Discussions

25 year old Brandon Women got three years probation and one day in jail (which they used as her court day), for failing to provide the necessities of life for her four month old daughter.  
 
There may have been a shaken baby incident, but could not be proved in court.  
 
The baby is now 34-months-old and she is developmentally delayed. Poor little thing may never experience a full life.  
 
Do you think the women got off easy?  
 
http://www.cklq.com/index.php?id=62&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=12611&cHash=341958cec54cfbcb9700dfc7f0dbef89

seriously ? my faith in humanity is at an all time low..there is no justice in a "sentence " like that at all, for anyone involved its a slap to the face really

http://www.brandonsun.com/local/mom-admits-being-too-slow-to-get-help-for-baby-396106501.html?thx=y  
 
 
now it does say they can't prove where all the bruises, cuts came from. But really, who cares where they came from, that mother should have been doing something about it, if it wasn't from her.....for that she deserves much more than she got.

I believe she did get off too easy. I know who the mother is but I'm not going to be posting her name anywhere; I'm not that low of a human.  
 
If you ask me, she should never be allowed near children again. If anyone is stupid enough to not provide medical attention immediately to their own flesh and blood, think of what they'd do around someone else's child.

I pray this women gets the help she needs...on the other hand, abused pet owners do more time!!! Wth?!?!

in 3 years she will blame CFS for not looking after her child properly and some CFS agent will be racked over the coals,or she will pop another kid out that we all have to pay to look after. a report a last year of 10000 kids in CFS and CFS was being blamed for failing the kids, what about 20000 parents step up, CFS provides food, clothes,shelter maybe not perfect but better than many of the parents. rant over

is a matter of balance.  
Canada is not "off balance" like the USA  
who incarcerates every "bad" person to punish them  
and scare everyone else, but mostly to get re-elected Judge.  
 
Think.....what mother would be taught anything, that way.  
 
Go back..... that mother was taught nothing before she had a baby  
she didn't look after.  
 
This is a problem solving problem, not a punishment problem.

I kinda think, that it's too bad that our courts couldn't make her 'turn in her uterus' as part of the conditions of her probation. Just like saying 'dead beat dads' and rapists should 'relinquish their testicles' as part of a court order. We can only hope that medical breakthroughs and new stern laws in the future would allow the 'misfits of moral obligations' to be denied the ability to continue being irresponsible with their reproductive organs. LOL  
 
On a more serious note: Yes, more should have been done on charges, prosecution and sentencing. However, she was only charged and convicted of "failure to provide the necessities of life". ...Not attempted manslaughter. Although court testimony of doctors assessments indicate that it was "shaken baby", she was not charged with assault. Only neglect of the child. Right there, this woman dodged a 'big bullet'. I don't know any of the circumstances, but I guess and assume that it's easier to charge her with the obvious evidence of neglect then with the circumstantial evidence of the physical abuse to the kid. Frustrating, but true. It's how the legal system has to function on what is provided as evidence and what they know can be concluded from it. It's very difficult to convict on speculation.  
 
As for the sentencing... A second 'bullet was dodged'. But it's soooo typical in court to 'cast a spell of sympathy' upon those deciding (usually the judge) the fate of the convicted. Again, I don't know any details, but usually what happens often is the defense will provide a backstory in indicating that the convicted is a victim as well. So, a minimum sentence should be granted, simply on the fact(s) she has an excuse! That's my WTF moment! The court has it documented that indeed it was "shaken baby", but only the charge related on the point that she didn't bring the kid in for medical help earlier... all other facts and circumstances leading up to and during the assault gets ignored and separated from the initial charge/conviction. That's completely insane! Then as a topper... The defense puts a spin on it with the "poor me, my life is terrible and it's not getting better", excuse! And the judge falls for it and grants the most minimum sentence available! --GOD DAMN IT-- That's not fair to that kid,for the caretakers that's stuck with another 'damaged meatbag' for it's lifetime and the rest of Canadian society who has the better judgement not to SHAKE & THROW DOWN A BABY!  
 
Big breath >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and calm...  
 
Our justice system is heavily flawed. One of the biggest flaws that that I recognize often see being abused is the bringing in emotion into a courtroom to distract and dilute the facts. Evidence and factual conclusions should never be overruled and corrupted by the misleading of personal feelings of those involved in upholding our laws. The Law is the Law. Crack open any law book and look at any legal document in any field, that any penalty brought forth when failure to obligate to what was agreed (business, personal or as a citizen of our country) doesn't get overruled, simply because someone feels sorry at the time and grants pity on the wrongdoer. That should never happen, because it's not written in there. Society can only function with rules that can't waiver. One of those rules is with regards to doing physical harm to the innocent. This chick made a mistake and nearly kills her kid and makes a second mistake in covering up her first. Granted, there probably wasn't enough evidence to prove that she's the direct cause of the first. But, holly cow! What other reasons would there be for the second unless she's involved in the first. That should easily null out any excuses the defense would provide for her character when producing judgement on the conviction the second/lesser crime. I would love to have heard the guilty excuses... Oh! I meant the defendants tragic circumstances. Let's start off with the easy ones... Woman (because somehow it's still unfair), single mother ( I guess it's still not a choice), poorly educated (it's all the governments fault for not wanting to learn), low or no income (because it's everyone who has a job's fault for failing to provide work/money), bad childhood (just because they recognize their poor adolescence, shouldn't allow them to remedy their own faults), physical/sexual abuse (serious accusations that should never get brought forth, unless one gets into trouble with the law and yet never gets proven before the court cast starts, but is admissible as fact for the defense), and of course the current abuses & bad influences caused by individuals in their day to day life (because we all know we can't stay away from family and we can't choose our friends). These are just the BASIC character descriptions that are destined to bring sympathy into the court as part of a defense strategy. God forbid there's some actual tangible evidence that some of it could true but not proven to documented any facts on the actual defendant. ...Like being a visible minority, such as an Indigenous/Aboriginal Native Canadian Indian. Stop the court proceedings! There's a IANCI being convicted here! Don't do a personal background check or recent family history! They're automatically classified as Canada's designated "guilty conscience victim", so leniency must be considered first. Especially if it's their first related offence. But, if they do it again... The court may be encouraged to apply a stiffer sentence. ****HUGE SARCASM****. But, is it sarcasm? Not just the Native thing, but the whole social status stigma claim? We can't pass the same judgement on those who had (or "may" have) or currently has an unfortunate set of circumstances. Really? I always thought we are all an intelligent enough animal species to know the simplistic laws that we live by. Behave accordingly of what the public expects from one another, don't take what's not yours and don't deliberately harm others ...These are simple rules that been around since the beginning of cognitive thought. We all should know right from wrong, no matter what our social status or life-stories are.  
 
Many of us can't deny sympathy and social guilt takes part in almost all rulings in today's court proceedings. And it's sentences like this ill-equipped mother that makes up the general anger towards our unfair and flawed legal system. Because the only thing our country can learned from these judgments, is that certain people don't need to be 100% accountable as long as they have a list sympathetic excuses. Justice is supposed to be blind and impartial towards all. And it can't be that if we allow both the prosecution and the defense to "paint a sad picture" to derive an emotional response to better their outcome. Because then our justice system becomes nothing more than a contest on who can tell a more convincing story. I for one would rather see judgement based on fact ...then feeling.  
 
>>>>>>>sorry for the rant.  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I am so tired of people thinking lengthy jail sentences adequately impact crime reduction! Do you think offenders sit there "and think about what they've done" and magically they are transformed by the uncomfortable nature of incarceration. Lengthy jail sentences make the public feel better but they rarely address the criminogenic needs of those sentenced.  
Change happens when people's thinking patterns which impact that their emotions and drives behaviour are examined, challenged and new ways of thinking are learned and yes this is a long process...but custodial sentences don't provide environments that are conducive to this. These changes happens in communities with people and real life and commitment.  
Not a bleeding heart but we will not "jail" ourselves out of these problems. The generations of "lengthy jail sentences" people raised the generations we are incarcerating now.  
Don't be simplistic in your thinking. And the next time you think "you know" the people at the centre of these conversations, challenge yourself to actually get below the surface.  
Jail should be for the people the public needs to be protected from, not for people we are "mad at".

jgr said "I am so tired of people thinking lengthy jail sentences adequately impact crime reduction! Do you think offenders sit there "and think about what they've done" and magically they are transformed by the uncomfortable nature of incarceration. Lengthy jail sentences make the public feel better but they rarely address the criminogenic needs of those sentenced.   Change happens when people's thinking patterns which impact that their emotions and drives behaviour are examined, challenged and new ways of thinking are learned and yes this is a long process...but custodial sentences don't provide environments that are conducive to this. These changes happens in communities with people and real life and commitment.   Not a bleeding heart but we will not "jail" ourselves out of these problems. The generations of "lengthy jail sentences" people raised the generations we are incarcerating now.   Don't be simplistic in your thinking. And the next time you think "you know" the people at the centre of these conversations, challenge yourself to actually get below the surface.   Jail should be for the people the public needs to be protected from, not for people we are "mad at". "

I'm going to assume that your "And the next time you think 'you know' the people at the centre of these conversations" comment is directed towards me. I used to be best friends with the mother so yeah, I'm pretty sure I know her. I know she is a compulsive liar and will do anything for 10 minutes of attention. Not once did I mention that I thought she should have gotten a longer sentence, I simply stated I thought she got off too easy.

With jail, as crappy as the programs are, she would get regular counselling and guidance through professional help and support groups. At home, she gets out whatever she wants to put into it (probably the minimum required by court order) and being ostracized by her friends and community. In jail, she would have been monitored and kept from creating new mistakes. At home, she's back in the place where all her problems still remain (minus a crying baby) and with new challenges to cope with. She'll also be more susceptible to depression, substance abuse, self-neglect, poor relationships and negative choices if she is to left to do things on her own. She may be a grown woman, but she would have benefited from the structure, discipline and supervision to motivate and set goals.  
 
Sending her home while still ill-equipped to handle the life of her original problems, along with all new emotional trauma and into a scenario where people in the community will hate her, disassociate and isolate from her... will be horrific and damaging to her recovery. Does anyone here really think she'll be okay out on her own? If she returns to a place where people know her... Odds are that most women (especially mothers) will despise her and the only men remotely interested in her company will take advantage of her mental state. With the bare minimum of expectations for results in jail, over time, the community could start to calm down & forget a little (maybe understand and forgive). She would get away from the stress, distractions and social problems that caused her turmoil and really have time to heal emotionally. And from a public viewpoint, some form of justice needs to be served to rehabilitate her. By giving this woman literally her freedom only enrages most of our society to give a massive negative backlash directly at her. How does that help her? Almost everyone thinks that she got away without much consequence from doing a awful crime. She may have not killed that kid, but she has ended the life she could of have. My family knows several foster families who have "shaken babies" in their care. Even when these kids become adults, a few will have limited abilities and can interact with others. While the majority are trapped in an "infant/toddler like state" ...forever. Sure, they get the love and the care, but they have no productive life! To allow these kind of crimes to be interpreted by the public as only a simple mistake, diminishes the accountability for all parents/guardians and the value of young lives.  
 
Many that may know this woman will now wait to see if she makes a mistake. And when she does, it will only reinforce the anger and distaste towards our justice and punitive/rehabilitation systems that she never received any treatment in correcting her faults. And, they will be proven right on their assumptions and expectations. But even if she doesn't do anything socially wrong (like having another baby in less than four years), people will still believe that they will be right to think that the justice system doesn't work. I believe that the judges decision to grant immediate probation, has again damaged the public's viewpoint towards the rights of victims. Not because for the lack of punishment to the convicted, but the lack of forced action with programs that would have been automatically applied if she were to be incarcerated.  
 
Granting this woman a 'pass' from incarceration simply for the reasons of pity and not posing as threat to others, does her no favors.  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

snowman5 said "With jail, as crappy as the programs are, she would get regular counselling and guidance through professional help and support groups. At home, she gets out whatever she wants to put into it (probably the minimum required by court order) and being ostracized by her friends and community. In jail, she would have been monitored and kept from creating new mistakes. At home, she's back in the place where all her problems still remain (minus a crying baby) and with new challenges to cope with. She'll also be more susceptible to depression, substance abuse, self-neglect, poor relationships and negative choices if she is to left to do things on her own. She may be a grown woman, but she would have benefited from the structure, discipline and supervision to motivate and set goals.     Sending her home while still ill-equipped to handle the life of her original problems, along with all new emotional trauma and into a scenario where people in the community will hate her, disassociate and isolate from her... will be horrific and damaging to her recovery. Does anyone here really think she'll be okay out on her own? If she returns to a place where people know her... Odds are that most women (especially mothers) will despise her and the only men remotely interested in her company will take advantage of her mental state. With the bare minimum of expectations for results in jail, over time, the community could start to calm down & forget a little (maybe understand and forgive). She would get away from the stress, distractions and social problems that caused her turmoil and really have time to heal emotionally. And from a public viewpoint, some form of justice needs to be served to rehabilitate her. By giving this woman literally her freedom only enrages most of our society to give a massive negative backlash directly at her. How does that help her? Almost everyone thinks that she got away without much consequence from doing a awful crime. She may have not killed that kid, but she has ended the life she could of have. My family knows several foster families who have "shaken babies" in their care. Even when these kids become adults, a few will have limited abilities and can interact with others. While the majority are trapped in an "infant/toddler like state" ...forever. Sure, they get the love and the care, but they have no productive life! To allow these kind of crimes to be interpreted by the public as only a simple mistake, diminishes the accountability for all parents/guardians and the value of young lives.     Many that may know this woman will now wait to see if she makes a mistake. And when she does, it will only reinforce the anger and distaste towards our justice and punitive/rehabilitation systems that she never received any treatment in correcting her faults. And, they will be proven right on their assumptions and expectations. But even if she doesn't do anything socially wrong (like having another baby in less than four years), people will still believe that they will be right to think that the justice system doesn't work. I believe that the judges decision to grant immediate probation, has again damaged the public's viewpoint towards the rights of victims. Not because for the lack of punishment to the convicted, but the lack of forced action with programs that would have been automatically applied if she were to be incarcerated.     Granting this woman a 'pass' from incarceration simply for the reasons of pity and not posing as threat to others, does her no favors.     Just my opinion, I could be wrong. "

great post.  
 
I sit here and wonder if it had been a man, he would already be sitting in jail.