Baby P mother free in 3 years - Are sentences too lenient?

[HBK-aholic]

I'm using a case most Brits will be aware of, here, however this can obviously be generalised to most other countries and cases. Yesterday, the sentences for the parents of 'Baby P' were handed out. The mother could be free within 3-5 years. The father, also convicted of raping a 2 year old girl, could be free in 12. Obviously, when both are released thousands will be spent on giving them new identities so they can get on with their life as if this never happened.

Do you think this is fair? I'm struggling to work out why we have life sentences, do crimes get much worse than killing a child after raping a 2 year old? While the stepfather actually got life for raping the child, that's life with a minimum of 10 years. Should we have a 'minimum' when you're sentenced to life? For his part in Baby P's death he got 12 years - to run alongside his rape conviction. That shouldn't be allowed either. He should serve them AFTER each other; they were 2 separate crimes. Or am I being too harsh here?

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

The fact is European law has made life alot easier for criminals, we are living in a society now where angry youths are more fearrd by adults then the other way round.

Police have no control over the crime problem and most are not scared of going to jail because they get all the perks that most don't even get in the outside world.

With this baby P situation the blame is laid on the mother who used her child as a cash cow, she bedded a known pedophile who basically beat her little boy to a bloody pulp, she neglected the child and left him sitting in his own feces, the sad thing is the people in charge did nothing to help the poor child instead just sat there and basically let these three destroy the poor childs life and making him suffer before he passed on.

My religious beliefs tell me to turn the other cheek and pray forgive those responsible, but as a parent and a human being im out for blood.

They should have got minimum sentences, our legal system is a farce, they state they are attempting to seek justice, what justice did that poor child get when his neglegant mother and her two bullie friends that destroyed his life be allowed to reintegrate into society once their sentences are over to me its utter Bull!.

 

[Razor]

I'm not gonna lie, I just wiki'd the hell out of "Baby P." So if i say something that isn't correct, blame Wikipedia.

First of all, this constitutes a failure on the Child Protection Services of England. They took away Peter the first time he was injured by his mother. But no more than a month or so after he was taken away he was put back into his mother's custody. Ok, they're giving her another chance. I can dig.

But after that, he went to the hospital twice for injuries. Twice. She was arrested, but obviously gained custody of her child again. After that, he went to another doctor because a social worker found bruises. The doctor concluded abuse, and the child was taken away. However, he was returned a month after that because the Agency didn't deem that they had any legal reason to take the child away.

What? Excuse me? The first episode of abuse should have been enough. But no, they gave the mother a second chance. Ok. But after that second chance he was obviously beaten twice more; then again and again, each visit to the hospital basically right after she got out of jail.

In America she would have lost her child the first time, then maybe given a second chance. But the minute that child went to the hospital again the mother would have never seen her child again. The British system failed that boy, and he paid with his life.

The sentences the adults got were outrageous. That's it? We would have loaded charges on those sons a bitches. We in America have an obvious weak spot for children. They would have had numerous charges against each of them, and probably would have ended up with at least 15 years each. And if they didn't, people would be screaming for their blood until something happened, like the laws rewritten to enforce stricter penalties. And that man who raped the 2 year old? Yeah. Right. That man would have gotten one, whole sentence if it were tried at the same time. He might have gotten a concurrent sentence if he had a judge who doesn't like his job. I know of no judge who would do that, letting a convicted child rapist and murderer end up serving 12 years.

You have every right to be outraged. A child died due to the failure of the government agency that exists to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen. And from what I read, this isn't the first time a high-profile failure of theirs has occurred. A sad, sad day for that child.

 

[Blade]

It's another case that proves Child Services should be looked over again. The fact that Baby P was repeatedly let back into his mother's care after being taken away shows that there's a serious problem there.
Why was he let back into his mother's care despite having visible signs of abuse? Why was his mother let get away with until it was too late? It's just disgusting.
Even though there wasn't enough proof to convict any of the 3 guilty parties of murder, the "allowing the death of a child" conviction should've been much longer. 3 years isn't enough for something that seems to me to be worse than manslaughter yet not as a bad as murder. Sentencing is not harsh enough. Hell, in Ireland an average life sentence is 12 years. 12 years! A life sentence should be a life sentence, and it should be given for taking a life.

As for the step father, the 2 sentences shouldn't be simultaneous because, while they are related in topic i.e. child abuse, they are two different cases.
I don't think you're being too harsh at all.