Sick Judge, Jails UK women, 18 months for Feeding Baby a Sausage

I agree it's wrong to violate a mothers wishes over her children's diet, and that it was stupid to feed such (an obviously young?) baby adult food. However I tend to think that (like 99 out of a 100 times) the sausage would have been, successfully, eaten-vomited without an incident.
Story: news.bbc.co.uk...

Did this women intend to risk the babies life?
Or was she genuinely, confident (in her own mind) that what she was doing, was perfectly safe? (The fact she had the confidence to violate, the mothers wishes, would seem to indicate, she didn't think she was being reckless).

This women is going to loose 18 months of her life, and introduced to criminals, because...
1. She didn't know much about babies
2. Violated the mothers wishes, because she's clearly an arrogant person, (at least within a party atmosphere)
3. Is clearly foolish
4. And set of, an unlucky, and unlucky, chain reaction.

I don't think any of these, are good reasons to send someone to jail, no matter what life has been lost.
I do understand why (very, very, unlucky) people should be punished for e.g. drink driving because they, know, they break the law, and society need deterrents, against it. But feeding babies sausages? Come on!

In My Opinion...
UK courts are becoming excellent servants of unforgiving, revenge, and other primitive evils. I.e. they more serve many concepts of the Devil, than they serve any other kind of God. Agree?

Is it the Judges, or the governments laws that have allowed this happen?
Whatever the case, I still believe the judge is hardly better than a man who sentences a child to death for stealing bread. I credit them both, with similar levels of mercy!!

reply to post by Liberal1984

Nevermind for my previous comment. This woman completely deserves it. I was under the impression it was a mother who didn't know any better and was just trying to feed a child some sausages.. Not someone that just decided to feed a child a sausage and then the baby choked to death.

How could you not think this was a crime? She killed a child because she ignored a mothers orders. She deserves much more time than 18 months.


[edit on 4-6-2010 by Miraj]

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Miraj]

It all depends if she had a history of doing insane things like this.

I don't know who told her she can feed her child this type of food but they need to be in jail also.

To add.

The child did die and that is child neglicting. Doesn't matter if she intended for the child to choke or not it seems common sense that a child this small will choke on small things like bits of sausage.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Miracle Man]

If that was your dead son, you would understand the sentence. You might even wish the sentence was longer than 18 months. What a sad loss for those parents.

At the end of the day, if someone tells you not to do something in regards to their child, you don't do it.

This woman will lose 18 months of her life, the babys mum will never see her baby again, ever.

The woman will be out in less than 18 months if she behaves herself anyway.

CX.

Rekiec later admitted that she had fed Patryk the sausage, despite being previously warned not to by his mother.

This is touchy.

I don't think the death was intentional. But then again, if it was intentional an 18 month sentence would be considered a far too lenient punishment.

She was apparently warned by the child's mother not to feed the sausage, so why did she do it? It comes down to reckless negligence, and it resulted in the tragic death of the child.

I'm not sure what her intentions were, and I don't know if incarceration is really the best solution (is it ever?), but clearly she was in the wrong, and her actions did cause the death of the child. Manslaughter is an appropriate charge, in my opinion.

As a mother I say it is completely fair. knew exactly what she was doing because the mother told her not to. I can't even begin to imagine the pain the mother is going through. Nothing will ever bring that child back.
18 months is nothing compared to the pain that babies family is suffering.

Title of thread is a bit misleading, if she had just ignored the mothers wishes that would probably require a ticking of but she killed the poor little bugger with her stupidity. if anything the judge was to lenient and the mother should request a review of the sentence.

reply to post by Liberal1984


WTF is wrong with you? 18 months isn't anywhere near enough. This sick judge actually let this idiot off the hook with a slap on the wrist. It's the grieving mother who will suffer no doubt for the rest of her life due to this morons actions.

And for the record, she'll be out in 9 months at most but probably sooner with a tag under curfu. She won't lose 18 months of her life but don't let that fact get in the way of your mis-directed anger at the authorities as a whole.

The mother will NEVER see their child again, all due to the stupid actions of some half-wit who had shown complete disrespect and disregard for the parents wishes which unfortunately resulted in the loss of this poor childs life.

EDIT to add:

However I tend to think that (like 99 out of a 100 times) the sausage would have been, successfully, eaten-vomited without an incident.

So just to get this straight, in your opinion..it would be ok for someone to give a child something to eat if there was ONLY a 1 in 100 chance that it would kill them? Whatan idiotic thing to say. If I thought that there was a 1 in 10000 chance that giving my child something to eat would kill them then I'd bloody well find something else for them to eat. I'm blown away by the stupidity of this statement.

I recently heard a Dr talking about how if you got all of the best scientific minds together along with all of the best designers in the world and had them develope a perfect plug for a childs throat it would most likely look exactly like a hot dog...which looks almost exacly like a frankfurter. I'm going to make up statistics like you have and surmise that if one of those things gets stuck in a 9 month olds throat then theres going to be next to no chance of getting the thing out, never mind 1 in a hundred.


[edit on 4-6-2010 by RMFX1]

"Pity so many people here share this Judges level of heartlessness" was my first thought, towards you all.

Originally posted by CX

At the end of the day, if someone tells you not to do something in regards to their child, you don't do it.

Well, obviously. But you shouldn't go to jail for unintentionally killing someone, unless you believed you were putting their life at risk. So people shouldn't go to jail for being dumb, only being immoral.
Originally posted by Miraji

How could you not think this was a crime? She killed a child because she ignored a mothers orders. She deserves much more time than 18 months.

I'm guilty of believing the only (morally justified) purpose of prison is to protect the public. I.e. to keep those who threaten public safety inside, or to reform them.
Is this women a threat to the public?
How are we making this women a better person, by making her share a cell with scum?
If...
If the women had no guilty for what she did, then fine. But its not the case. I think what she did was stupid, rather than evil. And I think prison is for evil. But clearly some people think prison is a place of repentance (just like a church!!!).
I feel sorry for this women. She now gets molested by lesbians, and educated about criminality, all in addition to having a babies death on her hands.

No she deserves to go to jail. Just because someone is a idiot and kills someone doesn't mean they should be unpunished. If that the case I could kill someone everyday, cause I am myself a idiot. It's manslaughter either way. The women didn't listen, and didn't use common sense and a infant died because of it.

Originally posted by MKultraVideos
No she deserves to go to jail. Just because someone is a idiot and kills someone doesn't mean they should be unpunished. If that the case I could kill someone everyday, cause I am myself a idiot. It's manslaughter either way. The women didn't listen, and didn't use common sense and a infant died because of it.

Exactly, stupidity does not grant immunity.

This woman deliberately went against the sensible wishes of a parent, and while the parent was gone, did exactly what the parent said not to do, putting the baby in grave danger - resulting in death.

How is this not immoral? The woman practically murdered it. You do not do things with other people's kids when you are told not to, only for exceptional reasons. This was an act of stupidity and in all likelihood, spite against the parent.

She deserves a life sentance.

Of course the death wasn't intentional, but it was downright incompetence and negligence and deserves a damn sight more than 18 months in my book.

It is a childs life we are talking about.
A mothers child.

If it had been my child I dread to think how I would have reacted!

Originally posted by SteveR
This woman deliberately went against the sensible wishes of a parent, and while the parent was gone, did exactly what the parent said not to do, putting the baby in grave danger - resulting in death.

How is this not immoral? The woman practically murdered it. You do not do things with other people's kids when you are told not to, only for exceptional reasons. This was an act of stupidity and in all likelihood, spite against the parent.

She deserves a life sentance.

You're totally right. I'm only guessing, but I'd bet that the mother probably said something like "don't give the baby any of those frankfurters..she might choke on it" It's common knowledge that sausages are a choking hazard for young children, much less babies.

And if that's the case then it's not like the killer wasn't aware of the risks involved. But like I say, I'm only guessing.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by RMFX1]

Just because someone is a idiot and kills someone doesn't mean they should be unpunished.

Again obviously. But the point is she disregarded the mothers wishes because she didn't believe she was endangering the babies life, otherwise she A: Wouldn't have defied mums wishes, and B would at least have watched the baby eat the sausage.

Manslaughter is supposed to exist because there are times when other people, knowingly endanger, other peoples lives, and they do so for gain of some kind (even if it's just lazy).
I will never, ever, agree with sending people to jail unless they understood what they were doing was criminal. For someone to have a sense of what they doing was wrong, is not enough, they must know-think they're breaking the law.

However hopefully some day, (one of you) will get drunk, and do something foolish, which somehow (against high odds) ends up costing someone their life.
Then you can go to jail, under your laws, that you support. And the less you believed what you did, was endangering another persons life, the more fitting the jail time will be (with this women's "crime").

Guess (if you ever do such a thing) everybody can be unanimous, in believing, your jail time, should "be more than 18 months?"

18 months in prison?

Is that how long it takes to learn that you don't feed babies items of food that are larger than their throat?

I would have learnt my lesson instantly.

Britain really needs to make use of more innovative and effective punishments.

I really don't see how you can defend this IDIOT , 18 months in prison? , for killing someones baby , which given our prison system will be more like 9 months or less with good behavior , I think that's a travesty and the sentence needs to be reviewed up .

Another Point: If the baby had eaten the sausage without any trouble, then this women should be, in prison for 18 months, because what she did was wrong, violated the parents wishes, (and for all she knew) could easily have killed the baby?

Also the sentance shouldn't be any less, than 18 months, either; right?

OR: Why send people to jail shorter-longer because the "God" of Chance-Reality, says "you person, is going to have an unlucky day, today"

reply to post by Liberal1984


Luck doesn't come into it , anybody with at least half a brain cell knows that you don't feed a nine-month-old baby solid food that isn't pureed or chopped into small soft bits.
Bring back the stocks for stupid idiots