What are these parole board people on ?
This woman should have been stuck in a hole somewhere forever .
1 Like
I think its disgusting. She should never be free, and I hope the government manage to block it. Never mind the “restricted access etc” she will be under should she be allowed to roam the streets…I pretty much think she will wish she was still locked up if anyone finds her living next door to them.
1 Like
I wasn’t aware she had been released on licence once before, after she had completed her initial minimum 5 year jail term in 2013.
I am shocked to see how light her initial “minimum term” sentence was - unless it was proved she was being coerced and controlled by the boyfriend, who got the much longer prison sentence.
Even so, it seems all wrong to release her so soon - and the fact she broke her licence conditions and had to be recalled to prison shows it was too soon.
She is only 40 now, so could still get pregnant again - when she was first released in 2013, she could easily have brought another child into the world.
In cases where someone has killed a child or been party to severe child abuse, I feel it would be wrong to release a prisoner while they are of child-bearing age unless they agree to be sterilised first.
2 Likes
I don’t honestly think their agreement should be required. I know it sounds harsh, but I do believe it in this case.
1 Like
Enforced serialisation for those we feel should not be allowed to reproduce is called eugenics.
Rudolph Hess called it “Applied Biology.”
Edited to add. Enforced sterilisation is legally seen as a crime against humanity under international human rights law.
So is killing children
3 Likes
But doing something illegal & brutal makes our society no more morally right, than a child killer. Two wrongs have never made anything right. Far from it.
Justice should be about society being better than those it stands in judgement of. Not similar too.
And if we look to anyone for guidance on how to treat those we do not like. Is Nazi Germany the correct place?
A woman who has proved a wilful danger to her own child, should not be allowed to have children. Its nothing to do with being better, or morally right, or any such thing. She simply shouldn’t be allowed to have the chance to kill another child. I mean, look at the restrictions she has to face when released…constantly monitored, supervised, not allowed anywhere near children. Clearly she is considered dangerous to children, so why allow her the choice of bringing one into the world?
There’s a difference between using eugenics to try and create a master race and sterilizing a woman with a known history of abusing her own child to death.
As for the legal side of matters, laws can be changed and perhaps ought to be to prevent harm to babies. One has to consider the lesser of two evils.
1 Like
It’s a crime against humanity for this woman to have more children ( she has three others as well as baby Peter )
2 Likes
This case just goes to show how and abused childhood repeats itself .
She cane from an abusive dysfunctional home so did the two sadists she allowed to torture the poor baby to death .
The circle is best stopped .
1 Like
Look at the history books. Germany did not create their 1933 legislation to create a master race. They did so "for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases”. The 1933 law had special courts that Doctors etc needed to apply to & an appeals process.
What happens with laws like this is. They give those leaders who feel they are above moral laws, the ability to operate however they want, within the states’ law & without the need to change too much.
Nazi Germany did not start out by creating death camps. They did that after they had desensitised those willing to comply & after purging the state of those who challenge. State extremism always starts with the phase, in the best interest of…
Not the same at all .
This is a woman who is responsible for the torture and death of a defenceless child and the neglect of three others .It’s not above morals and it’s not eugenics its judicial retribution.
1 Like
My post did not suggest enforced sterilisation nor did it suggest eugenics.
I don’t believe for a moment that her abuse of her child is due to genetic inheritance and never suggested such a thing. I would never advocate selective human breeding programmes for heritable characteristics.
In this case, it is a matter of determining risk of releasing a convicted offender, on licence, paying particular attention to child safeguarding issues.
This is the way I see it :
This woman was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment for public protection until she is “deemed no longer to be a risk to the public and in particular to small children,” with a minimum term of five years.
Having served the minimum term (the “punishment” part of the sentence) it is now a matter of determining public risk.
Looking at the nature of the crimes she committed and the level of neglect of all her children and considering the risk to the public of releasing her on licence, it seems to me that the biggest risk would be to any babies or young children who may come under her care or control.
When considering her for parole, it seems reasonable to consider the risk of her getting pregnant and having more children and the safeguarding issue this would present.
Her indeterminate prison sentence is effectively preventing her from having any more children while she remains in prison, anyway.
If the main risk she is likely to present is the risk of her having more children and neglecting / abusing them and agreeing to be sterilised may allow her to be released on parole earlier, instead of spending the rest of her child-bearing years in prison, then it is an option that could be offered to solve a problem all round, in my opinion.
If the alternative choice is remaining in prison for a longer period, I think I’d opt for sterilisation.
So the way you see it, is that she has served her sentence & is being released as she is no longer deemed to be a risk. But you want to add on an extra & intentionally cruel punishment. Not related to anything you know. As clearly you have stated.
This is the way I see it :… she has served her sentence & is being released as she is no longer deemed to be a risk.
Personally, I have a real issue with the way parole / early release is applied. Again & again we see that fail. Again & again, we see people released who go on to reoffend. But that is a failure of those who apply the system & the fact they are never made to take any responsibility for their own complicity in the later offences. But eugenics has nothing to do with justice or public safety & everything to do with morality & barbarity.
How will sterilising this woman change anything? You state…
So how exactly will steralising her stop her gaining control over children? I have worked as part of the system & been part of multi agency meetings held to discuss children being born into risky environments & children can be & are removed from those situations at birth. But steralising her will not stop her from gaining access to other peoples children. Effective, properly funded parole officers will do that.
If you look at the statistical evidence, acts such as enforced steralisaion, makes people more angry & thus more likely to commit acts of violence. So statistically, it can be shown to be far from effective & more of a causation of danger, rather than a preventer of it.
No. That is not what I wrote.
I object to this “putting words in my mouth”
I have tried to explain my original post further because you had misinterpreted it once. Now you have misquoted and misinterpreted other parts of my 2nd post.
There is no point in attempting to explain further if you are going to put snippets of my posts together and quote them out of the context I wrote them.
I can only say that what you have paraphrased me as having written and meant is not actually what I wrote in my own posts and your paraphrased interpretation is not what I meant.
My own posts say what I meant.
I will leave it there.
Gee, it would prevent her abusing her own future children if she was unable to have any more. And as much as we love and applaud social services in so many ways for the work they do, is it really sensible to allow someone to have a baby when that child will automatically be removed and put into care?
I quoted exactly what you wrote. I did not edit the wording…You seem to have done that yourself 
I simply took exactly what you had written & replied to that, as is normal. However, now when I compare what I quoted with what is within the your post now, I see that it is different. 
What does that say about your level of honesty & integrity when you accuse me of misquoting you?
I have not edited anything from my original posts - and if I had, would it not show that it had been edited?
All I can say is that when I read in your post, both the part that looks like the beginning of a sentence quoted from mine but is divided by … the end of that sentence makes it read differently to the sentence from my original post. Also, the part where you are paraphrasing what you are suggesting I mean was not what I wrote and not what I meant.
I don’t see how to progress this conversation without causing unnecessary friction on the thread, so I suggest we leave it there.
Maybe there is some misunderstanding or mistake somewhere a long the line - maybe a glitch in the quoting mechanism?
I can confirm that I have not changed anything in my posts.
1 Like
AFAIK unless one makes an edit to ones post within a few minutes, a pencil will be visible so that anyone can read what was written originally. Can’t see any such pencils on any of your posts.
2 Likes