Mom who glued child’s hand to wall gets 99 years.

Maudi

flutterflye wrote: »

Oh god - when I read this bit;

Escalona's other children told authorities that their mother attacked Jocelyn Cedillo in September 2011 due to potty training problems. Police say she kicked her daughter in the stomach, beat her with a milk jug, then stuck her hands to an apartment wall with an adhesive commonly known as Super Glue.

Jocelyn suffered bleeding in her brain, a fractured rib, multiple bruises and bite marks, and was in a coma for a couple of days, a doctor testified at the sentencing hearing. Some skin had been torn off her hands, where doctors also found glue residue and white paint chips from the apartment wall.

I actually felt physically ill.
That poor little girl.

At first, reading op I was thinking that's ridiculous, but after reading on in the article - I'm thinking good enough for the bitch.
May she rot away her years.

jesus..bite marks..this "thing"that bites a small child needs to have its life extinguished..

say_who_now?

Madam_X wrote: »

Deserved a hefty sentence - I've no sympathy. Horrific abuse. What difference does Ireland's sentencing make? This is Texas. But it's likely she had a f'ucked up life growing up, which is probably a large part of the reason for this. I mean... five children by 23?! Being in a gang, violent to her children, attacking her mother, drugs at 11? Christ that's depressing. I know she's responsible - along with the children's father(s) but it's unlikely a person with a non crap rearing would have all that behind them. The sentence punishes her, but what would benefit society is an end to childhoods like hers.

Hmm, I dunno MX if (OK I see where you're coming from but bear with me for a second) I'd agree that a crap childhood has anything to do with how that person would raise their own offspring. I hear it all the time and I know I only speak anecdotally but this kind of "Oh such and such was done to me as a child so that's why I did it to them". It's just an absolution excuse that honestly I can't get my head around why it's acceptable as a plea for leniency.

I might as well say it- my own father used me as his punching bag on a daily basis for nearly 12 years from the age of four til I moved out at 16. The last time he did it, he came at me to beat me with the butt of a rifle. I managed somehow to catch him off balance and when he fell back I was still clutching the butt of the shotgun as I'd put my hand up to defend myself.

I cocked the shotgun and only for the fact I couldn't fùcking see straight, he would've got it right between the eyes! I walked out of the house and would've stayed away had my "upstanding pillars of the community" parents not had a detective friend in the local garda station that found out where I was staying and came to visit with a social worker in tow, asking me would I not move back home, etc. My dignity wouldn't allow for me to ruin my parent's "reputation" within the community, so I went with the social worker and the detective in the car out to the home house, went in, gathered a few of my clothes and my school books, put them in my bag, walked out past the whole family standing there, the parents chatting to the detective, the social worker standing out at the car, "thanks for the lift" I said as I walked out down the lane and dipped into a field so the detective and the social worker wouldn't catch me on the main road back into town.

I rang my parents house from a payphone when I got back into town and simply said "come after me again, and I won't be so dignified next time!". Never bothered me again after that, not for a number of years at least, but I've said enough already.

My point being that I have a son now, and while I wouldn't be averse to giving him a clip around the ear when he misbehaves, I wouldn't nor couldn't beat him black and blue just because I'd a bad day in work!

What this woman did was despicable, and while sometimes rehabilitation can be an effective and beneficial form of therapy and incarceration an effective form of punishment, sometimes the crime committed is so horrific and the person who committed it so far gone, that they are beyond redemption.

dark crystal

No sympathy for her whatsoever. A thoroughly deserved sentence. Just thinking about the horrors that baby must have endured makes my blood boil.

mrroboito

Many posts here lean towards punishment for punishment's sake as opposed to custodial sentences leading to rehabilitation. I would regard this trend as worrying. This is a heinous crime, there is no doubt about that. This woman has horribly abused her position as mother, care giver, protector, anything else you care to mention. She has acted in an inhuman way and I would seriously doubt her crocodile tears in court are a step towards self improvement. She clearly has many issues to deal with before she can be returned to society but I strongly believe that anyone who pays a price for their crime (I have already suggested a minimum of 6 - 8 years depending on her behaviour, willingness and progress in making definite steps towards recovery, maybe as long as it takes otherwise) should have the chance to return to society.

TheBoss!

Video of testimony:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8iHIaclfZQ

99 years is jail is ludicrous.

She obviously needs help (lots of it) if she's beating her old child into a coma.

Gmol

Rodin wrote: »

I've no problem with the sentence.

But will it stick?

Daithi 1

dark crystal wrote: »

No sympathy for her whatsoever. A thoroughly deserved sentence. Just thinking about the horrors that baby must have endured makes my blood boil.

Maybe the same sh!t happened her, she doesnt know any different.

Obviously there is something wrong with her. They should try and fix it, learn from it, instead of sweeping it under the rug for 99 years.

dark crystal

say_who_now? wrote: »

Hmm, I dunno MX if (OK I see where you're coming from but bear with me for a second) I'd agree that a crap childhood has anything to do with how that person would raise their own offspring. I hear it all the time and I know I only speak anecdotally but this kind of "Oh such and such was done to me as a child so that's why I did it to them". It's just an absolution excuse that honestly I can't get my head around why it's acceptable as a plea for leniency.

I might as well say it- my own father used me as his punching bag on a daily basis for nearly 12 years from the age of four til I moved out at 16. The last time he did it, he came at me to beat me with the butt of a rifle. I managed somehow to catch him off balance and when he fell back I was still clutching the butt of the shotgun as I'd put my hand up to defend myself.

I cocked the shotgun and only for the fact I couldn't fùcking see straight, he would've got it right between the eyes! I walked out of the house and would've stayed away had my "upstanding pillars of the community" parents not had a detective friend in the local garda station that found out where I was staying and came to visit with a social worker in tow, asking me would I not move back home, etc. My dignity wouldn't allow for me to ruin my parent's "reputation" within the community, so I went with the social worker and the detective in the car out to the home house, went in, gathered a few of my clothes and my school books, put them in my bag, walked out past the whole family standing there, the parents chatting to the detective, the social worker standing out at the car, "thanks for the lift" I said as I walked out down the lane and dipped into a field so the detective and the social worker wouldn't catch me on the main road back into town.

I rang my parents house from a payphone when I got back into town and simply said "come after me again, and I won't be so dignified next time!". Never bothered me again after that, not for a number of years at least, but I've said enough already.

My point being that I have a son now, and while I wouldn't be averse to giving him a clip around the ear when he misbehaves, I wouldn't nor couldn't beat him black and blue just because I'd a bad day in work!

What this woman did was despicable, and while sometimes rehabilitation can be an effective and beneficial form of therapy and incarceration an effective form of punishment, sometimes the crime committed is so horrific and the person who committed it so far gone, that they are beyond redemption.

Your father sounds like an utter coward to me. Well done on getting out and making a better life for yourself - that takes a huge amount of bravery. Well done you

Dangerous Man

TheBoss! wrote: »

Video of testimony:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8iHIaclfZQ

99 years is jail is ludicrous.

She obviously needs help (lots of it) if she's beating her old child into a coma.

Wrong - she needs to be executed.

dark crystal

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Maybe the same sh!t happened her, she doesnt know any different.

Obviously there is something wrong with her. They should try and fix it, learn from it, instead of sweeping it under the rug for 99 years.

Sweeping it under the rug for 99 years sounds more preferable to me than leaving her out in 8-10 years so she can get pregnant and do the same to another defenceless baby.

Past experience may explain present behaviour, but it is never an excuse. Besides, if her mother was a sadistic child-torturer like her, chances are social services wouldn't have left the grandchildren in her care.

steddyeddy

say_who_now? wrote: »

Hmm, I dunno MX if (OK I see where you're coming from but bear with me for a second) I'd agree that a crap childhood has anything to do with how that person would raise their own offspring. I hear it all the time and I know I only speak anecdotally but this kind of "Oh such and such was done to me as a child so that's why I did it to them". It's just an absolution excuse that honestly I can't get my head around why it's acceptable as a plea for leniency.

I might as well say it- my own father used me as his punching bag on a daily basis for nearly 12 years from the age of four til I moved out at 16. The last time he did it, he came at me to beat me with the butt of a rifle. I managed somehow to catch him off balance and when he fell back I was still clutching the butt of the shotgun as I'd put my hand up to defend myself.

I cocked the shotgun and only for the fact I couldn't fùcking see straight, he would've got it right between the eyes! I walked out of the house and would've stayed away had my "upstanding pillars of the community" parents not had a detective friend in the local garda station that found out where I was staying and came to visit with a social worker in tow, asking me would I not move back home, etc. My dignity wouldn't allow for me to ruin my parent's "reputation" within the community, so I went with the social worker and the detective in the car out to the home house, went in, gathered a few of my clothes and my school books, put them in my bag, walked out past the whole family standing there, the parents chatting to the detective, the social worker standing out at the car, "thanks for the lift" I said as I walked out down the lane and dipped into a field so the detective and the social worker wouldn't catch me on the main road back into town.

I rang my parents house from a payphone when I got back into town and simply said "come after me again, and I won't be so dignified next time!". Never bothered me again after that, not for a number of years at least, but I've said enough already.

My point being that I have a son now, and while I wouldn't be averse to giving him a clip around the ear when he misbehaves, I wouldn't nor couldn't beat him black and blue just because I'd a bad day in work!

What this woman did was despicable, and while sometimes rehabilitation can be an effective and beneficial form of therapy and incarceration an effective form of punishment, sometimes the crime committed is so horrific and the person who committed it so far gone, that they are beyond redemption.

Similar experience myself man. That detective was a f-ing idiot by the way.

say_who_now?

mrroboito wrote: »

Many posts here lean towards punishment for punishment's sake as opposed to custodial sentences leading to rehabilitation. I would regard this trend as worrying. This is a heinous crime, there is no doubt about that. This woman has horribly abused her position as mother, care giver, protector, anything else you care to mention. She has acted in an inhuman way and I would seriously doubt her crocodile tears in court are a step towards self improvement. She clearly has many issues to deal with before she can be returned to society but I strongly believe that anyone who pays a price for their crime (I have already suggested a minimum of 6 - 8 years depending on her behaviour, willingness and progress in making definite steps towards recovery, maybe as long as it takes otherwise) should have the chance to return to society.

Here's an idea- how about "returning her to society" when not just the child's physical, but emotional trauma has "healed"?

At 23 years of age, honestly, you don't think she knew what she was doing kicking a two year old black and blue and then the pre-meditated action of actually gluing the child's skin to a wall? A couple of months later at trial and she's a supposedly reformed character? Not for a minute do I believe she could ever be rehabilitated. Your environment is only one determining factor in your child development, your relationships with your peers is another, but your own consciousness is yet another factor, and at 23 I would think she knew the difference between right and wrong, unless she was so far gone that she just didn't care... until she actually ended up in the dock for it. At least now she'll have plenty of time to mull over the consequences of her actions, not for herself, but for the child she inflicted such cruelty upon!

Daithi 1

dark crystal wrote: »

Sweeping it under the rug for 99 years sounds more preferable to me than leaving her out in 8-10 years so she can get pregnant and do the same to another defenceless baby.

Past experience may explain present behaviour, but it is never an excuse. Besides, if her mother was a sadistic child-torturer like her, chances are social services wouldn't have left the grandchildren in her care.

Sweeping it under the rug for any amount of time is dumb, it helps no-one, costs the tax payer money and we learn nothing from it. Governments are to quick to imprison people and it's gotten out of control, especially in the U.S with 1 in 100 adults in prison.

TheBoss!

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Wrong - she needs to be executed.

Oh well, if you say so.

It's all very well saying the USA should kill this woman but it makes zero sense. There was no motive here, there is very little danger of repeat offending and so I see no real reason why she should not spend time in a hospital and get out after 10 to 15 years.

If she was out kidnapping kids and doing this, then I would agree with the sentence but this is a clear case of someone that has lost the plot and needs help. If we as humans think the solution to that is to strap that person to a chair and kill them, then we are no better than killers ourselves.

Chuck Stone

I'm afraid this one brings out the vigilante in me. Fucking nasty bitch. Let her rot.

The world will be a better place for her not being let loose upon it.

JuliusCaesar

TheBoss! wrote: »

this is a clear case of someone that has lost the plot and needs help. If we as humans think the solution to that is to strap that person to a chair and kill them, then we are no better than killers ourselves.

She needed help, the kids needed help.

If she'd lived in Europe, there would probably have been greater aid available to her. Did she really want 5 kids? Was abortion an option? Was the day-after pill available to her? I don't think Texas is a great state for social support.

dark crystal

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Sweeping it under the rug for any amount of time is dumb, it helps no-one, costs the tax payer money and we learn nothing from it. Governments are to quick to imprison people and it's gotten out of control, especially in the U.S with 1 in 100 adults in prison.

I honestly don't care how much it costs the taxpayer. This woman committed apalling acts of sadism on a baby. Not once, but repeatedly.

Sometimes I wish people cared more about the victims of crime, than the perpetrators. I care much more about that little girls rehabilitation,than the mothers. Call it dumb all you want, but sentences for violent crime should be heavy and this sentence was fair, imo. Hopefully she never gets to do this to another child again.

TheBoss!

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

She needed help, the kids needed help.

I just knew that would be the lazy reply.

Of course the kids needed help and they should have got it long before and I'd say the signs of this were there for all to see for a long time, but that is all after the fact. What has happened has happened and killing this woman won't change a damn thing.

She glued her own child's hands to a wall - this is not the crime of someone who is all there.

Dangerous Man

TheBoss! wrote: »

I just knew that would be the lazy reply.

Of course the kids needed help and they should have got it long before and I'd say the signs of this were there for all to see for a long time, but that is all after the fact. What has happened has happened and killing this woman won't change a damn thing.

She glued her own child's hands to a wall - this is not the crime of someone who is all there.

Why do people, when confronted with dreadful crimes such as these, always ASSUME that the person who committed the crime is insane? Because... that's all you have - a massive assumption. An assumption which is likely wrong because if there was a chance of an insanity defence, given the nature of the crime, you can bet your house that her lawyers would have pushed it.

No. She wasn't crazy. She is a scumbag - a rat - a human pig. She deserves to rot.

I applaud the judge who handed down this sentence. I'd like to shake his hand.

steddyeddy

TheBoss! wrote: »

Oh well, if you say so.

It's all very well saying the USA should kill this woman but it makes zero sense. There was no motive here, there is very little danger of repeat offending and so I see no real reason why she should not spend time in a hospital and get out after 10 to 15 years.

If she was out kidnapping kids and doing this, then I would agree with the sentence but this is a clear case of someone that has lost the plot and needs help. If we as humans think the solution to that is to strap that person to a chair and kill them, then we are no better than killers ourselves.

Abusers are very hard people to rationalise. I dont find it credible that someone who could bite a two year old would be safe to leave in a room with children.

JustAThought

mrroboito wrote: »

Many posts here lean towards punishment for punishment's sake as opposed to custodial sentences leading to rehabilitation. I would regard this trend as worrying. This is a heinous crime, there is no doubt about that. This woman has horribly abused her position as mother, care giver, protector, anything else you care to mention. She has acted in an inhuman way and I would seriously doubt her crocodile tears in court are a step towards self improvement. She clearly has many issues to deal with before she can be returned to society but I strongly believe that anyone who pays a price for their crime (I have already suggested a minimum of 6 - 8 years depending on her behaviour, willingness and progress in making definite steps towards recovery, maybe as long as it takes otherwise) should have the chance to return to society.

When you consider what we know she did: and God knows what else she was responsible for with defenceless little children who could neither defend themselves nor even speak fir themselves; one has to eonder about your motivations for wanting her " out" and back with these children , or worse having even more children in 6 or 7 years.

This bleeding heart pro criminal attitude us what is rotten in society today. For a mother to do this to their baby is depraved.

99 years is IMO too harsh but a good 30 would give the children a chance. An adult forming lifetime away from her & leave her little opportunity to infect developing children or young adults again.

I have to wonder about her mother as a fit guardian - but one assumes this hardliner judge has factored that in.

Poor little fragile innocent baby.
Kicked into a coma?
Bitemarks?
I really felt sick.

eyeball kid

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Why do people, when confronted with dreadful crimes such as these, always ASSUME that the person who committed the crime is insane?

Do you think these are the actions of a sane person?
There has to be something wrong with people that would do something like this. No sane person would do anything as despicable as this. There has to be something wrong with them.

TheBoss!

dark crystal wrote: »

Sometimes I wish people cared more about the victims of crime, than the perpetrators. I care much more about that little girls rehabilitation,than the mothers.

That's just the usual sanctimonious nonsense that is oft dished out when someone dares to suggest that the perpetrator of a crime might not be as evil as everyone is suggesting. Of course people care more about the little girl, myself included and going by this thread, you can see that sympathy is overwhelmingly with her, so let's not suggest that people care more about perpetrators than victims as it's a nonsense.

I would say 99% of my concern here is with the girl but what is so wrong with having a little concern for this woman, who is so demented that she has done this to her own child? I just don't don't find it as easy as some people to confine people to the the trash heap and wish death upon because they have done wrong. Charles Manson she is not. She does not appear in any way evil to me. What she has done may be evil but I don't think she is beyond turning her life around and a 99 year sentence puts paid to that.

Dangerous Man wrote: »

No. She wasn't crazy. She is a scumbag - a rat - a human pig. She deserves to rot.

Rabble, rabble, rabble. Like I said earlier, if she was doing this to numerous kids and kidnapping them etc, then I would be in agreement with life behind bars but this to me seems like a woman who is not well in the head and 10 to 15 years with intensive therapy is what is in order. Killing her is most certainly is not.

Dangerous Man

TheBoss! wrote: »

That's just the usual sanctimonious nonsense that is oft dished out when someone dares to suggest that the perpetrator of a crime might not be as evil as everyone is suggesting. Of course people care more about the little girl, myself included and going by this thread, you can see that sympathy is overwhelmingly with her, so let's not suggest that people care more about perpetrators than victims as it's a nonsense.

I would say 99% of my concern here is with the girl but what is so wrong with having a little concern for this woman, who is so demented that she has done this to her own child? I just don't don't find it as easy as some people to confine people to the the trash heap and wish death upon because they have done wrong. Charles Manson she is not. She does not appear in any way evil to me. What she has done may be evil but I don't think she is beyond turning her life around and a 99 year sentence puts paid to that.


Rabble, rabble, rabble. Like I said earlier, if she was doing this to numerous kids and kidnapping them etc, then I would be in agreement with life behind bars but this to me seems like a woman who is not well in the head and 10 to 15 years with intensive therapy is what is in order. Killing her is most certainly is not.

Rabble rabble rabble. See? Two can do that. Why don't you go set up a fucking rehab centre for child rapists / murderers. You can talk about their feelings or something.

Madam_X

Doubt anyone reasonable is "pro criminal".

Say_who_now? I completely understand where you and Steddyeddy are coming from - child abuse is just... there are no ****ing words.

Believe me I don't sympathise with this woman. I wish there could be more invested in protecting children in their own homes... :-/

JuliusCaesar

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

She needed help, the kids needed help.

If she'd lived in Europe, there would probably have been greater aid available to her. Did she really want 5 kids? Was abortion an option? Was the day-after pill available to her? I don't think Texas is a great state for social support.

Closing her legs would have been a good option.

Da Shins Kelly

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Rabble rabble rabble. See? Two can do that. Why don't you go set up a fucking rehab centre for child rapists / murderers. You can talk about their feelings or something.

I think you need to go and talk to someone about your feelings and your own bloodlust.

dark crystal

TheBoss! wrote: »

That's just the usual sanctimonious nonsense that is oft dished out when someone dares to suggest that the perpetrator of a crime might not be as evil as everyone is suggesting. Of course people care more about the little girl, myself included and going by this thread, you can see that sympathy is overwhelmingly with her, so let's not suggest that people care more about perpetrators than victims as it's a nonsense.

I would say 99% of my concern here is with the girl but what is so wrong with having a little concern for this woman, who is so demented that she has done this to her own child? I just don't don't find it as easy as some people to confine people to the the trash heap and wish death upon because they have done wrong. Charles Manson she is not. She does not appear in any way evil to me. What she has done may be evil but I don't think she is beyond turning her life around and a 99 year sentence puts paid to that.

Charles Manson never killed anyone. This woman came closer to it than he ever did, if you want to get technical about it.
Demented is an easy tag - sure, wasn't Hitler demented. Wasn't Ted Bundy demented. What does being demented have to do with committing violent crime? How do you know whether she was demented or not? Maybe she's just a cruel person. Too many excuses are made nowadays for abhorrant behaviour.

Rabble, rabble, rabble. Like I said earlier, if she was doing this to numerous kids and kidnapping them etc, then I would be in agreement with life behind bars but this to me seems like a woman who is not well in the head and 10 to 15 years with intensive therapy is what is in order. Killing her is most certainly is not.

I fail to see how kidnapping numerous kids is any worse than putting her own into a coma. Perhaps kidnappers are just demented and not well in the head too and deserve a bit of understanding and intensive therapy.

By the way, I don't believe in killing her, but I do believe she should not be freed for a long time.

Chuck Stone

Oh dear. The pop-psychiatrists have arrived because they just can't handle the fact that there are some people in this world who are total psychopaths and there is no good explanation.

up for anything

Pottler wrote: »

So she's stuck in pison for a century- that's super. I wonder will this break the mother-child bond?

I doubt it. They've been Unibonded.

mrroboito wrote: »

I am also very unsure of whether the young woman's mother is an appropriate guardian for the five children. It doesn't seem like she has doe much of a job with her own children.

Don't always blame the parents for the child. Sometimes there are too many other factors at work for a parent to wield much influence.

I think just about any grandparent who takes on five young children, including a baby, for life deserves a medal unless it can be proved that they were completely to blame for turning out a psycho.

TheBoss!

dark crystal wrote: »

Demented is an easy tag - sure, wasn't Hitler demented. Wasn't Ted Bundy demented. What does being demented have to do with committing violent crime? How do you know whether she was demented or not? Maybe she's just a cruel person. Too many excuses are made nowadays for abhorrant behaviour.

Okay, I concede that I may not be using the right words here to describe her but she just does not come across to be as someone who is obsessed with doing evil or even that she is beyond reaching a state that she could no longer be a threat to children.

There was nothing premeditated in what she did. No single act that you would say that a person would only do if they wanted to kill the child and that is why I feel 99 years is way way too much for this crime and it's not because she is a woman, if she were a man I would feel the same.

I would lock them up for 10-15 and ban them for ever being left alone with children for the rest of their lives.

up for anything

TheBoss! wrote: »

There was nothing premeditated in what she did. No single act that you would say that a person would only do if they wanted to kill the child and that is why I feel 99 years is way way too much for this crime and it's not because she is a woman, if she were a man I would feel the same.

I would lock them up for 10-15 and ban them for ever being left alone with children for the rest of their lives.

Maybe the 99 years is to prevent her availing of parole or her sentence being shortened to less than life.

How would you police her never being left alone with a child once she got out of prison. She is only 23 with five children already. In 15 years she would still have a lot of fertile childbearing years left to her.

Dangerous Man

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I think you need to go and talk to someone about your feelings and your own bloodlust.

I'm perfectly well-balanced and I don't have a 'bloodlust.' I believe in appropriate punishments for crime.

TheBoss!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Oh dear. The pop-psychiatrists have arrived because they just can't handle the fact that there are some people in this world who are total psychopaths and there is no good explanation.

You declare her a psychopath and we're the pop-psychiatrists??

Chuck Stone

TheBoss! wrote: »

You declare her a psychopath and we're the pop-psychiatrists??

I didn't initiate the pop-psychiatry but think it's in keeping with the tone.

Also, if you read the post I didn't specifically refer to her as a psychopath.

I just believe some people are lacking in empathy with their fellow human beings and there doesn't have to be a explanation, they just are.

Vicar in a tutu

Actually after really thinking about it, Im sure we've all been driven mad by a crying child, but we grit our teeth and smile and pretend its all ok,we go on and play with them and never let them know that were angry, because a small child doesnt do it out of maliciousness, Anyone that would do that to a child should never have a child in their company again, children are innocent beings and should never have to put up with something like that, good riddance to her.

dark crystal

TheBoss! wrote: »

Okay, I concede that I may not be using the right words here to describe her but she just does not come across to be as someone who is obsessed with doing evil or even that she is beyond reaching a state that she could no longer be a threat to children.

There was nothing premeditated in what she did. No single act that you would say that a person would only do if they wanted to kill the child and that is why I feel 99 years is way way too much for this crime and it's not because she is a woman, if she were a man I would feel the same.

I would lock them up for 10-15 and ban them for ever being left alone with children for the rest of their lives.

I would say gluing a toddlers hands to a wall is pretty premeditated. I would say she knew kicking a toddler in the stomach could kill them. She put the child in a coma, bit her repeatedly, broke her bones - this wasn't a one off burst of anger, it was a litany of cruelty.

I'm sorry, but sometimes we must accept that some people are just bad, or cruel or sadistic. Many people have tough upbringings - my father lost an eye after a beating (one of many) from his father - but he never laid a hand on us because it just wasn't in his nature to do so, unlike this woman, who abused her position of trust and tortured and almost killed the one person she was supposed to love and protect.

KKkitty

What she did to her child was horrendous. 99 years is a sufficient sentence imo. She had problems raising 5 kids and she falls pregnant again leaving her mother to raise 6 kids. You can't blame her childhood on this either. She had a chance to be a good mother and she fcuked it up spectacularly. I really hope her daughter never remembers what her so called mother did to her and has a happy life.

Da Shins Kelly

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I'm perfectly well-balanced

You really sound it.

TheFruitarian

The following story is even worse and yet the sentence less:

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=812293

Einhard

It's kinda disturbing how many people in this thread so easily wish death on other people...

seamie87

Einhard wrote: »

It's kinda disturbing how many people in this thread so easily wish death on other people...

Oh how enlightened you are, I don't believe in the death penalty either but I like the fact that some people can consider this woman evil.

Anybody who has ever spent anytime with toddlers understands at a gut level what sort of evil must be involved in torturing a helpless child.

Einhard

seamie87 wrote: »

Oh how enlightened you are, I don't believe in the death penalty either but I like the fact that some people can consider this woman evil.

Anybody who has ever spent anytime with toddlers understands at a gut level what sort of evil must be involved in torturing a helpless child.

So it's considered enlightened now not to actively seek the death of someone else? Well colour me enlightened then. I find it strange that some of the same people who are calling this woman a psychopath, are actively seeking not just her death but her brutal torture as well. Something slightly ironic about that one...

seamie87

Einhard wrote: »

So it's considered enlightened now not to actively seek the death of someone else? Well colour me enlightened then. I find it strange that some of the same people who are calling this woman a psychopath, are actively seeking not just her death but her brutal torture as well. Something slightly ironic about that one...

Wishing ill to an evil adult =/= causing extreme harm to a defenseless toddler

You don't seem to see that.

Einhard

seamie87 wrote: »

Wishing ill to an evil person adult =/= causing extreme harm to a defenseless toddler

You don't seem to see that.

TBH, I think that anyone who wishes torture and violent death on another person, and particularly with the relish that some have displayed in this thread, isn't quite right, and is in no position to condemn another for their violent tendencies.

I mean, some of the posts in this thread are along the following lines: "What an evil twisted b!tch, how could she inflict such torture on anyone, let alone a defenceless child? I think she should be glued to a wall and tortured herself, and then killed slowly and painfully"

Ummm, alright then...

Dangerous Man

Einhard wrote: »

TBH, I think that anyone who wishes torture and violent death on another person, and particularly with the relish that some have displayed in this thread, isn't quite right, and is in no position to condemn another for their violent tendencies.

I mean, some of the posts in this thread are along the following lines: "What an evil twisted b!tch, how could she inflict such torture on anyone, let alone a defenceless child? I think she should be glued to a wall and tortured herself, and then killed slowly and painfully"

Ummm, alright then...

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. You don't understand the principle that those you would disagree with are basing their arguments on. They are essentially saying that a punishment should be commensurate with a crime yet you seem to think that a punishment is somehow EQUAL to a crime. Why the hell you'd take it upon yourself to get indignant because people are simply venting their disgust at the horrendous behaviour of an evil scumbag is beyond me.

Screw your head on.

It's opinions like yours - liberal bull**** attitudes - that allow repeat offenders to repeat offend, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. 'Ah Jaysus... he had a hard life yer honour... ah let him off - we'll put him on a course yer honour... he's very sorry... his da used to hit him yer honour... he's very sorry your honour...'

Meanwhile the real victims of crime look on in horror as yet again another crim gets off with 100 convictions.

That 'woman', that human rat should be executed. Put her to death and be done with it. The world will be a better place - a much, much better place without her scummy presence.

seamie87

Dangerous Man wrote: »

They are essentially saying that a punishment should be commensurate with a crime yet you seem to think that a punishment is somehow EQUAL to a crime.

Very well put.

People like Eindan, think true morality to be inaction, and defenselessness.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Sweeping it under the rug for any amount of time is dumb, it helps no-one, costs the tax payer money and we learn nothing from it. Governments are to quick to imprison people and it's gotten out of control, especially in the U.S with 1 in 100 adults in prison.

She left a 2 year old in a coma, I fail to see how the US's general habit of locking people up for little reason is in any way relevant.

Einhard

Dangerous Man wrote: »

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. You don't understand the principle that those you would disagree with are basing their arguments on. They are essentially saying that a punishment should be commensurate with a crime yet you seem to think that a punishment is somehow EQUAL to a crime.

No, I simply don't believe that justice equals vengeance. And I don't think a society which purports to be in any way civilised should go around the place inflicting torture on people in the name of justice.

Why the hell you'd take it upon yourself to get indignant because people are
simply venting their disgust at the horrendous behaviour of an evil scumbag is
beyond me.

The only person getting indignant here is you. I'm presenting my opinion, just the same as you. I'm also disgusted by the behaviour of this woman. One can be horrified at her crime, and not desire to have her tortured to death. And if you can't understand the concept of differing opinions, then I'm afraid you don't understand the purpose of a discussion forum.

Screw your head on.

It's well screwed on. Your rant below indicates that it's your noggin which needs some tightening.

It's opinions like yours - liberal bull**** attitudes - that allow repeat
offenders to repeat offend, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and
over, and over again. 'Ah Jaysus... he had a hard life yer honour... ah let him
off - we'll put him on a course yer honour... he's very sorry... his da used to
hit him yer honour... he's very sorry your honour...'

No it's not. Since when has not wanting to torture people to death equate to letting repeat offenders off the hook? I think your reasoning is a tad shoddy. I like your style though- instead of addressing my argument, invent one for me, and address that instead. Slick move, but pretty disingenuous.

Meanwhile the real victims of crime look on in horror as yet again another crim
gets off with 100 convictions.

Not sure what this has to do with me not wishing to torture this woman to death? Perhaps you've confused my posts with ones in which those things were said? If not, I'm at a loss as to what you're on about.

That 'woman', that human rat should be executed. Put her to death and be done
with it. The world will be a better place - a much, much better place without
her scummy presence.

TBH, I don't think the world would be a much better place if all states had the power of life and death over their citizens. This woman will be in prison until she dies. She will never harm another child again. Perhaps you could explain to me how killing her will make the world so much more better than locking her up for good?

For all those advocating torture and death for this woman, just imagine this not too unlikely scenarios...

In ten years time, the child wants to know what happened her mother. She's curious, she wants to know. So her granny or someone close sits down with her, and tells her that because what her other had done to her was so wrong, she was locked up. And because the violence that she had inflicted on her child was so heinous, it was decided to inflict the same on her as punishment. So, just like her mother had done to her, they glued her mother's hands to the walls, violently tortured her, and then killed her. Now imagine how that child would react to that kind of scenario. I imagine it wouldn't exactly be a life-enhancing experience for the child. Indeed, I imagine she'd be pretty horrified.

Yet that's the punishment thatt some people are advocating here. And it seems to be that, like much of the comment around cases like this, that the reaction is based not so much on concern for the victim, but on a more personal lust for vengeance, however vicarious, and a vestigial instinct for torture and the inflicting of pain. When people demand that prisoners and convicts be tortured and hurt, it's not really about the victims, it's about themselves and their own selfish needs. So apologies for not joining with the bayng crowd and demanding that pain and torture be inflicted on this woman. 99 years in prison is enough for me, liberal wuss that I am. And honestly, if being liberal means that one doesn't seek to violently hurt others in the guise of "justice", then far from an insult, it's a tag I gladly welcome.

I imagine all this will be lost on you, and be magically transformed into something that it's not (Einhard thinks the woman should be released from prison...), but no matter. It's not me being indignant. It's me aking my point. I'm making my position clear. If you want to distort that for your own purposes, then fire ahead, but I think anyone reading this post will know where I stand.

Einhard

seamie87 wrote: »

People like Eindan, think true morality to be inaction, and defenselessness.

No, seamie, I (we?) don't.

I think you'll find that 99 years in prison does not equal inaction.

I don't though, equate torturing prisoners with action. You seem to though.

Would it be at all possible, to address the points people make rather than fabrications and distortions of what they said? It gets slightly tedious when people make up arguments that I haven't made, and then respond to their own inventions. Especially when my real points are just a few posts up, and can easily be checked.

It's Einhard by the way.