Mother killed her kids because they got in the way of her sex life is jailed for life.

NVP said:
Every right.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Those that are a clear danger to society shouldn't be part of it. She's proven she is.
If someone killed your two, would you be happy for them to be living up the road from you in 15 years?
 
robj20 said:
Couldn't agree more. End two lives before they barely started and you get 32 years. Just wow. If only the babies could have lived for 32 years. Where do they make these sentences up.
Click to expand...

She was given a minimum of 32 years. Why don’t people read the articles they are talking about. This isn’t Facebook.
 
Dis86 said:
I disagree. Those that are a clear danger to society shouldn't be part of it. She's proven she is.
If someone killed your two, would you be happy for them to be living up the road from you in 15 years?
Click to expand...

TBF, unless there is any evidence of her causing harm to any other children, then she isn't necessarily a danger to wider society, and I would be worried if the bar of the death penalty was that low to execute someone 'because they might be dangerous to others'. Though tbh, I am against the death penalty in principle.

This is quite a specific act and there is obviously some very deep issues with her lack of emotional attachment to her own children, to be able to murder them due to being an inconvenience to living her life.

And her minimum sentence is 32 years, she won't be out until her near 60's, if ever.
 
Freakbro said:
TBF, unless there is any evidence of her causing harm to any other children, then she isn't necessarily a danger to wider society, and I would be worried if the bar of the death penalty was that low to execute someone 'because they might be dangerous to others'. Though tbh, I am against the death penalty in principle.

This is quite a specific act and there is obviously some very deep issues with her lack of emotional attachment to her own children, to be able to murder them due to being an inconvenience to living her life.

And her minimum sentence is 32 years, she won't be out until her near 60's, if ever.
Click to expand...

I'm against it as well. It doesn't mean I don't think some people deserve death. What use is this woman? What purpose will her life ever serve? Why waste resources keeping her alive?
Also 32 min sentence doesn't necessarily mean she will spend the full duration behind bars.
 
jpaul said:
the inteview with the father was strange
... the police must have cleared hime of any responsibility - but he was showing complete shock, suggesting he was involved in their lives, but, was not concerned by her mothering ... I need to do some reading
Click to expand...

More than possible he wasn't aware what was going on, being such young children they wouldn't be able to articulate the situation. Does go to show though, the mother isn't necessarily the best option. Maybe its time parental responsibility wasn't so one sided in the eyes of the law.
 
Dis86 said:
I disagree. Those that are a clear danger to society shouldn't be part of it. She's proven she is.
If someone killed your two, would you be happy for them to be living up the road from you in 15 years?
Click to expand...
Hmmm... There would have to be the entire world of people in the way to prevent me from killing the person who even looked at my children funny. That wouldn't make my actions right though, would it?
 
NVP said:
Hmmm... There would have to be the entire world of people in the way to prevent me from killing the person who even looked at my children funny. That wouldn't make my actions right though, would it?
Click to expand...

Never said it would necessarily be right. But would it be just is the question?
 
While Lexi was ill in hospital, just over a week before she died, Porton took topless photos in the toilets and was arranging to perform sex acts for money with a man she had met through a website, the court was told.
Click to expand...

Classy!
 
Nitefly said:
I’ve been following this story and I think this ‘got in the way of the sex life’ angle has been distorted slightly and is a bit sensationalist.
Click to expand...

I dunno, it is an extreme case and it seems that was a significant factor. Obviously she seems to be a bit of a devoid of empathy sociopath too.

I mean it could read part time prostitute kills kids because they got in the way of her livelihood/business. But I suspect that there is a bit of a conflation/overlap here... they got in the way of her sex life in general and were perhaps reducing the chances of a relationship.

I mean that is an issue that single mothers have in general - their kids do mean their dating pool is rather limited, couple that with her seemingly being rather dumb and not particularly attractive and she probably was upset by it. Though unlike other people in her situation she's nutty and nasty enough to come up with an abhorrent solution to that issue... rather than finding men who also have kids or men who are happy to be with a single mum (in addition to the men who are happy to pay to use someone like her) she's just gone for a brutal approach.
 
Dis86 said:
I disagree. Those that are a clear danger to society shouldn't be part of it. She's proven she is.
If someone killed your two, would you be happy for them to be living up the road from you in 15 years?
Click to expand...

But but what if in the future we discover a magical virus that made them do it... Something something no conviction is safe etc..etc.. :D
 
BowdonUK said:
This is a clear case for the death penalty.

If you don't want that then only people who hold your opinion should be made to pay her prison bill.
Click to expand...

Not sure how it can be "clear" when we don't have any legislation or policy dictating what offences would be suitable for the death penalty.

If it's cost you're concerned about, imprisonment is the cheaper option.
 
NVP said:
Hmmm... There would have to be the entire world of people in the way to prevent me from killing the person who even looked at my children funny. That wouldn't make my actions right though, would it?
Click to expand...
Stupid analogy. Looking at your children funny is hardly an excuse for murder is it. However, if the person had actually suffocated your children to death, then I'd say fair's fair.
 
TheVoice said:
If it's cost you're concerned about, imprisonment is the cheaper option.
Click to expand...

That depends how you implement the death penalty.

I'm generally anti the death penalty but can see an argument for it in extreme cases and where it would require a higher standard of guilt. In which case you can perhaps reduce the necessity of endless costly appeals and multiple years waiting on death row.
 
robj20 said:
I said 32 years, article says 32 years. I'm confused why does that mean I didn't read it.
Click to expand...

Because it was made to sound like she'd be out sooner, which is entirely misleading to incense and inflame the outraged.

She's never getting out.

dowie said:
That depends how you implement the death penalty.

I'm generally anti the death penalty but can see an argument for it in extreme cases and where it would require a higher standard of guilt. In which case you can perhaps reduce the necessity of endless costly appeals and multiple years waiting on death row.
Click to expand...

That isn't a valid way to run a judicial system with checks and balances by removing them, they must exist to make sure, as that is where the "high standard" comes from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom