Woman To Be Freed After Only 2-3 Months In Jail.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23950394

Is 2-3 months in jail a satisfactory punishment for causing "catastrophic" brain injuries to one's child?.

[Octavius]

slaney, the appeal judges said the same, that she should never have been sent to jail.

[bazwillrun]

"trig - that is true, but you must conceede that the thrust of AOG's post does indicate that he feels that 'satisfactory punishment' has not been issued here.

Of course, I along with others await AOG's response with interest"

what thrust, a simple question was asked
amazing how you managed to draw that conclusion, speculative at best
hold on I forgot on AB, 2 +2 = 5 according to some of you

[youngmafbog]

And when she, undoubtedly, falls pregnant again?

[ummmm]

Young - she'll be referred for treatment.

[Zeuhl]

/ hold on I forgot on AB, 2 +2 = 5 according to some of you /

putting bazzer's little neuroses to one side

aog's question:

/Is 2-3 months in jail a satisfactory punishment for causing "catastrophic" brain injuries to one's child?/

clearly presupposes that some form of 'punishment' was appropriate

in fact, the Appeal Judges have ruled that no punishment was appropriate, so the question is, at the very least, irrelevant

[andy-hughes]

bazwillrun - the Question is simple - and apparently so is AOG's perspective, which is at odds with ever other individual who has posted a response.

I can explain it, but I can't understand it for you.

[sandyRoe]

She was in the grip of a very severe bout of mental illness. Didn't she need treatment rather than imprisonment?

[bazwillrun]

"clearly presupposes that some form of 'punishment' was appropriate "
it presupposes diddely except in your tiny little world of a mind

yet again the same old twisting and distorting game

explain where AOG presupposes suggests or otherwise that the sentence is not satisfactory or is it just the usual game of semantics and pedantry

[Peter Pedant]

yeah, if you are ill as in mad
then you are not usually held to be guilty of a crime

First surfaced in the 1840s with M'Naghten rules

and quite a few of the people attempting to shoot stab or blow up Quenn Vic (no not the pub) were found to be unfit to plead as it was at that time.

Queen Vic strongly dissenting on that one

[Peter Pedant]

Oh if she had killed the kid
she would have had a statutory defence under the Infanticide Act 1929 or...Child destruction act 1929
they could be the same thing

[Zeuhl]

/it presupposes diddely except in your tiny little world of a mind /

bazzer

you appear to be a bit short on the old: Comprehension of the English Language

If a question is asked "Is x enough of a Y?"

Then there is an inbuilt presupposition that there should be some amount of Y

You have to presuppose that in order to decide whether x is not enough or too much

"Is £10 the right amount to spend on a book?"; presupposes that you should spend any money on books

An idea I expect you would take issue with

[andy-hughes]

Peter Pedant: "If you are ill as in mad ..."

Have you ever considered joining The Samaritans?

DON'T!!!!!!!!!

[Sqad]

Sorry to be a bit slow here boys but:

If medical evidence was produced by the defense team supporting a diagnosis of Post natal depression, clearly the judge didn't accept it.

Why?

[Zeuhl]

/explain where AOG presupposes suggests or otherwise that the sentence is not satisfactory or is it just the usual game of semantics and pedantry /

bazzer (good grief this is like remedial work)

i never said aog presupposes the sentence is not satisfactory

I said he presupposes that 'punishment' of some form was in order and the Courts have just ruled it wasn't - hence his question is irrelevant

semantics (that you seem so disdainful of) concerns the correct use of words

as all we have on here is communication through an exchange of words, I would suggest that using them correctly is rather useful.

the only people who would disdain the correct use of words in these exchanges are the poorly educated, the lazy minded or those who think that the sloppy use of words will help in the communication of their vague and poorly thought through ideas

[andy-hughes]

sqad - perhaps because he is a man?

[Sqad]

andy...mmmmm!....I have been involved with barristers ( male and female) and judges (only males) and i have a high regard for their knowledge and integrity...........so my question remains......why did he reject the medical evidence?

[bednobs]

andy "because he is a man?" is a rubbish answer. I am a woman, but have never experienced PNP!

[andy-hughes]

bednobs - my answer was intended to be light-hearted, I think it has lost some of its levity between my keyboard and the Site!

that said, there is a valid argument that men are not always empathetic of wsomens' circumstances, fair enough that is lack of circumstance, rather than lack of desire, but the fact remains.

It was illustrated by the rather wonderful cod-Country musician Hank Wangford - his day job, as Kim Hut, is a gynachologist.

Mr Hut points out that he always gives an aneasthetic before fitting an inter-uterine coil because it can often be painful, but a lot of his male colleagues have never considered that.

As Mr Hut advises - no man would offer a dental filling without anaesthetic because we all have mouths, and know what the pain is, but oonly women have wombs - hence his point, which is valid.

So - please ignore my sledgehammer humour - put it down to the heat!

[ummmm]

I find men to be more empathetic than women.

[slaney]

It looks as if the judge in the original case did accept the diagnosis....
"Judge Kate Thirlwall said she accepted Abdulrahman's actions were not premeditated and she was suffering from post-natal psychosis at the time.

In sentencing the Iraqi national, she said: "You will have to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of your life."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-22984591