US Parole board denies battered woman's clemency plea

osarusan · 24-09-2015 07:37PM

asherbassad wrote: »

No woman should ever be in prison.. EVER!

Never ever?

24-09-2015 07:37PM

asherbassad wrote: »

No woman should ever be in prison.. EVER!

A lot of peoples believe this! It is coming to be a crazy world.

hatrickpatrick · 24-09-2015 07:38PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Incidentally what punishment would you mete out to those who issue orders to NOT defend kids from rape when you would have this woman imprisoned for this long merely for the crime of not being ABLE to prevent abuse and violence?

Those who issued the orders not to defend kids from rape should receive the same sentences as the rapists they facilitated. Those who followed those orders in full knowledge that they were facilitating rape should receive the same sentences as the rapists they facilitated.

I'm not particularly sure whether you're suggesting you wouldn't approve of that or not? Personally in my view when it comes to stamping out rape, child molestation, murder etc I believe in being absolutely ruthless. Anyone who knowingly facilitated such crimes in any way, shape or form, even just by knowing about them and not reporting them, should be regarded as co-conspirators and subject to the same penalties as those who committed them. If one's priority is stamping out such crime, then surely one would agree? If my best friend tortures a kid and I don't turn him in, I'm a f*cking scumbag and I should be jailed for conspiracy to commit violence against a child. There's no room in a civilised society for people who commit such crimes, but nor in my view should there be room for people who tolerate them.

asherbassad · 24-09-2015 07:38PM

Penny Tration wrote: »

None, because he was incapable of protecting the child.

There's no evidence the woman was unABLE.

Stop making up ridiculous, incomparable scenarios.

If the mother were held down and beaten by a friend of her boyfriend, while the boyfriend beat the child, it'd be comparable. But that's not what happened.

Then what would your sentence be if he ran away in fear?

A custodial sentence?

Azalea · 24-09-2015 07:41PM

No woman should ever be in prison ever?! Not even the excuse of a mother of Peter Connelly (Baby P)?

But anyway, in this case, if the mother was like the above - willfully neglecting the children/aiding and abetting their abuser, then prison seems perfectly just (although the primary abuser should receive a longer sentence - the sentencing here is baffling).

If the mother was really afraid of the abuser though (and it appears he did assault her too) I don't know... I agree very much that she should still have done more to protect her children, but I don't know if I agree with imprisonment of her.

hatrickpatrick · 24-09-2015 07:44PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Then what would your sentence be if he ran away in fear?

A custodial sentence?

Presume you meant she referring to the mother?

If she didn't report the abuse, yes.
But scratch your premise because in my view it's irrelevant. If a person knew about abuse, could have reported it, and did not, they should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit abuse. Unless there was no way they could make such a report, IE no access to a phone, false imprisonment so couldn't leave the house to go to a payphone or a police station, etc, then they are complicit.

Harsh? Sure. But we're talking about child abuse here. There's no room whatsoever for tolerance of non-coerced complicity.

ceadaoin. · 24-09-2015 07:45PM

The reason her boyfriend escaped a lengthy jail sentence was because she didnt provide sufficient details of the abuse in court, allowing him to make a plea deal. So not only did she not stop the abuse, she continued to protect him. I'm sure she wasn't expecting to go to jail for so long and didn't want to ruin their future together by testifying against him. I do think her sentence is a bit extreme but she does deserve punishment for her actions. Most women in domestic violence situations act that way through fear, a few are just plain selfish and put their relationship before their children. Ultimately, she had the chance in court to protect her children and herself from this man but chose not to

Hall pled guilty, but Braxton did not, and went to trial. Hall testified at his trial, but frustrated prosecutors because she did not provide many details on witness stand about how he had abused her children. Fearful that without her testimony, they would lose the case prosecutors cut a deal with Braxton in which he pled guilty but was released from jail./"

Penny Tration · 24-09-2015 07:45PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Then what would your sentence be if he ran away in fear?

A custodial sentence?

Nope. A sibling has not got a duty of care to their brother or sister.

Again though, you're just making up scenarios that aren't comparable. Instead of making things up, deal with facts

24-09-2015 07:49PM

The bit that troubles me about her is her refusal to give details about his abuse on the stand.

I mean, I can understand battered wives syndrome, the mix of fear, the hope he'd change, so Id have some sympathy...but when the parties were giving evidence at a hearing it's hard to understand how that might still hold.

Of course that is not to excuse the mismatch in their sentences, but her role clearly led to them having to cut a deal with him, so she contributed to the difference in outcomes by ensuring he got a reduced sentence.

A friend of mine had a daughter who was battered and died at the hands of his exs subsequent partner. He got over 40 years.

Azalea · 24-09-2015 07:50PM

Ah, thanks ceadaoin. Makes more sense now. While her prison sentence is absolutely cracked, I don't know that it would be in the best interests of the children to be in her care until she has proven herself in that regard.

asherbassad · 24-09-2015 08:05PM

osarusan wrote: »

Never ever?

No....never.

A woman who is violent or a danger to society....and they are few (please don't spit out some anecdotes which in the grand scheme of things amount to maybe .2% of female criminals) is not best rehabilitated by imprisoning her. Women have no inherent violent tendencies and those that do are not the norm. The ones who drown their kids in a bathtub need obvious psychological counselling as they are mentally unhinged. The electric chair or a prison cell isn't going to accomplish a damn thing unless you are a big fan of revenge.

People are on here bleating on about the sentence for this and the punishment for that and it's like they can't seem to see their own hypocrisy and double standards.

What about Marissa Alexander, the battered wife who was jailed for 20 years in Florida for firing a WARNING SHOT over the head (or was it just into the ceiling of her gaff) to ward off her thug of a husband?

So.....20 years for attempted defence or maybe just trying to scare your tormentor. 15 years for not doing anything......and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

Penny Tration · 24-09-2015 08:08PM

asherbassad wrote: »

No....never.

A woman who is violent or a danger to society....and they are few (please don't spit out some anecdotes which in the grand scheme of things amount to maybe .2% of female criminals) is not best rehabilitated by imprisoning her. Women have no inherent violent tendencies and those that do are not the norm. The ones who drown their kids in a bathtub need obvious psychological counselling as they are mentally unhinged. The electric chair or a prison cell isn't going to accomplish a damn thing unless you are a big fan of revenge.

People are on here bleating on about the sentence for this and the punishment for that and it's like they can't seem to see their own hypocrisy and double standards.

What about Marissa Alexander, the battered wife who was jailed for 20 years in Florida for firing a WARNING SHOT over the head (or was it just into the ceiling of her gaff) to ward off her thug of a husband?

So.....20 years for attempted defence or maybe just trying to scare your tormentor. 15 years for not doing anything......and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

I assume men who are violent and a danger to society should also never be jailed, and instead be given therapy and rehabilitation?

darkpagandeath · 24-09-2015 08:08PM

Both should still be in Jail.

Little CuChulainn · 24-09-2015 08:13PM

I think Tumblr is leaking.

ceadaoin. · 24-09-2015 08:22PM

asherbassad wrote: »

What about Marissa Alexander, the battered wife who was jailed for 20 years in Florida for firing a WARNING SHOT over the head (or was it just into the ceiling of her gaff) to ward off her thug of a husband?

So.....20 years for attempted defence or maybe just trying to scare your tormentor. 15 years for not doing anything......and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

She fired a gun towards her husband and his children, not the ceiling. She went and retrieved the gun from her car, hardly self defence. Florida has mandatory sentencing laws for gun violence. 10 years for pulling a gun, 20 for firing and life for shooting someone. Those laws apply to everyone, male or female.

asherbassad · 24-09-2015 08:57PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

She fired a gun towards her husband and his children, not the ceiling. She went and retrieved the gun from her car, hardly self defence. Florida has mandatory sentencing laws for gun violence. 10 years for pulling a gun, 20 for firing and life for shooting someone. Those laws apply to everyone, male or female.

Now can you tell me why she fired the gun "towards" her husband and children? Were they all just sitting at the table or was he threatening them? Was he beating them? Was he threatening to slit their throats?

What's that law all about of which you speak? 10 years for pulling a gun? So if she thought her abusive husband was about to box the sh1t out of one of her kids and she pulled a gun then she's get a mandatory 10 years? Yes?

Little CuChulainn · 24-09-2015 08:59PM

asherbassad wrote: »

Now can you tell me why she fired the gun "towards" her husband and children? Were they all just sitting at the table or was he threatening them? Was he beating them? Was he threatening to slit their throats?

What's that law all about of which you speak? 10 years for pulling a gun? So if she thought her abusive husband was about to box the sh1t out of one of her kids and she pulled a gun then she's get a mandatory 10 years? Yes?

And if she had hit the kid instead of the husband?

hatrickpatrick · 24-09-2015 09:05PM

asherbassad wrote: »

and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

The rest of your post is irrelevant - generalising and discriminating in the justice system on demographic grounds is not ok. Period.

Also, as I said in my own post, if someone wants to use the defence that they were coerced into committing a crime as a result of abuse, they should be able to provide evidence of that in court. You can't simply allow an unfounded and unproven allegation to affect the outcome of a criminal trial, that's lunacy.

osarusan · 24-09-2015 09:05PM

asherbassad wrote: »

No....never.

We could throw back and forth examples of women who are guilty of terrible crimes and women who have been wronged, but what would that achieve?

I simply couldn't disagree more. Some people deserve prison. Gender shouldn't grant an exemption.

asherbassad wrote: »

.and you question why I think not a single woman belongs behind bars?

Yes, I do question it.

I don't see any link whatsoever between examples of women who have been very harshly treated by the justice system and a blanket statement that no woman should ever, ever go to prison.

Mother Brain · 24-09-2015 09:10PM

Women are capable of just as much twisted sadistic behaviour as men. I used to work in a solicitors office and would have seen my fair share of it first hand. (in the sense that I had access to crime scene photographs, police reports etc.)

The whole 'women are special' argument when it comes to application of the law is just incredibly moronic.

One eyed Jack · 24-09-2015 09:41PM

I can understand why the parole board chose by a 5-0 unanimous decision to refuse this woman's plea for clemency. I read the part of the article the OP chose not to quote -

The case stemmed from a 2004 incident, in which Hall took her 20-month-old son to the hospital and doctors found he had broken ribs and a broken femur, and then discovered that her 3-month-old daughter had similar injuries.

At the hearing Wednesday, High seemed incredulous that Hall had not taken more action given how seriously her children were hurt.

High, the board's vice chair, pointed out that the femur is "the biggest bone in the body." "She never acted like that leg bothered her when you would change her?" High asked.

"She cried, but I didn't — I thought it was because she needed to be changed or fed, you know," Hall replied.

"So as soon as you were finished with changing her or feeding her, she just calmed right back down?"

"Um — yes ma'am."

High asked Hall if the day of the hospital visit was the first time she noticed her children had been hurt. No, Hall replied, adding that Braxton, her then boyfriend, "was already hitting on me" and their son.

Only one other person testified at the hearing, Marsha Travis, the chaplain at Mabel Bassett Correctional Center in McLoud, where Hall has been in prison. She urged board members to commute Hall's sentence.

"I have heard the remorse in her voice," she said.

Following that plea, board members voted one by one against letting Hall out.

Hall's sentence is up in 2034. She is not eligible for parole until 2030.

This was two children, with broken bones, and this woman herself who was assaulted. She could have informed the authorities long before medical staff who are obliged to report instances of child abuse did so. If they hadn't reported it, it could have continued indefinitely.

This woman then chose to frustrate prosecution attempts to secure a conviction against her boyfriend, to the point where they had to cut her boyfriend a deal, and that was the reason for what seems like a totally disproportionate sentence on his behalf.

Both should have got life for their crimes IMO.

MilesMorales1 · 24-09-2015 10:02PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can understand why the parole board chose by a 5-0 unanimous decision to refuse this woman's plea for clemency. I read the part of the article the OP chose not to quote -

This was two children, with broken bones, and this woman herself who was assaulted. She could have informed the authorities long before medical staff who are obliged to report instances of child abuse did so. If they hadn't reported it, it could have continued indefinitely.

This woman then chose to frustrate prosecution attempts to secure a conviction against her boyfriend, to the point where they had to cut her boyfriend a deal, and that was the reason for what seems like a totally disproportionate sentence on his behalf.

Both should have got life for their crimes IMO.

If she was abused, both physically and mentally, its really not that simple.

Penny Tration · 24-09-2015 10:08PM

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

If she was abused, both physically and mentally, its really not that simple.

Yeah, it is. Most parents would die for their children, not ignore them having broken bones at the age of three months, then try to protect the scum who did it in court.

hatrickpatrick · 24-09-2015 10:19PM

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

If she was abused, both physically and mentally, its really not that simple.

So let me get this straight - we're to add being in an abusive relationship to the ever growing list of 'legitimate' avenues through which to throw away personal responsibility and avoid the consequences of one's actions?

The way the world is going, it will literally be impossible to jail anyone, ever. Oh wait - that's already where Ireland is headed. Scumbag beats up old lady on the bus? "He was an addict helpless to heroin". Someone robs a shop at gunpoint? "She was a single mother who was going through difficult times." Someone murders a relative? "He was depressed." Someone attacks a bartender, causing grievous bodily harm? "She was drunk and would never have done anything like this sober."

Come on, I can't surely be the only person who's getting utterly fed up of hearing about people getting away with everything from petty theft to murder by having some (usually unproven) sob story in court. If you commit a crime, you commit a crime. Coercion is one thing. The vague, undefined excuse of brainwashing or social conditioning is not a valid excuse - regardless of how much someone bullsh!ts you about your relationship to them, it's a basic, basic, basic skill to be able to say that beating up a kid is morally wrong. If you are incapable of making that distinction, then you're probably a danger to society one way or another.

One eyed Jack · 24-09-2015 10:20PM

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

If she was abused, both physically and mentally, its really not that simple.

How simple does it need to be before it becomes excusable for anyone to ignore their duty towards themselves and their children to protect themselves from an abuser?

This woman had all manner of opportunities to report the violence against herself, and the abuse of her children, and she neglected to do so, and from my reading of the article, she only claimed she was also a victim of domestic violence after medical staff had reported the abuse of her children, and even then she was, in the judges own words 'less than candid' in the prosecution case against her boyfriend.

This woman failed on a number of counts when she had, and was given, numerous opportunities to protect herself and her children. Why should she be given clemency at all?

hatrickpatrick · 25-09-2015 02:47AM

Jack dafuq do you think you're doing, you and me aren't supposed to argue on the same side in AH threads... This better not be the start of a trend

Also, @OP and everyone defending this woman, I think it would greatly clarify this thread and the story if the word "allegedly" was inserted between the words "denies" and "battered".

MilesMorales1 · 25-09-2015 08:58AM

I never said she shouldn't have defended her kids, or that she was blameless. But I can tell you guys right now having been in a similar kind of situation myself with an abusive person, its not as simple as just asking for help, it really isn't.

One eyed Jack · 25-09-2015 09:25AM

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

I never said she shouldn't have defended her kids, or that she was blameless. But I can tell you guys right now having been in a similar kind of situation myself with an abusive person, its not as simple as just asking for help, it really isn't.

And in just the same way as you've never said she shouldn't have defended her children, nobody here has said that just asking for help was simple. We're all aware of just how difficult it is to ask for help. That still doesn't excuse the fact that this woman attended a hospital with her three month old child who had a broken femur, and when examined, her 20 month old showed similar injuries. We have no idea of the extent to which the woman herself was assaulted because the woman was 'less than candid' in giving evidence that would have meant her boyfriend would have received a much harsher sentence than he did.

The whole article reads to me like she was trying to cover for herself and her boyfriend because she wasn't aware that medical staff were required by law to report incidents of child abuse.

As patrick points out above, myself and himself are normally coming at issues from different angles, but on this one, we're definitely on the same page.

tritium · 25-09-2015 09:32AM

asherbassad wrote: »

No....never.

A woman who is violent or a danger to society....and they are few (please don't spit out some anecdotes which in the grand scheme of things amount to maybe .2% of female criminals) is not best rehabilitated by imprisoning her. Women have no inherent violent tendencies and those that do are not the norm. The ones who drown their kids in a bathtub need obvious psychological counselling as they are mentally unhinged. The electric chair or a prison cell isn't going to accomplish a damn thing unless you are a big fan of revenge.

Of course you'd support similar arguments about male offenders right?

Because if not your credibility just disappeared once you made that (deeply sexist to both genders) argument.

One eyed Jack · 25-09-2015 10:01AM

tritium wrote: »

If course you'd support similar arguments about male offenders right?

Because if not your credibility just disappeared once you made that (deeply sexist to both genders) argument.

Tbh there's not much point in trying to discuss anything with someone that isn't able to see how they contradict their own point in the same sentence -

asherbassad wrote: »

Women have no inherent violent tendencies and those that do are not the norm.

So either the part about 'women have no inherent violent tendencies' is wrong, or the part about the number of women who have violent tendencies, is wrong.

Either way, as you pointed out, the same statement could be made of men -

asherbassad wrote: »

Men have no inherent violent tendencies and those that do are not the norm.

Which renders the whole point itself, completely redundant, as the same contradiction is still obvious.

US Parole board denies battered woman's clemency plea

Comments