News0 min ago
Woman To Be Freed After Only 2-3 Months In Jail.
100 Answers
http://
Is 2-3 months in jail a satisfactory punishment for causing "catastrophic" brain injuries to one's child?.
Is 2-3 months in jail a satisfactory punishment for causing "catastrophic" brain injuries to one's child?.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Trial judge Mrs Justice Thirlwall had said she accepted the incident was not premeditated and Abdulrahman had been suffering from post-natal psychosis - a severe form of post-natal depression.
Sounds like she thought this wasn't a defence, Sqad, at most a mitigating circumstance.
I'm neither a doctor nor a lawyer but I'd have thought this was wrong.
However, the appeal court didn't quash the sentence, they just reduced it, so perhaps it is indeed no defence?
Sounds like she thought this wasn't a defence, Sqad, at most a mitigating circumstance.
I'm neither a doctor nor a lawyer but I'd have thought this was wrong.
However, the appeal court didn't quash the sentence, they just reduced it, so perhaps it is indeed no defence?
I'm confused as well Sqad - it's almost as if the judge didn't fully understand the diagnosis.
I found this on an American site - a bit ironic in the circumstances..
"Delusions accompanying postpartum psychosis may lead a woman to harm herself or her infant. The legal consequences of a psychosis-induced killing vary from country to country. According to Dr. Margaret G. Spinelli, the United States is alone among Western countries in jailing and not treating women after they have killed their children. She points out that in such countries as England and Italy "a woman is considered vulnerable because of childbirth with preference for psychiatric treatment."
http://
I found this on an American site - a bit ironic in the circumstances..
"Delusions accompanying postpartum psychosis may lead a woman to harm herself or her infant. The legal consequences of a psychosis-induced killing vary from country to country. According to Dr. Margaret G. Spinelli, the United States is alone among Western countries in jailing and not treating women after they have killed their children. She points out that in such countries as England and Italy "a woman is considered vulnerable because of childbirth with preference for psychiatric treatment."
http://
[Correction: It was reduced to a year, not by a year]
The law has long acknowledged post natal depression. Had this woman killed her baby she would not have been charged with murder or manslaughter. She would have been charged with infanticide, contrary to s1 of the Infanticide Act, 1936 which provides for a woman having the balance of her mind disturbed by reason of her not fully recovered from the birth. Curiously (and I can see Parliamentary compromise here) the maximum sentence is the same as for manslaughter viz. life. In practice, the courts take what may be thought, by some, a very lenient view of most cases of infanticide, recognising all the elements that are present in the instant case, and that the mental state was temporary but the recognition by the mother that she has killed her own child is permanent.
The law has long acknowledged post natal depression. Had this woman killed her baby she would not have been charged with murder or manslaughter. She would have been charged with infanticide, contrary to s1 of the Infanticide Act, 1936 which provides for a woman having the balance of her mind disturbed by reason of her not fully recovered from the birth. Curiously (and I can see Parliamentary compromise here) the maximum sentence is the same as for manslaughter viz. life. In practice, the courts take what may be thought, by some, a very lenient view of most cases of infanticide, recognising all the elements that are present in the instant case, and that the mental state was temporary but the recognition by the mother that she has killed her own child is permanent.
Reporting at the time of her conviction.
// Abdulrahman admitted concocting a fake story about her daughter being snatched by a couple who burst into her flat sparking a major police hunt before she confessed.
"It's quite clear that the jury were satisfied that you were suffering from postpartum psychosis (severe post-natal depression) at the time you acted.
"Anyone who sat through the whole trial will understand exactly how they came to that conclusion.
Abdulrahman told the jury: "I put the baby in a rubbish bag and I threw her away.
"After I had done so I just couldn't believe what I had just done. I was in shock.
"I put her in the refuse sack on her own, nothing else.
"I never planned for it beforehand. Even now as I speak to you I am still in a state of disbelief of what I have done.
"I wasn't well. I was in a state of disbelief what I had done. If I thought that by doing so would do harm to her I wouldn't have done it.
"I wouldn't do any harm to her, I never thought about doing any harm to her." //
Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://
I am guessing the jury found her guilty of the lesser charge of GBH out of pity and believed she was sick when she harmed her baby. They would have found it difficult to have completely cleared her as it was evident the child had suffered. that is why the Judge said "Anyone who sat through the whole trial will understand exactly how they (the Jury) came to that conclusion.". That was clearly a mistake. If they believed she was ill, they should have dismissed the GBH charge, but it is inderstandable why they didn't.
The Judge should have also passed a lighter sentence, maybe she was just following sentencing guidelines and made a mistake.
The Appeal was correct and the reduction in sentence is right. But the Appeal did not null the conviction for GBH. They too seem to have accepted she was ill, but should be punished anyway.
It is clear the trial and appeal cost a lot of money which in my opinion should never have been brought.
// Abdulrahman admitted concocting a fake story about her daughter being snatched by a couple who burst into her flat sparking a major police hunt before she confessed.
"It's quite clear that the jury were satisfied that you were suffering from postpartum psychosis (severe post-natal depression) at the time you acted.
"Anyone who sat through the whole trial will understand exactly how they came to that conclusion.
Abdulrahman told the jury: "I put the baby in a rubbish bag and I threw her away.
"After I had done so I just couldn't believe what I had just done. I was in shock.
"I put her in the refuse sack on her own, nothing else.
"I never planned for it beforehand. Even now as I speak to you I am still in a state of disbelief of what I have done.
"I wasn't well. I was in a state of disbelief what I had done. If I thought that by doing so would do harm to her I wouldn't have done it.
"I wouldn't do any harm to her, I never thought about doing any harm to her." //
Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://
I am guessing the jury found her guilty of the lesser charge of GBH out of pity and believed she was sick when she harmed her baby. They would have found it difficult to have completely cleared her as it was evident the child had suffered. that is why the Judge said "Anyone who sat through the whole trial will understand exactly how they (the Jury) came to that conclusion.". That was clearly a mistake. If they believed she was ill, they should have dismissed the GBH charge, but it is inderstandable why they didn't.
The Judge should have also passed a lighter sentence, maybe she was just following sentencing guidelines and made a mistake.
The Appeal was correct and the reduction in sentence is right. But the Appeal did not null the conviction for GBH. They too seem to have accepted she was ill, but should be punished anyway.
It is clear the trial and appeal cost a lot of money which in my opinion should never have been brought.
First may I apologise for not joining in this debate earlier, it was not because I shied away from making a contribution because of the overwhelming support this woman has received from most of you, (because some know that I am not fearful of a little opposition).
May I also thank both mikey444 and Bazwillrun for their support regarding the spin that Andy-Hughes tried to put on my words, it is obvious that he is not accustomed to the rudiments of debate, else he and others (after being stirred on by AH) would have noticed that I asked a question for debate and didn't follow on with a comment of my own.
Now we come to some of the replies
/// so the question is, at the very least, irrelevant ///
Another one who doesn't seem to understand the rudiments of debate, one can put before the debaters many questions after a fact has been settled, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those question is irrelevant.
/// 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. ///
Spill it out Andy so we can all understand it.
and then this'
/// bazzer (good grief this is like remedial work) ///
/// 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 ///
And all this is from an ABer who also typed this,
/// as all we have on here is communication through an exchange of words, I would suggest that using them correctly is rather useful. ///
Perhaps he should take on board his own suggestion, because I don't think that by issuing out insults, is indeed the correct use of words.
May I also thank both mikey444 and Bazwillrun for their support regarding the spin that Andy-Hughes tried to put on my words, it is obvious that he is not accustomed to the rudiments of debate, else he and others (after being stirred on by AH) would have noticed that I asked a question for debate and didn't follow on with a comment of my own.
Now we come to some of the replies
/// so the question is, at the very least, irrelevant ///
Another one who doesn't seem to understand the rudiments of debate, one can put before the debaters many questions after a fact has been settled, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those question is irrelevant.
/// 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. ///
Spill it out Andy so we can all understand it.
and then this'
/// bazzer (good grief this is like remedial work) ///
/// 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 ///
And all this is from an ABer who also typed this,
/// as all we have on here is communication through an exchange of words, I would suggest that using them correctly is rather useful. ///
Perhaps he should take on board his own suggestion, because I don't think that by issuing out insults, is indeed the correct use of words.
FredPuli43
/// Don't know where you get "2 or 3 months in jail" from, AOG. ///
She had already served 2-3 moths in jail before the appeals judge released her.
/// Abdulrahman, of Wolverhampton, was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the baby girl and was jailed for 30 months at Birmingham Crown Court in June. ///
Jailed in June, released in early September = approx 2-3 months,
/// Don't know where you get "2 or 3 months in jail" from, AOG. ///
She had already served 2-3 moths in jail before the appeals judge released her.
/// Abdulrahman, of Wolverhampton, was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the baby girl and was jailed for 30 months at Birmingham Crown Court in June. ///
Jailed in June, released in early September = approx 2-3 months,
/// it's just barely possible that the OP was prompted not by the sentence but by the picture of a woman with a head covering. ///
Yet another pathetic attempt to belittle me, such answers as these give no support to a person's opposition points towards another poster, it only highlights the rather dismal depths one will go to insult a fellow ABer.
Yet another pathetic attempt to belittle me, such answers as these give no support to a person's opposition points towards another poster, it only highlights the rather dismal depths one will go to insult a fellow ABer.
Latest Posts
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works3 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
News14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.