Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

No, it’s a question of heart or head so far as Gransnetters are concerned Glorianny. We weren’t there. We each use what we think is evidence to back up our argument, but we have little, or in some cases no knowledge. Some people are willing to admit to that, although I know you aren’t.

Yes you do Glorianny, you absolutely do need to hear the evidence and you didn’t. Also you appear to have forgotten that GSM said that those cases that didn’t go to trial would have been because the women pleaded guilty.

Casdon

The problem with this debate is that the ‘heart’ people are looking for ways to justify a 15 year old murdering her baby by using mitigating circumstances and the ‘head’ people are trusting that the evidence proves that was what she did. It’s not a resolvable discussion, because some peoples hearts will rule and some peoples heads will.

It isn't a question of "heart" or "head" Casdon. It is a question of legal process and why a child was subject to such treatment when adult women have not been.

I don't need the benefit of all the evidence to consider the conviction of a child for a crime adult women have not been given custodial sentences for is highly questionable.

The problem with this debate is that the ‘heart’ people are looking for ways to justify a 15 year old murdering her baby by using mitigating circumstances and the ‘head’ people are trusting that the evidence proves that was what she did. It’s not a resolvable discussion, because some peoples hearts will rule and some peoples heads will.

It must have been distressing for the jurors and spending 8 hours deliberating before giving their verdict for me, shows that the verdict was considered and they took their responsibility seriously.

The comparison you made was IMO relevant to the discussion Callistemon.

No it doesn’t worry me at all Glorianny. I don’t have the benefit of all the evidence and seeing the defendant and expert witnesses examined and cross examined. The jury did and the judge would have explained the difference between murder and infanticide to them in a way that they could understand. You don’t know all the facts of the case - nobody who didn’t sit through the entire trial does.

Smileless2012

tickingbird it was me who first mentioned the case of James Bulger yesterday, not Callistemon.

I did so saying I didn't know the details of the case and didn't want too, and was wondering if she would have to serve the full sentence because his killers were released on license to keep them out of an adult prison.

I thought it was relevant to this particular discussion which is why I mentioned it. You are of course free to disagree but we're all free to post what we believe to be relevant.

Thank you Smileless

I was comparing sentences for crimes by children. One premeditated, the other may well have been committed in a state of shock.
Whatever the psychiatric assessment later on of her state of mind at that time, hiding the pregnancy, denying it to herself, the shock of giving birth, trying to remain silent throughout, must have had an impact.

GSM Does it not worry you in the least that a 15 year old girl has been convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, whilst older and more supported women were found to have committed infanticide. Is it something to do with society today?
The methods used by the women who killed babies were similar to this case, being usually battering or suffocation.
Something has gone wrong with the justice system.

They don't, always. Juries have been known to get things badly wrong.
IMO in this case also.

If there is no jury trial it’s because the defendant has pleased guilty. There may have been discussion and agreement between prosecution and defence as regards the charge.

A jury is perfectly capable of understanding the difference between infanticide and murder- the essential constituents of each offence would have been carefully explained by the judge before they retired. How on earth do you think juries cope with complex fraud cases?

Beetlejuice

^Therefore I remain questioning the decision re murder v infanticide, and the appropriateness of the sentence.^

This has been covered several times already on this thread but, for clarity, I'll explain it again. The judge had to give the jury 3 options to consider: a not guilty verdict, guilty of infanticide (which would mean that he could hand down a lighter sentence) or guilty of murder. The jury deliberated for over 8 hours and, having taken into consideration all of the evidence given to them, they decided that Mayo was guilty of murder. The verdict was theirs and theirs alone and unless you want to dispense with our judicial system of trial by jury, you'll have to come to terms with the fact that they were the ones with full visibility of all the facts and it was on those facts that they based their verdict.
The judge is given parameters of sentencing for each crime, based on the verdict given to him. He cannot just give an arbitrary sentence; every crime has a recommended sentence and he is legally obliged to follow those sentencing guidelines. The judge followed the law and if you read the sentencing notes provided by GSM earlier, you will see that he explains all of this in quite simple terms. Please read them.

The history of infanticide prosecutions must be considered in this case.
The Law Commision on Murder and Infanticide investigated these cases. in most cases the charge of infanticide was agreed before trial, the cases never went to jury trial and few resulted in a prison term.

Table 6a shows that while the majority of the defendants were initially charged with murder (75.5%, n=37) compared to 24.5% (n=12) facing an infanticide charge, by the time the charges were finalised, after pre-trial negotiations, this had altered dramatically to 63.3% (n=31) of the accused facing a charge of infanticide and 36.7% (n=18) facing charges of murder and infanticide, see Table 6b.(7)
There was no jury trial in all but two of the cases (95.9%, n=47). The two cases in question are described briefly in Appendix A in cases 30 and 34.In both cases the defendants maintained a not guilty plea which in turn necessitated a full trial
(^8) Table 8 reveals that in all but a single case the verdict was infanticide^.
The exception is case 34 where a jury rejected infanticide and convicted the defendant on a separate count of common law manslaughter.

It seems that this is a single case where a child has been convicted of murder. Most of the women charged with infanticide were adults, the babies varied in age. Why the jury were permitted to decide such a complicated and involved legal decision which has usually been decided pre trial is questionable.
www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/lc304_Murder_Manslaughter_and_Infanticide_Report.pdf

If you are saying my post was rude I’m afraid I disagree (and actually I think yours rather rude.) It certainly wasn’t meant to be rude anyway but to point out that the legal profession are highly qualified, and whatever qualifications we or the jury may have had, we are not, nor are they, members of the legal profession.
Post partum 15 year olds who murder their infants are not in their right mind. This is your opinion, but had you taken notice of the judgement that GSM kindly posted you would see that expert opinion did not agree with you. Additionally you were not called as a witness. We have to believe that the court came to the correct conclusion. The court of opinion holds no sway in our courts.

How rude. Nothing to do with couch experts. There is a principal here. Post partum 15 year olds who murder their infants are not in their right mind. End of. Yes, I am qualified but not as a judge.

That’s why we have courts. We have highly trained judges, highly trained barristers and highly trained solicitors. We cannot have crimes being judged by the court of everyday people who make their judgments based on what they’ve seen in the media. The jury are not necessarily highly trained, although they maybe, because they are twelve people who are not lawyers or judges, they are ordinary people who have listened to the whole case and all the facts and they have come to their conclusion.
That’s why, although I feel sorry for the girl to have got herself in this position, I feel the correct conclusion was reached and the correct judgment was given.
If there are any grounds for appeal then that will happen in good time. I can’t see why there would be an appeal though at the moment.

But I struggle to see a point of view in your posts herevWyllow - it’s imaginings and whatifery.

Not everyone wants to know the upsetting details of the case lemsip and everyone's entitled to introduce whatever they feel may be pertinent to a particular discussion.

Beetlejuice I have always believed that in online disagreements that it is right and proper to attack a POV: however to go on to make personal attacks is inappropriate and uncalled for.

People who know me as a poster will know that I do not do this:

and I hope for the same courtesy from all or we end on one of those threads that just denigrate each other and fizzle out into personal attack and counter attack.

I couldn’t put it better Beetlejuice. The phrase ‘couch expert’ springs to mind.

Of course he sentenced her for homicide Wyllow, because that was the verdict of the jury (not the judge). And the experts weren’t evaluating her mental state years afterwards - if you read the judgement you will see that they evaluated her condition over a very long period, one reason why the case took so long to come to trial. You are obviously intent on weaving your own fairy story about this girl regardless of the facts and the expert evidence which were heard by the jury over a period of several weeks.

I'm aware some posters don't like what I say but there will have to be "Agree to disagree"

In the same way that you will have to "Agree to Disagree" with the 7 women & 5 men who sat as jurors and had to watch and listen to 6 weeks of unbelievable cruelty before being asked to delivertheir verdict. For you to sit at home now, having had only a snapshot of what they had to experience and then have the arrogance to suggest that they reached their verdict, not by the wealth of evidence put before them but by undue influence by the judge, shows unbelievable arrogance.

That’s right foxie. My son is a barrister and he told me he was not interested in becoming a criminal barrister because it’s not paid well at all, and because much of it, although certainly not all, is not challenging enough. He may have been thinking about the earlier cases he would have had to deal with in that respect, because some criminal cases are very challenging. He works in employment law and commercial law which are certainly challenging. But the difference is the pay. Criminal barristers are really paid very poorly by the state but that doesn’t mean we should assume that they are poor barristers. KC are extremely good barristers whichever specialty they are in and this girl was represented by a KC barrister. She had the best representation but she was judged to be guilty as charged and no barrister could have achieved a different result.

("Just that" referred to Esmay's post)

Yes, just that. I'm aware some posters don't like what I say but there will have to be "Agree to disagree"

And the "Experts" did disagree on this one. Psychiatry is an inexact science and they were evaluating an event years afterwards. The CPS can "choose" their expert.

Yes I do know what post partum psychosis and it can develop within hours after birth. I see it only as part not the whole of the picture, and not surprising given the circs before - I don't think she was "in her right mind" throughout.

And the judge did acknowledge this (quoting from article I posted)

"Mayo testified to a difficult family life: an “emotionally cruel” father who made her feel “patronised and belittled” and “worthless”, so she sought attention by having sex at age 13. Unable to confront the reality that she might be pregnant, she never took a pregnancy test, she claimed, and she “would try to make excuses to myself to what I thought was wrong”.

In delivering his verdict, Mr Justice Garnham acknowledged her appalling situation but still sentenced this “rather pathetic (in the true sense of that word) 15-year-old girl” to custody for homicide.