Criminal or a Health Matter?

As I said he had absolutely no evidence or information about when the depression began.

Glorianny, you don't know that. He had seen the psychiatrist reports, the pre-sentencing reports and other sources of information and came to the conclusion that "You were not suffering from any serious mental illness at the time of this offence." Surely this gives some indication that he did in fact have some evidence and information.

As for the services in prison, we are all aware of how they are lacking and have been for years. It isn't just women who face this problem. 35 years ago, it was just the same for men. My ex, who had committed fairly low level crime in moments of hopelessness, was under psychiatric care but all that stopped the moment he was convicted. By the time he left prison, all thoughts of returning to psychiatric care was blown out of the water so the moment of intervention for was lost forever. Whilst I wouldn't want psychiatric treatment used as a "get out of jail free card", sadly, there are so many people who could be served better by treatment than imprisonment but I suspect it will never happen due to the cost.

Thanks icanhandthemback. Precisely. The judge had the benefit of a psychiatric report. To say that he had absolutely no evidence or information about when the depression began is utter nonsense. I would go so far as to say pure arrogance. You have no more information than is contained in the judgement but you think you know more than the judge. Breathtaking, even by your standards.

Germanshepherdsmum Is it really necessary to be so unpleasant to people like me and Glorianny who do not happen to agree with you? We are entitled to our opinions, just like you are entitled to yours.

I read and respect the judgement. I don’t make totally unfounded claims and call them ‘opinions’.

Saetana GSM's attitude towards anyone who questions her views is well known to me. I would have more respect for her if she would occasionally admit she was wrong. She posted earlier in this thread that the woman could have been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. When I pointed out that the crime if she had killed the baby would be infanticide, and that seldom attracted a life sentence she ignored it.
If the woman had been suffering from post-natal depression (which we know is often misdiagnosed) and had killed the baby she would not have received a custodial sentence.
What we do know is the woman is depressed, her behaviour before she took the abortion pills was erratic and not organised. She is emotionally unstable.
Emotionally unstable personality disorder causes significantly impaired functioning, including a feeling of emptiness, lack of identity, unstable mood and relationships, intense fear of abandonment and dangerous impulsive behaviour, including severe episodes of self-harm
Anyone knows that the judicial system does not treat women with the care they deserve

Saetana

Germanshepherdsmum Is it really necessary to be so unpleasant to people like me and Glorianny who do not happen to agree with you? We are entitled to our opinions, just like you are entitled to yours.

But the judge had reports and other information that we are not privy to so would be basing his conclusions on those.

We can have an opinion - but based on what? We haven't read the reports.

Glorianny, the legal term for murder - that is, deliberate premeditated killing - of an unborn baby is foeticide or child destruction. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Foster pleaded not guilty to that charge and her counsel was successful in requesting the substitution of the lesser charge for which she was successfully prosecuted. Infanticide is the killing of a child which has been born alive.

Psychopathic personality disorder is also something that leads to decisions which are highly questionable to people who don't have them. Do we say that they can't help it? I think not.

I don’t think GSM has been remotely unpleasant, but she has stated the facts as we know them. The judge has full and detailed knowledge of the cases he/she is judging, which is something that we, the general public do not have. I believe the correct judgment was made from what I know. I would rather trust a judge than someone on a social media site.

Thanks maddy. And so would I! Including in cases involving women, where I strongly disagree with the allegation that they receive unfair or unequal treatment.

Germanshepherdsmum

Thanks maddy. And so would I! Including in cases involving women, where I strongly disagree with the allegation that they receive unfair or unequal treatment.

Well there are a lot of eminent legal people who would disagree with you.
www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/iwd22-women-who-are-wrongly-prosecuted-and-convicted.html
From 10years ago, but it seems little has changed
it is wrongly imprisoning large numbers of women who pose no threat to society and is not taking into account the human rights of children affected by their mothers' imprisonment
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/27/women-wrongly-imprisoned.

There are also plenty of men who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned! Even executed. Miscarriages of justice aren’t the sole preserve of women. But of course if you go looking for wrongs against women that’s what you find.

Germanshepherdsmum

There are also plenty of men who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned! Even executed. Miscarriages of justice aren’t the sole preserve of women. But of course if you go looking for wrongs against women that’s what you find.

So were the rights of the children taken into account by the judge?
And KC Emma Torr says
IWD represents a time to reflect upon these disparities and serves as an important reminder that the disadvantages faced by women in society generally have significant ramifications in the criminal justice system as well as elsewhere.

The judge mentions the children as you will have seen.

Frankly Glorianny you’re employing your usual diversionary tactics. I don’t play that game. My interest in this thread is limited to the case in question and it’s now exhausted.

These are diversionary tactics Glorianny. The link mentions domestic violence and mental illness. It does not mention a premeditated illegal abortion, which is a very different affair altogether.

The children of this woman are indeed going to be disadvantaged by their mother’s imprisonment. Perhaps she should have considered that before she decided to illegally procure an abortion, which killed her baby girl in the process.

Germanshepherdsmum

The judge mentions the children as you will have seen.

Frankly Glorianny you’re employing your usual diversionary tactics. I don’t play that game. My interest in this thread is limited to the case in question and it’s now exhausted.

Forgive me I see this as an example of how badly women are served by the judicial system, not as a case to be taken in isolation.
Mentioning the children s not the same as acknowledging their rights

See it how you wish Glorianny. I really am not interested in your continued unfounded comments about the judgement. I’m not engaging further with you on this. Good day.

Germanshepherdsmum

See it how you wish Glorianny. I really am not interested in your continued unfounded comments about the judgement. I’m not engaging further with you on this. Good day.

You have the patience of Job, GSM. I bailed out long ago, before it really did my head in. I needed to get back to the real world. As for your : "I'm not engaging further".. me too.. never, ever, about anything. Much better things to do.

Thanks NanaDana. I’m used to bashing my head against a brick wall with clients who won’t accept expensive advice. Here I can cheerfully tell people where to go (to put it politely).
As you say, much better things to do. 😊