Did she kill her kids if she couldn't stop dad?

[Sayj]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050527/ts_usatoday/mothersprosecutedpunishedforwhattheydidntdo

Is blaming the mother the easy way out?

[Rooster]

Wow.. that's some messed up stuff.

Bad things happen - put punish the person that DID IT.. then remove the child from the mother's custody unless the situation has been resolved satisfactorily.

[Figtoria]

I dunno.

I think mothers ARE to blame if they stay in abusive situations and/or invite violent men to become their boyfriends/husbands/lovers.

I'm glad to see that someone is holding these stupid women accountable for being so weak and spineless that they fail to protect their own children.

The particular 52 year old woman has probably had a long enough sentence by now, but in general, I don't think it's a bad policy.

[Rooster]

Some accountability, sure. And I'm for recommending standing up to bullies & people, regardless of your own health...

But cowardice isn't a crime in this country, afaik. Shameful, yes. And as some pointed out, protecting other youngins is a valid option. I hope they're only pursuing this on obvious negligence cases, not just to have a finger to point.

[Canidae]

I think mothers ARE to blame if they stay in abusive situations and/or invite violent men to become their boyfriends/husbands/lovers.


K.. I have to disagree here. My father had to deal, as a policeman, with situations like this. Many women that are in an abusive situation become very subservient to their husbands and live in consant fear of them. In that position, the honestly have a hard time seeing a way out of the situation, even when offered help. Its not just physical abuse, its psycholgoical abuse as well.

As for inviting abuse into the home, sometimes there are just no signs until it happens. I have a friend from high school who's boyfriend seemed to be the nicest man alive. Always there for her, always helping in anyway he can. One night he was babysitting for her as he had done before and he threw the boy against the wall. There were no signs that this would ever happen. Should she go to jail for the death of her son?

Should I have been charge for the abuse done to Allie? Even though I would have never ever let him alone with her if I had even the thought he would hurt her, even though if I had known before hand that he would do such a thing to an 8 month old that I would have left?

If you look at most abusive homes, the mother, although she doesn't leave, often times will take the abuse meant for the child. Weak to not leave... but not weak in the defence of the child.

Of course, there are some I would agree needs to be punished. Those that turn a blind eye just because they don't want to know or don't care enough, but don't take it out on those that are so run down from mental and physical abuse that they have a hard time standing up for themselves.

I had a friend that was abused by her father and would not have defied him for anything. You can not understand the mental state she was in unless you have been there yourself.

Our friend Ed was abused as a child. He was there the night Allie was abused. This grown man who never let on that anything bothered him, froze up, then later broke down. Even years after being free of it, it affected him so strongly.

[Rooster]

It's the converse of someone coming out of Basic Training (Military), they feel like they can take on the world - that there's nothing they can't accomplish -- they are feeling just the opposite.

That they can't do anything.

Environment, when persistent enough - can greatly affect everything about a person.

[Figtoria]

I don't believe that there are "no signs" before these kinds of people strike. There are signs that other people choose to rationalize and ignore.

And there are all kinds of reasons why serial killers turn out the way they do. The fact remains they still are responsible for their actions, just as women who allow men to beat their children are responsible for their own INaction.

I have no sympathy for them at all.

[Gwylenna]

Figgy, in many cases I agree that the mother is also accountable, but we are missing one piece of the puzzle. Many abused moms were also abused kids. They can't see the signs that those of us who grew up in non-abusive homes see so glaringly, because it is all the norm to them.

It is indeed a cycle. With men who were abused by parents as children, they often become the abuser. With women they have two paths some even take both, they either become the victim in later relationship or an abuser themselves and as I said some become both, abused by their spouses and abusing thier children. Sometimes with therapy, intervention and sometimes just plain luck they escape either fate, but often they just become part of the continueing cycle.

Though many men do show signs of abusive personalities, there are those out there who are very good at acting like the good guy until they have a woman married or dependant on them (financially or emotionally). This phenomenon is openly discussed in Psychology circles and is a specific personality disorder. These men really fool everyone into thinking how great they are, but once the wedding and honeymoon are over the violence begins. Often they continue thier very convincing charade to family and friends making it harder for the wife to get help because everyone has a hard time believing her.

One of the problems with prosecuting these cases is we are asking people who have never lived in one of these situations to decide if the mother was culpable and to what degree. A realy jury of of peers in this case would include people who have also been abused, but often you don't find those people on a jury at all. So the jury judges the facts of the case with the yardstick of thier life and not the yard stick of the person on trial.

Unless you have lived it, studied it or have some other reason to really understand what is happening to these women in these situations you are going to judge based on your own expirence and rationality. The problem is these women live in a different kind of world, with different rules and with a completely different reality.

[Post]

I just don't get how you can judge this person as an accomplice of murder for inaction. Of course she's partly at fault - so is a whole lot of other people. If someone didn't report a bruise on the child, if another child's parents didn't take a child's complaints seriously, etc. They all contributed to the end result. If they would have acted, the result may have changed, absolutely. But do we consider these people as an accomplice of murder? No way.

I think it's despicable that this mother didn't put her own life in front of her children. But that isn't against the law. How much actual risk would she have had to have had in order to be off the hook? If he had a gun and pointing it at her? A knife? A bat?

[Noleader]

Well I think the cases they are talking about is when the Mother does not stop the Boyfriend from killing their child, not the father. At which case I agree to a limited amount, because the mother should be protecting their child even if that means dumping said boyfriend.

If the boyfriend is abusive and the mother put up with it then she is atleast on some level liable.

[MickeyFinn]

Seems to me like there is something going on here that the story isn't covering. If this woman was convicted of second degree murder and has been denied parole by 6 different governors (mostly liberal ones too), there is more to it. I'd speculate she was knee deep in whatever happened

[Post]

"If the boyfriend is abusive and the mother put up with it then she is atleast on some level liable."

Like I stated, I do believe she has some responsibility. Maybe even up to child abuse. But second-degree murder? No.

[Rooster]

Dumping the boyfriend, in situations like that article presented could easily have guaranteed harm to come to their children.

"I don't believe that there are "no signs" before these kinds of people strike."

It doesn't matter what you believe - that's not the truth of the matter.

[Rooster]

I just don't get how you can judge this person as an accomplice of murder for inaction. Of course she's partly at fault - so is a whole lot of other people. If someone didn't report a bruise on the child, if another child's parents didn't take a child's complaints seriously, etc. They all contributed to the end result. If they would have acted, the result may have changed, absolutely. But do we consider these people as an accomplice of murder? No way.

I think it's despicable that this mother didn't put her own life in front of her children. But that isn't against the law. How much actual risk would she have had to have had in order to be off the hook? If he had a gun and pointing it at her? A knife? A bat?What Post said.

[Allison]

If someone is beating you or your child on a regular basis, then it's foreseeable that someone could be seriously injured in the future. And if that happens, you have some responsibility for that.

I undertand the psychology of battered women. I understand they may see no option other than staying. I understand they feel trapped, helpless, hopeless, ashamed, to-blame, and at times, terrified. I understand this like I understand that any gang-banger on the street is probably operating under a similiar psychology. They grew up in the life, and they know no other life. But, do we not hold them responsible if they participate in a killing?

The psychology that people are operating under at the time of a crime certainly affects the charges that will be brought and the sentences that are imposed. Rightly so. Was the crime premeditated or a crime of passion? Did the person feel his life was threatened? Was the person mentally ill at the time? These are things that can determine a level of responsibility for the accused. But, while I believe that a person's responsibility can be lessened because of their mental state, I don't believe it should usually be eliminated.

In the case of Linda Lee Smith, if it's true that she did not participate in the beating of her child, I think the Governor is wrong to say that she is a threat to society. She's been punished more than enough. But, I can't find much information on this case. The articles I find say that whether she participated or not was disputed at trial. And by her own admisson (http://www.freebatteredwomen.org/lindasmithtestimony.htm), she told hospital workers that she was the one who had beaten her child. So, even if it's true, as she claims, that she only said that so her boyfriend would allow her to take the child to the hospital, I'm sure that statement hurt her case. And, I suspect there may be more that we don't know about her case that has moved the Governor of California to deny her parole on so many occasions.

But, these are not black and white cases. Being a battered woman may, in some cases, lessen responsibility. But, let's not forget that these are adults we're talking about here. And, just like a drug-addict who ultimately is unable to do anything other than neglect her children, these people made choices that lead them into situations that they couldn't control. If you choose to live with an abusive man; if you choose to put a needle in your arm; if then five years later you find yourself unable to do the right thing, you have to realize that your own bad choices led you there. Those choices cannot be ignored.

[Rooster]

I'm referring to someone's inaction being considered as illegal as someone's action.

[Post]

I think that pretty much everyone on the "she shouldn't be charges with murder" side, pretty much agrees that she has some fault in the death, just not enough to constitute second-degree murder.

[Noleader]

I'm referring to someone's inaction being considered as illegal as someone's action.

I don't think this has anything to do with inaction, but the action someone took that exposed the child to this environment.