It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:25 PM
Originally posted by gortex

Luck doesn't come into it ,

Well in that case, logic really does dictate, that she should still go to jail (for 18 months), even if the baby hade never choked. Is this really where you stand?

anybody with at least half a brain cell knows that you don't feed a nine-month-old baby solid food

Yes what she did was undoubtedly both Foolish and Stupid (and she was wrong on principle to violate the mothers wishes).
But does sending her to jail, protect the public?
Will it make her a better person (if it does make her better person), how exactly?

If we're (really) sending her to jail for killing a baby, then why is it fair, when she clearly, didn't believe, what she was doing, posed a risk?

Also I (for one) can kinda see why (she might have thought) that sausage. isn't a solid enough, type of food, for a baby to acturally die on.

I expect the main reason (from her point of view why) she gave the baby a sausage, in the first place (despite the mothers wishes) was because it was hungry, and so a sausage, would therefore do it some good. Or do you think she, might have been thinking something else?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Liberal1984
"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 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.

Thank you so much for your post, I see you

And I've noticed that we are really groing fast these days...

Keep up the good work my friend


posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

post by Liberal1984
But does sending her to jail, protect the public? Will it make her a better person (if it does make her better person), how exactly?

And therein lies the problem , Prison rarely works for anyone , it's an outdated concept that's based more on retribution than any concept of changing a person for the better .

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:16 PM
Just A Post About Prisons...

Originally posted by gortex

Prison rarely works for anyone , it's an outdated concept that's based more on retribution than any concept of changing a person for the better .

Doesn't it more depend on the type of prison?
1. I believe prison works, and in two ways: First as a physical barrier between the criminal and the public. If this is what we want, then we need only replicate, the average concentration camps design.

2. A place where they can...
A: Brush up on their education (like when a 40 year old man, doesn't know lessons they only teach 8 year olds).
B: Learn new skills, anything that will create a job, away from crime.
C. Grow to like interests such as books-religion-philosophy.

However what we have in the UK is expensive system. That's overcrowded, so it's not really a place for reform, as courses are cancelled, and the whole system is struggling.
We therefore have the problems of a concentration camp (i.e. it only as a cage-barrier) but with the additional problem of our prisons, costing, far, far more than any concentration camp, design!! See America's toughest Sheriff...

The total cost to Arizona taxpayers was just £55,000 ? compared to the typical £20million price tag for a modern British jail.
Read more:
Whick makes Joe public think: "Why not throw them into a work camp, reduce costs and provide money e.g. for state schools, whilst at the same time increasing penalties for any kind of reoffending". I agree with public, because I do not believe it costs £37,500 a year to feed, food, to a man in a concrete pen.
It would be far, far better, ethically and for the economy, if prisons actually reformed people into people who pay tax's. Even if it wasn't finachially justified, the moral arguments for reform could explain a £37500 price tag.

I believe prisons should be more like Victorian boarding schools, e.g. places with cold water, dull food, but an excellent education. This way you have a low cost, physical barrier, and high expenditure on education-job skills.
Far better than worst of both worlds, we have today. I personally find it "offensive-infuriating" that money forced to pay the government is used to provide e.g. burglars, free Meat to eat, killed from e.g. Battery Chickens. I hate the politicians, and their ideology responsible.

After all; if I don't eat battery chicken on moral grounds, then why the hell should they? (Even if the morals, came from government Ministers, rather than criminals themselves).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:46 AM
I agree that sending the woman to jail is not going to reform her & may damage her in ways that cause problems for herself & others later. However, in the absence of a better alternative, I wonder what else could have been done. The Justice System isn't just about reforming offenders. I think it possible that, had she not gone away, the parents &/or extended family of the dead child may have felt obliged to take the law into their own hands (which would be understandable, but wrong). That punishment is handed out to wrongdoers within the context of an organised society is all that keeps us from 'living by the feud'.
Also, we do punish people for stupidity. This is the legal concept of "recklessness". If a reasonable person would realise that an action had a dangerous potential, if they had thought about it, then not thinking about it is culpably reckless. For eg, "Causing Death by Reckless Driving" - you dont have to be drunk, nor is there any need to intend to do harm: if you drive like an idiot, you should know its dangerous. In this case, a reasonable person ought to know that the entire concept of "Baby Food" exists because babies cannot eat solids like people with a mouth full of teeth, but, even if that knowledge had managed to slip by a 28yr old woman, the mother told her not to. That ought to have been enough for any reasonable person. If the baby had not died, but just coughed/puked, I'd still say the woman was guilty of "Reckless Endangerment".
As a father of 2, there were plenty of times I was responsible for other people's kids. IMO, kids ought to be supervised as lightly as possible, even though that will inevitably lead to accidents during play. That was how I grew up & it made me confident & adventurous. Still, when a parent told me they didn't want their kid climbing on the shed roof, it was none of my business to put my own views 1st; for all I knew, the kid may have had poor balance, brittle bones, or perhaps the parent was mollycoddling; it doesn't matter, in loco parentis you do as asked.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:36 PM
Hell yhea she deserves to go to jail, she wantonly disregarded a direct instruction the daft cow.

Maybe she did not intend to do the baby any harm but she did, people don't actually realise how dangerous these type of frankfurter sausages actually are, even for adults, especially for kids... They are very easy to swallow and the size and shape is perfect to lodge in the throat - add that to the nature of the sasauge meat and once they are lodged they are almost impossible to dislodge, the natural reflexes of the throat are no use, the heimlich manoeuvre is also no use - and guess what happens when you reach down there to manually remove it? - It falls apart still leaving you with an obstruction.

They are deadly and unfortunately people just do not see the danger - I never did and I can remember choking on one as a kid! - They are way to easy to gobble down quickly and they are perfectly designed to choke a kid to death as in this case - BEWARE!!!

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Liberal1984

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

But the point is she disregarded the mothers wishes because she didn't believe she was endangering the babies life,

Drunk drivers often use similar logic to justify their actions. They don't think they're a danger and they don't intentionally turn the key in the knowledge that they're going to kill someone.

Should drunk drivers not have to go to prison too? After all, they don't mean to kill people.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

you obviously don't have a child, this woman would rot if i was a judge, how stupid do you have to be, to feed a child a food which they can choke to death on, kids at this age don't have a lot of teeth or the complete sense to chew fully on any food stuff put into their mouth.

18 months is to short a time as she will be out in less than half this time under good behaviour,

Wee Mad

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:52 PM
This is a really sad story.

I think if it were me who gave a baby something like a sausage to eat which in turn caused the baby to choke to death, because of 'my' actions, then jeez I think I would really really hate myself, i wouldnt complain about being locked up for 18months because the guilt that I would feel would be immensely more horrible and ongoing than a 18 months jail term. I dont know how I would cope knowing that as a direct result of my actions a baby died. ( I would never be so stupid to feed a 9mth old a sausage tho)

That was a really stupid and careless thing for that woman to do, if the mother told her not to feed the child sausage then she should not have done that, there is stupid people around but a parents job is to protect their children and by telling this woman beforehand not to give the baby sausages then the mother was doing her job, her only mistake was believing she could trust that woman to obey her wishes. I dont believe the woman intentionly killed the kid but i do think she should have listened to the mother and therfore is directly responsible for that childs death.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:14 PM
Isn't jail for people unfit to be part of society? I can see being ignorant but when the result is the death of someone innocent,this is criminal ignorance,will 18 months in prison help this person ? who is to say,but at least for 18 months 1 idiot not on loose to do other stupid things

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:23 PM
I think she deserved a lot longer. From what I read, when the baby began to choke this, "drunk on vodka" woman left the house. She left the baby choking and it died. She didn't try to help.

The mother isn't blameless either. Who would leave a little baby with a drunk?

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Should drunk drivers not have to go to prison too? After all, they don't mean to kill people.

A drunk driver is far worse, because a drunk driver knows that what they are doing is illegal from the word go. Also they have far more time to think-form an opinion about what they are doing (both in years before doing it, and during it).

I Drink-Drive Law is Certainly Irrational Here...
Example 1: Guy gets into a car twice over the limit, travels as 40mph and then gets tested by the police, who promptly confiscate his driving license. Penalty is: Fine, loss of driving for a year, some community service.
Example 2: Another guy gets into the same make of car, over the same stretch of road, and over the alcohol limit just as much. But before he gets caught by the police a women runs in front of him, and he kills her. Penalty: Everything above, plus prison for e.g. 5 years.

The only difference between the two men is that (although both are caught) one was lucky, and the other wasn't. I'll never agree its rational to let luck have such a huge say in peoples punishments. Luck really should have nothing to do with it.

Instead: Of sending one guy to prison for 5 years, and another for no years, we should use 5 years of jail time, to send both people to prison. Now of course (because so many people drink-drive without killing anyone) the 5 year sentence would become more like e.g. 1 month for each driver. And I know the dead victims, family would be angry. But punishment should deliver tangible benefits. Such as...

If every drink driver spent even only a fortnight in prison, I'm sure the number of drink drivers, and (especially) repeat offenders would plummit. Therefore more sons & daughters would be saved, all for the same amount of government expenditure, and hours of lost liberty.

So which is better; the system I'm advocate, or what we acturally have?

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Should drunk drivers not have to go to prison too? After all, they don't mean to kill people.

A drunk driver is far worse, because a drunk driver knows that what they are doing is illegal from the word go.

Doesn't matter if it's somehow worse or not: the idea of 'worse' is irrelevant.

The point I'm making is that it's the same flawed logic: both the woman in the article and drunk drivers don't do anything intentionally and, arguably, they're both accidents as well as having some kind of moral implication outside 'legality'.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

a drunk driver knows that what they are doing is illegal from the word go.
Perhaps you dont realise that an underlying principle of British Law is that "ignorance is no defence". Whatever we think about this principle, it must be understood that, without it, anyone could just claim they didn't know.
Perhaps you didn't know, & maybe this woman didn't either, that Reckless Endangerment is a criminal offence, but it is a civic responsibility to know. The only exemptions are children below the age of criminal responsibility & those who are deemed incapable due to impaired mental health or sub-normal development.
Now I fully realise that knowing the letter of particular law is unlikely for most of us, unless we get prosecuted under it, but, if we want to exercise the rights we gain from organised society, we must, at least, understand the principles of the law that makes those rights possible. However, there is no need to try to draw "lines in the sand", in a reductio ad absurdam manner. British Law often does a good job of blurring the absolutes, so its not a case of "well, this case is similar to that so they should be treated the same". Rather, this woman got 18 months, compared to the 4yrs a man recently got for owning a dog which killed a kid. Obviously, the judge was minded to take mitigation into account, probably in both cases. Kids died. People get really vexed about that, but the law has to, & can only, do its best to smooth it all over. Otherwise we head 1 way or the other towards a breakdown in the contract between each of us as members of a law abiding society.
Obviously, there are plenty of laws that are bollocks, but hey, perhaps if people took the time to find out exactly what those laws entail, as they are assumed by the legal system to do, they would be more politically active against those they disapprove of...

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

Blah blah blah blah blah blah... etc... etc...

Let me just say this...

If i asked an adult not to feed my baby something... and then found my child dead because this person decided to go against my wishes... I would kill that person with my own bare hands... and happily spend 25 years in prison for it.

I am sorry for being so blunt (I really am) but i have a very young child and a baby on the way so this is a rather sensative topic for me...

I think until you have children of your own no one can really understand the full human emotions involved with this...

Also... people can be jailed for reckless driving!!! There is no difference... this woman was reckless AND defied the wishes of a legal guardian... Lock her up!!!

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:43 PM
...she was drunk...

Under cross-examination, Rekiec, speaking through an interpreter, admitted that she had fed three pieces of sausage to the baby and that she was 'so drunk I forgot that I was not meant to feed him'.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:51 PM
stupid woman 9 months? man i had to save my 2 of my boys when they were 2 the first his mom gave him a hot dog i look over and he not breathing .
kiddy hymick ((( aa you know dont blast teh spelling) works great on hot dogs poped right out.
the second time was with my next son again at 2 at a flemarket in the stroler gave him half a banana .
pulled him out of the stroler put him on the ground and spent the next LONGEST 3 mints of my life push up comes a small pice push again up comes another man that one was close .
No child under 5 should ever be feed whole hot dogs or any thing else round that can block a wind pipe .
I almost learned the hard way please anyone who reads this take the time to cut your kids food up SMALL .
He or she is none replaceable

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:27 PM
I disagree that hot dogs or sausages are well known as choke hazards? I mean grapes/boiled sweets fair enough but sausages?

Do any of you actually have children? Ever heard of baby led weaning? Babies especially 9 month old's are perfectly capable of eating and chewing solid foods (if supervised, maybe this baby was not).

I think this woman was maybe either negligent for not supervising the child, or damn unlucky. My 7 month old mostly eats what we eat, not pureed or chopped up, but by picking it up himself and chewing. He is my third child and the older 2 are alive and well. Honestly this sentence seems to me utterly insane, even if she was negligent, people seem to get similar for actual cruelty. Baby P's mother was only given a minimum of 5 years fgs.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:30 PM
So xxcalbier, you wouldn't give a 4 year old child a banana to eat? You would mush it up for him?

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by Liberal1984

Hopefully someone causes your baby to choke to death and you'll be the one crying for punishment.

Just because you don't believe you can commit a crime doesn't mean you are not guilty. If I drive through a red light and hit someones car, then I am still at fault.. Even if I had believed there was no way that I could hit someone.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in