Off Topic The Politics Thread

I don't know the ins and outs of this case but a custodial sentence is nothing short of ridiculous from what I can gather. Who knows what state of mind this person was in. It's a sad story, made even sadder that 3 children have had their mother taken away from them.

 

Custodial sentences are to protect the public from repeat offenders. That does not apply here.

Goldie fyi...she pleaded not guilty to a different offence...changed her plea when the prosecution changed the charge

"The woman initially pleaded not guilty to child destruction, but later admitted an alternative charge of administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion"


It also seems that she is very upset, emotionally unstable and remorseful.
Sounding very like she did not quite understand what she was doing.


We are not all so knowledgeable as we could be when desperate and in lockdown away from help

 

Whatever the circumstances are she took a child’s life and therefore deserves some kind of punishment. She can hardly claim it was a spur of the moment thing either, as it clearly seems premeditated.

 

That applies to anyone who has ever taken an abortion pill " legally within the time " or had a termination ( so thats me included too)...Or many who have taken a morning after pill technically.

And as I keep saying ....is a custodial sentence the right decision here.

 

That’s nothing of the sort…..but if you wanna think that then go ahead.
Legally she broke the law in taking a child’s life. My views on what and when a “foetus” becomes a child are meaningless…the law has decided that for me so until changed, if ever, she has taken a child’s life.

 

But is a custodial sentence right

 

Not sure

 

Custodial sentences are for serious offences, Beth. They're for more than to protect the public, and include deterrent and punishment.

This was a woman who got pregnant by one man, then returned to her partner and wanted to get rid of the unborn child, even after eight months pregnancy.

I did see that she admitted another charge to the original. But the judge is reported to have stated that had she pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, he would have passed a suspended sentence. I suspect the answer is that she refused to plead guilty to child destruction, took the case all the way to trial, with the additional costs and use of court time, and then pleaded guilty to something that was just as serious as the original charge, and that the prosecution was content to accept.

 

Thank you Stainsey...nor am I.


Go on the Web and you will find quite a few examples of people escaping prison ( community service/ ban from driving, etc) for causing death by careless driving.

A few cases of murder under duress (mostly murders of controlling spouse) escaping prison due to temporary loss of reason.

I can tell you...pregnancy can really make you lose your reason...add into that, Covid lockdown, looking after a family with no doubt money worries, with little help from social services, having to share locked down with an estranged partner, whilst carrying another person's child.
Perfect storm for an emotional breakdown and a cruel action

You make it sound as though she got a custodial sentence because she cost the prosecution service time and money.

I am sure you didn't mean it that way.


Yes I do feel strongly about this

 

I did mean it that way, Beth. Based on what the judge said, she would have got a suspended sentence had she pleaded guilty to the original charge or offered to the prosecutor an alternative charge to plead guilty to.

But she didn't. Instead, she took the matter all the way to trial before she pleaded guilty to any charge. That wastes court time and expense, so no concessions or discounts are given.

 

You seem to be looking for a lot of excuses for her actions.
As I previously noted, this wasn’t a spur of the moment, act of anger or passion.
It was pre-meditated and she knew exactly what she was doing.

 

I think the timing should have been taken into account more than it appears to have been. Lockdowns and minimal access to face-to-face help must have left her feeling isolated and desperate. Yes by the time it got to 30+ weeks she should’ve probably had the baby and then put him/her up for adoption if necessary but as someone who’ll never be in that decision it must be a horrific call to have to make. Again, I don’t see what banging her up for 14 months or more does for anyone. Even if a custodial sentence was somehow necessary, make it a slap on the wrist 28 days or something.

With a female judge I think there’d have been a very different outcome.

 

Try being pregnant for 9 months, with all that it entails...and how emotionally unstable it makes you

 

Well that response is a tadge disappointing Goldie.

 

Again you seem to be looking for excuses

 

You think it is an excuse. I know it's a fact.


And anyway...the word mitigating circumstances is the legal word here

 

An I’m sure the court would have looked at that….but maybe you know different?

 

Read Goldhawks opinion please ..

 

Why ? I’m conversing with you not Goldie

 

A debate for the Mxs thread I think....

Stainseys got enough problems with his hormones, let alone getting pregnant