Harsh ?

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 12:57PM

Heckler wrote: »

Of course I can. But give me the details of this cruelty. UK judges have a history of conflating what I would call pissy offences into melodramas.

You have the details - four counts of child cruelty, which the woman herself pleaded guilty to. The result of her child cruelty is that a child is dead. The only person trying to turn anything into a melodrama here is yourself with your claims about denying a child chocolate and access to facebook is child cruelty, when it's made clear from the article that it was quite a bit more than that, to the point where at one point neighbours called social services after the child was nearly knocked down when playing on the road, and then the child drowned while the woman was engrossed in her phone.

According to this, the maximum sentence she could have received is 10 years -

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 10 years imprisonment

So five years at least is appropriate for four counts of child cruelty.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 01:00PM

Samaris wrote: »

Because obviously it's only the poorer people in society that would ever harm or neglect their kids.

Isn't child benefit paid to all parents though, regardless of their means?

I take the poster's point, though I don't necessarily think parenting courses would actually make any measurable difference to how some parents choose to raise their children.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 01:01PM

Heckler wrote: »

Its this social media driven paranoia that allows distressed children to be ignored for fear that if someone, especially a male, trys to lend a hand they'll be branded a pedophile.

I think you're the one being sensationalist with that statement .......... I personally don't use Facebook, Twitter etc. and never have so my concerns for my children's well-being stem from my own common sense regarding the world we live in as well as acknowledging the fact that children are not yet fully aware of the world they've been born into .......... it's my job to protect them until they can protect themselves.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 01:03PM

Heckler wrote: »

Its this social media driven paranoia that allows distressed children to be ignored for fear that if someone, especially a male, trys to lend a hand they'll be branded a pedophile. If I saw an upset child I'd ask for a females help before I ever approached them. Thats a sad reflection on our current society.

Were it not for the fact that this woman was so engrossed in her social media activities, the child might still be alive. That's not a sad reflection on society, that's a sad reflection on this woman's attitude towards her child's safety.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 01:06PM

No I don't have the details. Do you know what falls under the auspices of child cruelty in the UK ? I don't. Could be a smack on the ass. would you consider that an act of child cruelty ?

Samaris · 10-10-2015 01:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Isn't child benefit paid to all parents though, regardless of their means?

I take the poster's point, though I don't necessarily think parenting courses would actually make any measurable difference to how some parents choose to raise their children.

Ah, if that's the case, I take it back. It sounded like one of the usual digs on AH about people on benefits.

Regarding the woman in this case, I'm not sure. Some reports say she was charged with child neglect, some with child cruelty, and those two things are very different.

The NSPCC were called after her son and another child (some reports list the second child as being hers as well, some indicate an unrelated child) were playing near a road in 2013, inadequately dressed and with no shoes on, and were nearly hit by a car. She wasn't charged for that.

If it was this situation alone, it would be very harsh, even though she had been warned about the pond and should have covered it over. But there just isn't that much information available as regards neglect/cruelty, which makes it rather hard from an outside perspective to say whether or not the sentence is harsh or not.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 01:10PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Were it not for the fact that this woman was so engrossed in her social media activities, the child might still be alive. That's not a sad reflection on society, that's a sad reflection on this woman's attitude towards her child's safety.

Gimme a ****ing break. I'm not on facebook, don't even own a smartphone but to blame the woman for the childs death for being on social media is a fallacy. What if 10 years ago a mother was in the hallway tied to a land line phone and took her eyes off a child for 5 minutes ?

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 01:11PM

Heckler wrote: »

No I don't have the details. Do you know what falls under the auspices of child cruelty in the UK ? I don't. Could be a smack on the ass. would you consider that an act of child cruelty ?

You may have a point to a certain degree and that's for every individual parent to assess and balance out as they see fit whilst taking the law into account .......... but what has your point got to do with this particular case???

Her child is dead ......... her child is dead because she neglected him ............ 5 years is lenient even if she had never neglected him prior to death .......... she was supposed to protect him because he couldn't protect himself.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 01:16PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You may have a point to a certain degree and that's for every individual parent to assess and balance out as they see fit whilst taking the law into account .......... but what has your point got to do with this particular case???

Her child is dead ......... her child is dead because she neglected him ............ 5 years is lenient even if she had never neglected him prior to death .......... she was supposed to protect him because he couldn't protect himself.

My whole point is the degree of neglect. Anyone can take the eye off a kid and a tragedy can happen. The article make it seems like she was facebooking and taking selfies while the boy drowned in the background. Sensational headlines sells papers.

Good god is there any parent alive who lost a child from taking a moments eye away ? Every second week in farming accidents. There was even an RTE ad campaign in the 80's about covering water barrels etc on farms. Those poor parents don't get 5 years in prison for not keeping a laser eye on their kids. Whats the difference ? Child drowns in water barrel. Child crushed by reversing tractor. Tragic but no jail time. Could be argued bad parenting.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 01:23PM

Heckler wrote: »

Gimme a ****ing break. I'm not on facebook, don't even own a smartphone but to blame the woman for the childs death for being on social media is a fallacy. What if 10 years ago a mother was in the hallway tied to a land line phone and took her eyes off a child for 5 minutes ?

Heckler wrote: »

My whole point is the degree of neglect. Anyone can take the eye off a kid and a tragedy can happen. The article make it seems like she was facebooking and taking selfies while the boy drowned in the background. Sensational headlines sells papers.

Good god is there any parent alive who lost a child from taking a moments eye away ? Every second week in farming accidents. There was even an RTE ad campaign in the 80's about covering water barrels etc on farms. Those poor parents don't get 5 years in prison for not keeping a laser eye on their kids.

You might have a point if it were only one count of child cruelty, but four counts, resulting in the death of a child?

And do the neighbours usually call social services when an accident happens?

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 01:26PM

Heckler wrote: »

My whole point is the degree of neglect. Anyone can take the eye off a kid and a tragedy can happen. The article make it seems like she was facebooking and taking selfies while the boy drowned in the background. Sensational headlines sells papers.

Good god is there any parent alive who lost a child from taking a moments eye away ? Every second week in farming accidents. There was even an RTE ad campaign in the 80's about covering water barrels etc on farms. Those poor parents don't get 5 years in prison for not keeping a laser eye on their kids.

The "mother" in this case has a history of neglect/cruelty/not giving a sh*t and her child eventually died regardless of the "degree" of neglect in previous instances ...... another poster mentioned that this is not the best case to use to champion your cause no matter how valid it may be .......... I think you should heed that advice and pick another case.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 01:44PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

The "mother" in this case has a history of neglect/cruelty/not giving a sh*t and her child eventually died regardless of the "degree" of neglect in previous instances ...... another poster mentioned that this is not the best case to use to champion your cause no matter how valid it may be .......... I think you should heed that advice and pick another case.

Hang on a second. First of all your use of quotation marks around the word mother is inflammatory and designed to bias readers from the start. Now we've gone from cruelty (which has a wide definition in UK law) to neglect and not giving a ****.

I'm not condoning her actions at all. But just because a Judge in the UK says so doesn't make it right. Judges **** up all the time. Have a look around boards where there are lengthy threads on Judges giving out stupid lenient sentences for violent assaults sometimes resulting in even death.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 01:52PM

And what is a prison term going to do for this woman that her own guilt ridden mind won't do ?

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 01:53PM

Heckler wrote: »

Hang on a second. First of all your use of quotation marks around the word mother is inflammatory and designed to bias readers from the start. Now we've gone from cruelty (which has a wide definition in UK law) to neglect and not giving a ****.

I'm not condoning her actions at all. But just because a Judge in the UK says so doesn't make it right. Judges **** up all the time. Have a look around boards where there are lengthy threads on Judges giving out stupid lenient sentences for violent assaults sometimes resulting in even death.

But the judge could only determine the length of her sentence, after she had pleaded guilty to four counts of child cruelty. It was up to the CPS to make the case in the first place, and they could only do that after an investigation was carried out by police, the police whom this woman had given different accounts to each time.

So even if the judge had monstrously fcuked up (as you're quite right, they do tend to do that sometimes), that still doesn't negate the actual facts of the case that were presented as evidence, which quite possibly amounted to more than denying access to facebook, or chocolate bars. Parents in the UK, like here in Ireland, have a ferocious amount of leeway with regard to how they raise their children, so it would be ridiculous to assume that these charges were brought on any sort of trivial basis.

Very Bored · 10-10-2015 01:56PM

Echoing what an earlier poster said about it being difficult for a male to help a child these days. My natural instinct when a child falls over is to help them up, ask them are they ok and take them to their parents. I try to curb the instinct as much as possible but sometimes it takes over as we are instinctive beings. But when I do I always start panicking because I know how vulnerable I am in that moment. If I was a woman I doubt I would feel that way. It was also perfectly normal behaviour from an adult when I was a child.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 01:58PM

Heckler wrote: »

Hang on a second. First of all your use of quotation marks around the word mother is inflammatory and designed to bias readers from the start. Now we've gone from cruelty (which has a wide definition in UK law) to neglect and not giving a ****.

I'm not condoning her actions at all. But just because a Judge in the UK says so doesn't make it right. Judges **** up all the time. Have a look around boards where there are lengthy threads on Judges giving out stupid lenient sentences for violent assaults sometimes resulting in even death.

I was being kind even referring to her as a "mother" ......... this individual is responsible for the death of her own child ffs!

I don't care if it's called neglect, cruelty, careless, stupid or whatever ......... the end result is the same, the result being her child is now dead due to her actions (or inactions) .......... she fully deserves her sentence plus some in my opinion.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 01:59PM

Heckler wrote: »

And what is a prison term going to do for this woman that her own guilt ridden mind won't do ?

In prison, this woman can undergo rehabilitation and counselling and a number of other services that will be made available to her, that would not be available to her outside of prison.

A custodial sentence is as much a rehabilitative measure as it is a measure of punishment for the fact that she was convicted of four counts of child cruelty. Bringing up examples of other cases, does not negate nor diminish the severity of the crime in this particular case, nor should it. If anything, it only serves to show that those crimes should be punished more severely.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 02:00PM

Very Bored wrote: »

Echoing what an earlier poster said about it being difficult for a male to help a child these days. My natural instinct when a child falls over is to help them up, ask them are they ok and take them to their parents. I try to curb the instinct as much as possible but sometimes it takes over as we are instinctive beings. But when I do I always start panicking because I know how vulnerable I am in that moment. If I was a woman I doubt I would feel that way. It was also perfectly normal behaviour from an adult when I was a child.

I still help a fallen child to his/her feet and I've never had an issue with it .........

Heckler · 10-10-2015 02:04PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the judge could only determine the length of her sentence, after she had pleaded guilty to four counts of child cruelty. It was up to the CPS to make the case in the first place, and they could only do that after an investigation was carried out by police, the police whom this woman had given different accounts to each time.

So even if the judge had monstrously fcuked up (as you're quite right, they do tend to do that sometimes), that still doesn't negate the actual facts of the case that were presented as evidence, which quite possibly amounted to more than denying access to facebook, or chocolate bars. Parents in the UK, like here in Ireland, have a ferocious amount of leeway with regard to how they raise their children, so it would be ridiculous to assume that these charges were brought on any sort of trivial basis.

Yup on the trivial argument. Again I was facetious about the chocolate but I do wonder what constitutes a conviction or even a basis for possible prosecution in a UK court. I have a feeling it could be something very minor.

Don't have any link but a case of a fella having a drunken piss against a wall, done for indecent exposure and put on the sex offenders register for seven years. That kind of nonsense.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 02:08PM

Heckler wrote: »

Yup on the trivial argument. Again I was facetious about the chocolate but I do wonder what constitutes a conviction or even a basis for possible prosecution in a UK court. I have a feeling it could be something very minor.

That's a point of discussion for another thread/case .......... you are asking if a 5 year sentence is too harsh for this woman who is responsible for the death of her child .......... the answer (my answer) is no, it is definitely not harsh at all ....... it might actually be quite lenient.

LDN_Irish · 10-10-2015 02:08PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I still help a fallen child to his/her feet and I've never had an issue with it .........

Yep, me too. I've never felt the least bit apprehensive or vulnerable about it.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 02:09PM

Heckler wrote: »

Yup on the trivial argument. Again I was facetious about the chocolate but I do wonder what constitutes a conviction or even a basis for possible prosecution in a UK court. I have a feeling it could be something very minor.

I already linked to it in the thread -

Cruelty to a Child

Seriousness, culpability and harm

Seriousness - to assess seriousness, the precise nature of the offence must be established before considering factors such as the defendant's intent, the length of time over which the cruelty took place, and the degree of physical and psychological harm suffered by the victim.

Culpability - the guideline establishes that culpability should be the initial factor in determining seriousness.

Harm - nature and degree of harm caused, intended or reasonably foreseeable will impact on seriousness.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 02:20PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I was being kind even referring to her as a "mother" ......... this individual is responsible for the death of her own child ffs!

I don't care if it's called neglect, cruelty, careless, stupid or whatever ......... the end result is the same, the result being her child is now dead due to her actions (or inactions) .......... she fully deserves her sentence plus some in my opinion.

As i referenced earlier, a child dying in a tragic farm accident. Drowning in a slurry pit, crushed by a combine harvester or tractor. A child killed by a car reversing out of a driveway in a leafy suburb.

Why aren't you crying out for these parents to be jailed ? Neglect is neglect right ? Whos fault is it ? The father backing out the car ? The mother for not knowing where the kid was when the car was being backed out ?

But because she was on the phone shes ripped to pieces by ironically asswipes who spend their day with their heads buried in phones on facebook and twitter.

Azalea · 10-10-2015 02:23PM

It's because she had a history I guess? And also there's the line between accidental and preventable. I suppose each case has to be examined individually.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 02:25PM

Heckler wrote: »

As i referenced earlier, a child dying in a tragic farm accident. Drowning in a slurry pit, crushed by a combine harvester or tractor. A child killed by a car reversing out of a driveway in a leafy suburb.

Why aren't you crying out for these parents to be jailed ? Neglect is neglect right ? Whos fault is it ? The father backing out the car ? The mother for not knowing where the kid was when the car was being backed out ?

As you quite rightly point out, those incidents are tragic accidents. What happened in this case however, was apparently repeated instances of neglect and cruelty, that weren't just tragic accidents, they were caused by deliberate neglect, which amounted to child cruelty, four counts of child cruelty which resulted in the death of a child. Five years for that is not harsh, when the maximum sentence for one count can be up to ten years.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 02:28PM

Hatless wrote: »

It's because she had a history I guess? And also there's the line between accidental and preventable. I suppose each case has to be examined individually.

Fair enough. But show me one parent who hasn't had a Holy **** ! that could have gone wrong ! moment with their child and I'll show you a liar.

Heckler · 10-10-2015 02:33PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As you quite rightly point out, those incidents are tragic accidents. What happened in this case however, was apparently repeated instances of neglect and cruelty, that weren't just tragic accidents, they were caused by deliberate neglect, which amounted to child cruelty, four counts of child cruelty which resulted in the death of a child. Five years for that is not harsh, when the maximum sentence for one count can be up to ten years.

To run with your instance of repeat. The child who drowned in a rain barrel on a farm. The rain barrel was there for the last 7 years of his life. It didn't just turn up the day he died in it. So thats a case of repeated neglect. Not abuse, neglect by your ratiional.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 02:36PM

Heckler wrote: »

As i referenced earlier, a child dying in a tragic farm accident. Drowning in a slurry pit, crushed by a combine harvester or tractor. A child killed by a car reversing out of a driveway in a leafy suburb.

Why aren't you crying out for these parents to be jailed ? Neglect is neglect right ? Whos fault is it ? The father backing out the car ? The mother for not knowing where the kid was when the car was being backed out ?

But because she was on the phone shes ripped to pieces by ironically asswipes who spend their day with their heads buried in phones on facebook and twitter.

When did I say that the parents in some of those cases don't deserve a custodial sentence?

Each case is different and would need to be assessed individually .......... as it stands, I'm of the believe that the law is too lenient when it comes to tragic preventable deaths and/or injuries to children because the parent(s) of these children failed to protect their own child.

For example, I believe that the parents of Madeline McCann should have been charged, tried and (if convicted) sentenced to a hefty term in prison .......... they lost their child (partially due to their own selfishness) but Madeline herself lost her life (most likely) through no fault of her own whatsoever.

MadDog76 · 10-10-2015 02:37PM

Heckler wrote: »

Fair enough. But show me one parent who hasn't had a Holy **** ! that could have gone wrong ! moment with their child and I'll show you a liar.

Show me one parent who does it repeatedly and I'll personally report that parent to the proper authorities ............

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2015 02:42PM

Heckler wrote: »

To run with your instance of repeat. The child who drowned in a rain barrel on a farm. The rain barrel was there for the last 7 years of his life. It didn't just turn up the day he died in it. So thats a case of repeated neglect. Not abuse, neglect by your ratiional.

That example though has nothing to do with this case, and throughout this thread you've consistently tried to distract from what happened to the child in this instance, caused by the parent who was reported to the authorities for child neglect, and charged with four counts of child cruelty.

Can you stick to recognising the facts of this case, and see why she received a five year sentence in this case?

Harsh ?

Comments