The Old Bailey appears to have radically changed notions of punishment in the criminal justice system. Satpal Kaur-Singh, 44, confessed to forcing his autistic son, Ajit Singh-Mahal, 12, to drink bleach to kill him. She succeeded in Barking, England. Her sentence: seven years — less than what you get in this country on some burglary charges.
Prosecutors allowed Kaur-Singh to plead guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Judge Peter Beaumont, the Recorder of London,explained “I recognize how difficult Ajit was to care for.” Really? Is that now a viable defense or mitigating circumstance to murder?
He noted that she was worn down and traumatized as a result of the care (which I agree is a mitigating circumstance), but hardly on the level of a reduction to seven years. Moreover he noted “You faced the prospect of Ajit being taken away from you, but you killed him.” That would appear a countervailing aggravating circumstance if she knew that he could be cared for outside her home. Beaumont then added the world’s most understated conclusion: “You were, in my judgment, making a statement, without any consideration of his interests.” Well, yea. I would put bleach ingestion as a lack of consideration and then move to other descriptions.
Once again, I am not against mitigation, but the decision to kill the boy and the manner still deserved a more severe punishment. This sends a rather chilling message to those in charge of special needs children, doesn’t it?
Source: BBC
As a parent of a special needs child (deaf/autistic) I find what she did horrible. Yet, as one who is well acquainted with the everyday pressure of caring for my son while trying to get him the services he needs, I wonder about this woman’s mental state. I am not excusing what she did. I am saying that unless you have walked in her shoes, you have no idea how she could be pushed to such an extreme. Her own suicide attempt provides some clue. I wonder how much help or moral support this woman was getting from family members and friends. Far too often caring for a special needs child is a very painful, isolating and lonely experience. The human psyche is fragile and this woman’s cracked.
So should she have been given more than seven years? I do not know. Does this sentence send the wrong message to carers of special needs children? Hardly. I will say that the overwhelming message parents of special needs children receive from family, friends and a system which spins both parent and child in a bureaucratic nightmare, is you are on your own.
W=c:
Unfortunatley the boys didn’t have a choice in the matter:-)
@ eniobob, ok, so their mother was probably not as tolerant as mine was ….hahaha! I rememberjumping off a few things myself 🙂
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3b_BbwyZzc?rel=0&w=640&h=390%5D
This in a way makes me think of something that happened way back in the day.
I was staying at a cousins house for a few days and the lady who lived upstairs from him had three young sons I guess 8,6 and 4 years old,they had a habit of starting from the rear of the house and running to the front and jumping to the floor.
This particular day I heard a plop and another plop and another plop and like a bigger plop outside the window and some moaning,I went outside and the lady had thrown the three boys out the window and she jumped out also.second floor to the first floor,luckily the ground was soft enough and the drop to the ground not high enough to really damage anyone.The mind blowing part of the story is the family was moved out and one day I went into a store and there they were the Mother the three boys sitting down eating hot dogs and sharing a soda,like nothing had ever happened.
W=c:
So true.
“that at best the American courts are a crapshoot and best avoided in any event and for any purpose.”
The message I see is “cause the death of any child under your care and even if you were unable to act rationally you’ll still be held culpable and will spend years in prison before you’re eligible for parole.”
That sounds like an appropriate message to me. It emphasizes the carer’s overriding responsibility to try to think of the child’s interests at all times, even when mental incapacity impairs one’s judgement. As others have suggested here, she must have had an opportunity to recognise that there were alternatives to killing.
Seven years is towards the middle of the scale that may be applied to manslaughter. The maximum is life, but that sentence is exceedingly rare for manslaughter cases. It certainly isn’t a slap on the wrist.
Things have changed at the Old Bailey. My great, great, great, great grandfather was tried for burglery at The Old Bailey in 1792 (he and 2 others stole some silverware and money from a woman’s house while she was out). He was convicted (some of the loot was found in his home and one of his accomplices gave evidence against him) and sentenced to Death. The sentence was later commuted to transportation for life.
“I think we’re more humane. We try hard not to make things worse than they already are.”
For all the flaws I do see in the UK legal system, I will have to agree with Tony S. on this as a general proposition. The U.S. tends to overuse incarceration in general – largely because of the graft, er, lobbying of the private prison industry. An “industry” that should never EVER be private and out of the hands of government.
That being said, seven years is still too light a sentence and does send an improper message to care givers in charge of special needs children, the untrained more so than the professional. Even ten would have been preferable. Numbers have psychological value and humans are fundamentally base-10 creatures. Ten carries more value weight than seven even if the process for early release would yield essentially the same net result.
Joeey LaRusso: “The questions, to me, seem to be: How do we determine if someone is suffering from mental disease and, therefore, is not responsible for their actions?, and Do we call imprisoning for life someone with mental disease, who with treatment would never have committed a crime and who never will again, justice?”
In the UK a criminal court will routinely call for an assessment of the defendant’s health in situations like this.
“If this woman was in the USA she could have been executed- then we could all bask in the glory of two dead people. One innocent and one, possibly, crazy.”
I followed with some interest the tragic case of China Arnold, a mother charged with murdering her baby in a microwave oven. While this case must excite feelings of revulsion, in the UK the mother of a child under 12 months old would be unlikely to be charged with murder due to the defences afforded by the Infanticide Act.
I think we’re more humane. We try hard not to make things worse than they already are.
“If American courts really are sentencing people for seven or more years for burglaries, that is what is barking mad.”~Tony Sidaway
————————————————————-
Especially in light of the Corporate and Political disdain for legal process here in the states.
My personal experience with all things court and legal system have historically been rare. My current obligatory transaction has left me with the lesson that at best the American courts are a crapshoot and best avoided in any event and for any purpose.
Dredd,
That is not something you train the Prosecutor for….You either have ethics or you don’t…….
Both illustrate the value of Human life…. or indifference towards…
From the article Dredd references:
“‘I think very, very low of Mr. Connick, he was a politician, he wasn’t worried about law.'”
This can be said of every DA for Orleans Parish I’ve ever heard of. Orleans Parish is all about who you went to high school with and which high school. I’m not kidding a damn bit. When two Yats get together for the first time, almost the first thing they do is find out where the other went to high school. If I’ve seen the social transaction once, I’ve seen it a thousand times. And Connick? He does have a reputation in the local legal community as a great politician. I’ve never heard anyone call him a great lawyer though.
A guy in Louisiana got 14 years for doing nothing. Nothing. NOTHING.
The Supreme Court says he can’t recover the jury verdict in his favor for $14 million.
I guess because he is not a banker?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jury-gave-john-thompson-14-million-wrongly-spent/story?id=13269542
The article, in BBC News, states that the mother attempted her own suicide using bleach. What she did is terrible and seven years does not seem adequate- but it appears that the woman may, may, have been crazy. Will the seven years bring her son back to life? Will twenty years do so? How likely is it that she would ever commit this crime again?
In our country if someone was found to be insane they usually do not even get seven years. Sometimes they only get treatment.
The questions, to me, seem to be: How do we determine if someone is suffering from mental disease and, therefore, is not responsible for their actions?, and Do we call imprisoning for life someone with mental disease, who with treatment would never have committed a crime and who never will again, justice?
If this woman was in the USA she could have been executed- then we could all bask in the glory of two dead people. One innocent and one, possibly, crazy.
Firstly you don’t make it plain that this case was a murder which was successfully defended by a plea of diminished responsibility, which commutes to manslaughter. The jury has already determined that the mother did not murder her child. Of course had the verdict been murder the mother would be on a mandatory life sentence.
I agree with everything the recorder says, and what I don’t understand is why you say that this really stiff sentence is “barking mad.” Diminished responsibility means what it says: she cannot be held fully culpable for her terrible act.
If American courts really are sentencing people for seven or more years for burglaries, that is what is barking mad.
Additionally to the message sent to the parents of special needs children, consider the message sent to the special needs children themselves. They are relegated somewhere between a person and a pet in the eyes of the law ergo society.
Did she attempt to get outside help? Were agencies involved?
Getting assistance in some of these situations can be as traumatizing as the actual situation,… and the straw that breaks the camels back….I’m hearing the big SNAP here…
what Matthew said….
“Once again, I am not against mitigation, but the decision to kill the boy and the manner still deserved a more severe punishment. This sends a rather chilling message to those in charge of special needs children, doesn’t it?”
Yes and yes on both counts. Particularly in light of the fact that it was recognized that she was overwhelmed and had options for his care. Killing him was not one of those options. And, who is to say that down the road she could not have petitioned for her child’s return after she had an opportunity to clear her head?
As a mother, I can understand her fear in that her child may have been taken away. Having said that, I also know that if I am incapable of caring for my child there are agencies and people to help. I would rather have my child live with those who can better help him than give him a death sentence because I couldn’t hack it.
If one needs a case to illustrate the difference between mitigation and a slap on the wrist, might I suggest this one. Look into the effects of ingesting bleach. They aren’t pretty. This was likely a slow and painful death for this boy.
Seven years is a joke.
I agree that it’s an extraordinarily light sentence, but I’m not too worried about the message we’re sending to parents of special needs children. I doubt there are terribly many of them out there who would murder their children if they knew they would only get seven years in prison. I’m guessing that those mental health issues mentioned by the judge were probably pretty significant.
Still, the sentence does seem far too lenient based on what little we know about the case.