Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

You don’t have the information which the court had Glorianny. How can you possibly express a valid opinion about the conviction and sentence without that information?
I respect the verdict of the court and the judge’s sentence because I know no more than has been reported in the press. Nor does anyone else unless they attended the trial each day.

I agree Casdon. And the crush injury is particularly horrifying.

I wonder why you always consider that justice is done GSM

And I always wonder why you consider it hasn't Gloriany. We have to assume that the judge and jury were privy to evidence that we aren't aware of. The judge gave the jury the opportunity to give a verdict of not guilty, guilty of infanticide or guilty of murder. Based on the evidence that they had seen and heard, they delivered guilty of murder verdict. The judge then has to give his punishment based on the harm done to the victim and how much responsibility the offender has for the crime with any mitigating factors being taken into consideration. The judge must respect the minimum and maximum sentences set out in the law. The sentence must also be in proportion to the offender's degree of responsibility. In other words, the judge will order a heavier sentence if the offender played a key role in the crime.

Unless you were one of the jurors, you cannot possibly know why they rejected an infanticide verdict, which would have attracted a more lenient sentence, and decided that, in full occupation of the facts, they delivered the verdict they did. Or were you sat with the judge whilst he deliberated?

Has she been incarcerated for the last four years ?

No BlueBelle, she was been on bail until sentencing.

" You've got to be mentally very unstable to actually kill any living thing, even an animal." Rather a sweeping statement, BlueBelle?

Beetlejuice

No BlueBelle, she was been on bail until sentencing.

The offence for which she has just been convicted occurred three or four years ago.

Bodach I don’t understand your post

An innocent new born baby does not deserve to be destroyed no amount of excuses make it right.

I strongly agree with Luckygirl3. This tragic death was preventable if the girl had had supportive family. Her school should have been aware of her difficult family background and social services should have been involved. Mental health support should have been offered to a teenager living with a dying father. We don’t know the mother’s problems which were alluded to in the newspaper reports.
I’m sure we can all imagine the trauma of a naive teenager giving birth alone, and panicking, bleeding and sore, faced with a blood covered baby.
It’s unlikely that this girl would be a danger to society. She needs help, not twelve years locked up.

A 15 year old often just lives for the moment and doesn’t consider long term consequences of their actions. The baby was a nuisance, cramped her life so she killed it. Shocking, cruel and if an adult had done it you’d throw the book at them. But a 15 year old being sent to jail? Back in the dark ages, isn’t it? It makes you think you wouldn’t want to live in a country where a thing like that happened, it is disgusting. That jury needs to be seen to.

My emotional, knee-jerk response is that sentencing a 15 year-old to 12 years in prison seems harsh' even though this is such a horrific crime. However, having paused for thought, I realise that I'm actually in no position to decide one way or the other, as I didn't actually sit through the trial, and have not had the benefit of considering all the evidence which was available to the Judge and Jury. Either way, it's a tragedy for all concerned, and I mourn the loss of that poor, innocent child. Heartbreaking.

That jury needs to be seen to.

What do you mean by that nanna8?

Foxygloves

I always thought that infanticide was no longer treated as murder
The Infanticide Act is the name of two 20th-century acts in English law that started treating the killing of an infant child by its mother during the early months of life as a lesser crime than murder
The maximum penalty for infanticide is life imprisonment. However, in practice a non-custodial sentence is usually the outcome

The reports say that the jury were offered the option of infanticide but decided she was guilty of murder. It was not the judge being harsh.

the jury needs to be seen to

I expect the ordinary people who served on this jury will carry the details of this poor baby’s death with them for the rest of their lives. They heard the evidence, we have very little information yet people are reaching conclusions based on their emotional responses. The jury and judge reached their conclusions based on evidence. If the conviction or sentence is appealable, no doubt that will happen

Sorry, I should make clear how offensive I found that comment about the jury nanna8

Iam64

Sorry, I should make clear how offensive I found that comment about the jury nanna8

Agreed.

The girls mental state must have been terrible and prolonged supervision was thought appropriate, a mental institution was not thought suitable so it had to be prison. How long will depend on how her mental state takes to “normalize”, there will be an appeal if the sentence is thought to be excessive.

Iam64

Sorry, I should make clear how offensive I found that comment about the jury nanna8

The jury was correct, it was murder, the judge handed the sentence down, it may be appealed.

Germanshepherdsmum

You don’t have the information which the court had Glorianny. How can you possibly express a valid opinion about the conviction and sentence without that information?
I respect the verdict of the court and the judge’s sentence because I know no more than has been reported in the press. Nor does anyone else unless they attended the trial each day.

Having sat through more court cases than I care to remember, I agree with that, GSM. With the best will in the world, the media cannot report every single thing said during a court case, so unless you've been there for the duration, you will not know absolutely everything which was said.
There was a very high profile murder case here in Scotland a number of years ago and the man responsible is still claiming he is innocent and has some very vocal supporters arguing his case for him. However, they only latched onto the case after the trial - it was a long trial and none of them sat through the whole thing, so when I see them on social media making various claims, I always think "how can you make those claims when you weren't there? You didn't hear all the evidence presented."

nanna8
that jury needs to be seen to
Does that comment mean the same as it does here in the uk?

I find it astonishing that so many people are able to criticise the judge and jury for reaching the verdict they did. They weren't there. They didn't have to sit for 6 weeks and listen to the harrowing evidence given by police, pathologists, psychologists, doctors and other witnesses. And yet they're apparently in the position of knowing that this was some kind of miscarriage of justice and the sentence given was just plain wrong.
Quite impressive really.

I don’t know. I meant it should be challenged and a re-trial - they shouldn’t get away with what they have decided. What does it mean in the uk,then ? I’d guess something horrible from the outraged comments. Or are you just disagreeing that it was a bad decision?

None of us know the actual facts we can be horrified about what we have heard and hope she is given the help and support that she clearly needs.
If she was living with a father who was on home dialysis there would be health workers going in and out of the house daily, why did she not ask for help? Was she so scared and not mentally stable? Lots to think about until the clear facts are known.

Why nanna8? Do you know something about the evidence before the court that we don’t?

In the UK being seen to means beaten up - or worse.