinate and then halves this. However this IS the minimum they must serve before they can consider parole. The indeterminate sentence (IPP) could mean they are locked up forever. In applying for parole they must be able to prove they no longer pose a risk to children.

The parole processes in these cases are extremely robust and given the high profile of this case and the harm the individuals are capable of - would think it highly unlikely they would be coming out at any point near their minimum term.

In assessing their future risk - highly unlikely they can hoodwink the professionals they now come into contact with, now that the truth about them is out.

I know it sounds like they are getting light sentences but they are not. These IPPs are pretty much like life sentences for people who haven't committed offences which attract the life sentence.

Sorry if it's confusing but want to try and reassure people that this isn't the easy option and the judge has done the right thing.

I gasped out loud when I heard this announced. Tis truly shocking - even 10yrs seems like too little for what happened. What I don't really understand is why old cons such as Myra Hindley, Ian Brady and felons like the Manson Family were/are locked up for decades, even dying in prison, whereas nowadays, truly awful deeds just don't carry meaningful, long-term sentences.

Why has the doing of evil being seemingly dumbed down? Lack of prison spaces? A belief prisons 'don't work'? Too much liberalism? Whatever, it's a disgrace.

Read my post MannyMoeandJack - they do stay in prison!

"Just in general, it's more usual that there is some DV and a not-very=bright woman who is easily manipulated."
and that was kind of my point.i mean as far as sexism in the courts and law go, we are very quick to point out instances of where the law seems to be working against women.
but doesn't this idea that we always seem to look for an excuse for women who are convicted add to it? i mean even in a case like this some people are so quick to jump to the conclusion that women are these weak easily manipulated creatures, that men can control so easily.
why are some people so quick to assume that this woman is not responsible for her actions when we would not do so with a man?

MQ: Well, that's because more women are controlled and abused by men in DV situations than men are by women. Obviously not all DV victims go on to abuse their own children, but it is silly to ignore the ongoing issue of some mens's sense of entitlement which means they think women are servants and property and it's OK to enforce obedience.

i'm not saying to ignore it completely. i'm talking about assuming it when their is no evidence to suggest it. which is why i asked if there was any evidence to suggest it in this case, because people seemed to be assuming that there had to be etc.
because if there is not, then it does smack of making excuses for the criminal on the basis that she is a woman.

i am genuinely sorry if it came out in any other way. i was certainly not intending to dismiss or trivialise the reality of DV.

" would be jailed indefinitely until "deemed no longer to be a risk to the public and in particular to small children".

That could be for a long, long time.

fifitot, yes I guess they will stay in prison for their respective minimum terms but there does seem to be a tendency for criminals to be released earlier and earlier and no doubt, these people will be the same whereas in times past, cons really did stay in prison if it was thought that their
crime(s) warranted it. The system does seem to have changed now.

Good post fifitot.

It does sound as though the judge has done the most he could in the circumstances, given the charges he was presented with. He clearly wasn't taken in by her, and there are precedents for whole life sentences (Brady, Hunt, Hindley etc) in this country. I agree the whole sentencing system in this country is a complete, opaque mess.

It is unbelievable she caused the death of her son- she put her sexual needs before that of her children. She allowed this abuse to happen- where did she think the constant cut bruises and broken bones came from? It is disgusting to think that she has to only serve 5 years- whereas someone can rob a bank/ commit fraud and receive a far higher sentence. What price does the British justice system put on the life of a child?
Apparently the only emotion she showed during sentencing was when they sentenced her partner to life when she shouted No!!!!!!
WHAT MESSAGE IS THIS GIVING OUT TO ABUSERS, TORTURE AND KILL A CHILD AND GET LIFE WHICH ISNT LIFE IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD PERHAPS 10 TO 15 YEARS- STAND BACK AND WATCH YOUR CHILD BE SYSTEMATICALLY TORTURED AND TO EVENTUALLY SUFFER A TERRIBLE DEATH AND GET 5 YEARS!!! ITS A UTTER DISGRACE!!

For all those who repeatedly tried to name the mother and accused the media of "protecting" her by not naming her, can I ask that you read this?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8062099.stm

Long - that is simply a case of the defense trying their luck and failing.
The judge luckily saw through the bullshit.

Nonsense. It's easy to dismiss it now, but there were really serious concerns.

Cases are frequently affected because of pre-trial publicity. A prejudiced trial is a prejudiced trial.

If a jury has been compromised, it has. It was always a serious risk in this case.

arghhh a "sentence" isn't just the time spent in prison, that's why a "life sentence" may only include 10yrs (eg) in prison - but it's still a life sentence because of what happens after they're no longer in formal custody.

It's a sad reflection when the legal system treats the public who potentially make up a jury with such little respect they believe they do not have the intelligence to not be nobled by the media.
Aren't they trying to get rid of of trial by jury,
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4753345.ece
No doubt why this story has come about, to show that democracy can't be trusted any more

Unless the author of that article's suddenly taken over the country in a coup d'etat, no, they are not getting rid of trial by jury. There's an argument taking place about complex fraud cases (where jurors often lose jobs and income because they go on for so long) and terrorism related trials (because the case can depend on information relating to national security) but they're not even happening in those, despite recent suggestions.

The jury system has always tried to ensure people get a fair trial - and that often means withholding certain information from them. Like a previous criminal conviction, because people tend to think, oh they're already a criminal? Probably done this too, then.

Equally, pre-trial publicity can prejudice a case, not because "the media" (sigh) are evil and out to "nobble" people - but because you'd have to be an automaton to remove from your brain everything you learned outside the courtroom - indeed to remember what was part of the court case, and what was something affecting the case that you read in pre-trial publicity.

this article is scary

Apparently investigative journalists who exposed paeodphiles operating in children's homes in Islington raised the alarm about Baby P's family years before he was even born. Seems the mother was a victim of child abuse herself, as many people have guessed.

The journalist says Lord Laming, the man in charge of the Victoria Climbie and Baby P inquiries, failed to investigate properly. No wonder SS is in such a shambles if it's being led by mates of Margaret Hodge...

The nature of the sentences they have received also means they could never be released from prison, but it's funny how there haven't been any headlines saying, "Baby Peter's killers may die in jail" or anything like that. There's no need to always take the outraged angle, when the sentences are more complex than they may seem. The guilty parties are extremely unlikely to be released for a very long time, particularly the man, who seems to have shown little remorse.

Oh! I take it back - the Guardian online's title for this story is "Baby P's mother jailed indefinitely". Whereas the Daily Mail prefers the angle of, "Children's charity furious as Baby P mother could be out in just three years".

Says it all, really. If you want to be outraged, you find a way to do it. However, if you want to be rational and actually look at the facts, you can do that too.