How can you not see that you comparing her to these thousands of fictional women is you guessing her circumstances? I'm not guessing anything it is a simple fact she as a person is unique and her baby as a person was unique and therefore the events that led to the babies death were therefore unique. Had it been Mary from down the road who had the baby instead then it would have been a different outcome.
What?! I'm saying many women had a tough time as single/ underage mothers in the 60's, that's not 'fictional women', that is the situation she was in and many other women faced too.
Now since the time it occurred is literally the only thing we know about her situation, what exactly are you alluding to, when you say her situation is 'unique'?
But you wrote it as if the court has somehow capitulated and believed a 'story' and gave in or something, the point is court prosecutions are based on evidence. There is no evidence she murdered the child but all evidence that she killed him accidentally, therefore there cannot be a prosecution of murder.
Actually, I wrote it as, they wouldn't know either way and so have to accept her word as it's the only evidence they have.
What?! I'm saying many women had a tough time as single/ underage mothers in the 60's, that's not 'fictional women', that is the situation she was in and many other women faced too.
Now since the time it occurred is literally the only thing we know about her situation, what exactly are you alluding to, when you say her situation is 'unique'?
I would assume in the same way that you are unique, as we all are.
The point being is that people often get a bit misty eyed when they come out with statements like 'well we coped' or 'loads of people coped in those situations'
Actually many mothers did not cope, their babies were adopted, or brought up by relatives or they had break downs and spent most of the rest of their lives on valium. Poverty was worse, child abuse was worse, child accident rates were worse, why, because some people didnt cope. Just like this poor girl.
And theres no point comparing what are often savvy 15 year olds of today to some frightened, naive girl from the 60s. Teens are all different and act differently, even today. Some are very resilient, some are disastrous at everything. She would not have had (by the sound of it) much supervisory support, mum and dad both not in a position to support her emotionally or practically and a sister moaning that her baby was keeping her up.
I would assume in the same way that you are unique, as we all are.
The point being is that people often get a bit misty eyed when they come out with statements like 'well we coped' or 'loads of people coped in those situations'
Actually many mothers did not cope, their babies were adopted, or brought up by relatives or they had break downs and spent most of the rest of their lives on valium. Poverty was worse, child abuse was worse, child accident rates were worse, why, because some people didnt cope. Just like this poor girl.
And theres no point comparing what are often savvy 15 year olds of today to some frightened, naive girl from the 60s. Teens are all different and act differently, even today. Some are very resilient, some are disastrous at everything. She would not have had (by the sound of it) much supervisory support, mum and dad both not in a position to support her emotionally or practically and a sister moaning that her baby was keeping her up.
The general situation wasn't unique to her, and that's all we know about in this case as we don't know about the specifics.
That comparison was in fact nothing to do with how attitudes to having babies has changed, but more to do with what 15 year olds understand, because it was a point I was making about how likely it'd be that she'd fail to realise that smothering a baby would kill it.
What?! I'm saying many women had a tough time as single/ underage mothers in the 60's, that's not 'fictional women', that is the situation she was in and many other women faced too.
Now since the time it occurred is literally the only thing we know about her situation, what exactly are you alluding to, when you say her situation is 'unique'?
They are fictional because you're not actually talking about anyone specific so it's pointless to try and compare them. For all you know there could be plenty of teen mums who killed their children back then.
Im not sure what's so hard to understand about her being unique and her baby being unique so here's an example. A girl in my school got pregnant at the same time as me, we both came from the same sized families and both had parents who were spilt up. Both of us were still together with the fathers of our babies when they were born. Both of us stayed in school after we had our babies so both situations sound similar except my baby had colic and I had post natal depression whereas the other girl had a baby who slept all night from very early on and she didn't even so much as cry with the baby blues. Had I had her baby that slept all the time I would have found it easier as I wouldn't have been struggling to comfort a distraught baby while I can barely function mentally. Now had this girl had my baby she would probably have been able to support him better because she was in a better place mentally. So although we were both teen mums with similar lives we were two entirely different people with two different babies and as such our circumstances were not the same.
How two people react to the same situation will be different as we are all individuals.
The general situation wasn't unique to her, and that's all we know about in this case as we don't know about the specifics.
That comparison was in fact nothing to do with how attitudes to having babies has changed, but more to do with what 15 year olds understand, because it was a point I was making about how likely it'd be that she'd fail to realise that smothering a baby would kill it.
Unless you work with lots of parents across the whole age/class/intelligence spectrum, you will never understand what safety aspects people fail to realise about their children.
What someone understands on one level, may not be what they know on another at a point of panic, depression, exhaustion or whatever else she felt at that precise moment.
They are fictional because you're not actually talking about anyone specific so it's pointless to try and compare them. For all you know there could be plenty of teen mums who killed their children back then.
Im not sure what's so hard to understand about her being unique and her baby being unique so here's an example. A girl in my school got pregnant at the same time as me, we both came from the same sized families and both had parents who were spilt up. Both of us were still together with the fathers of our babies when they were born. Both of us stayed in school after we had our babies so both situations sound similar except my baby had colic and I had post natal depression whereas the other girl had a baby who slept all night from very early on and she didn't even so much as cry with the baby blues. Had I had her baby that slept all the time I would have found it easier as I wouldn't have been struggling to comfort a distraught baby while I can barely function mentally. Now had this girl had my baby she would probably have been able to support him better because she was in a better place mentally. So although we were both teen mums with similar lives we were two entirely different people with two different babies and as such our circumstances were not the same.
How two people react to the same situation will be different as we are all individuals.
We don't know anything specific about this woman either apart from the year it occurred. It's a fact that this attitude was prevalent then and a fact that some women suffered because of it. Whether I am talking about specific people or not was irrelevant to that point. If you actually knew any specifics that made her situation particularly bad or unique, you might have a point. I'm presuming in other cases where women have been found to have killed their babies under similar circumstances, they would receive similar sentences.
Unless you work with lots of parents across the whole age/class/intelligence spectrum, you will never understand what safety aspects people fail to realise about their children.
What someone understands on one level, may not be what they know on another at a point of panic, depression, exhaustion or whatever else she felt at that precise moment.
You're right, I'm assuming most 15 year olds understand that smothering a baby, blocking both its nose and mouth will kill it.
If some people don't know that by age 15, I find it very worrying, which is why I asked (seriously) if the woman had learning difficulties earlier on in the thread.
You're right, I'm assuming most 15 year olds understand that smothering a baby, blocking both its nose and mouth will kill it.
If some people don't know that by age 15, I find it very worrying, which is why I asked (seriously) if the woman had learning difficulties earlier on in the thread.
But you are assuming, that the thoughts that go through her head when she puts the pillow over the baby's face is 'I know Im covering the baby's airway and it wont be able to breath'.
Its likely that her only thought, was 'shut up', she wont have been thinking about noses and airways and consequences. Lots of people do things without thinking about the consequences and dont have learning needs or mental health problems. They may be in an emotional state at the time which prevents them from fully assessing their actions and the consequences of them, but that is different.
Its likely, although obviously an assumption, that she may have thought that the pillow was quieting down the noise so the others couldnt hear and calming him down. I work with teens (and youngers) and the things they believe and their perceptions are all over the place about things we think they should 'know'. Of course they know things on one level but interpret knowledge in a different way dependent on what is happening for them at the time.
We don't know anything specific about this woman either apart from the year it occurred. It's a fact that this attitude was prevalent then and a fact that some women suffered because of it. Whether I am talking about specific people or not was irrelevant to that point. If you actually knew any specifics that made her situation particularly bad or unique, you might have a point. I'm presuming in other cases where women have been found to have killed their babies under similar circumstances, they would receive similar sentences.
What are you talking about? We do know specifics as they have been reported on and mentioned in this thread. She was 15, she had no support, she had two sick parents one of which was in hospital, she was expected to keep her baby quiet. Her baby cried a lot, she struggled to cope. All of which to me make her situation bad. We could know nothing and you still couldn't compare it to other people as she is not other people she is an individual person and her baby was an individual. You could have given her a different baby and chances are it wouldn't have turned out the same. It was a series of unique events that led to the babies death same as with any other crime.
It is not irrelevant, you are trying to compare her to people but you don't actually know who these people are or if they even exist and if they do exist you don't even know what happened with them and their babies so how can you say others did not do what she did? Who are these others?
But you are assuming, that the thoughts that go through her head when she puts the pillow over the baby's face is 'I know Im covering the baby's airway and it wont be able to breath'.
Its likely that her only thought, was 'shut up', she wont have been thinking about noses and airways and consequences. Lots of people do things without thinking about the consequences and dont have learning needs or mental health problems. They may be in an emotional state at the time which prevents them from fully assessing their actions and the consequences of them, but that is different.
Its likely, although obviously an assumption, that she may have thought that the pillow was quieting down the noise so the others couldnt hear and calming him down. I work with teens (and youngers) and the things they believe and their perceptions are all over the place about things we think they should 'know'. Of course they know things on one level but interpret knowledge in a different way dependent on what is happening for them at the time.
I think it's fair to say we're both assuming possible scenarios.
Sounds like you are describing psychotic behaviour, a lack of normal rational thinking. Imagine a similar behaviour if it were directed at an adult 'they wouldn't shut up, so I killed them' .
I also think you have to be careful not to confuse anger with lack of knowledge. I mean, most people know it's wrong to hit someone, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if something makes them angry enough.
My overall view is that I have sympathy for her, but don't agree with what she did and I think based on the circumstances of the time and lack of evidence, her sentence is fair.
I think it's fair to say we're both assuming possible scenarios.
Sounds like you are describing psychotic behaviour, a lack of normal rational thinking. Imagine a similar behaviour if it were directed at an adult 'they wouldn't shut up, so I killed them' .
I also think you have to be careful not to confuse anger with lack of knowledge. I mean, most people know it's wrong to hit someone, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if something makes them angry enough.
My overall view is that I have sympathy for her, but don't agree with what she did and I think based on the circumstances of the time and lack of evidence, her sentence is fair.
Psychosis or psychotic behaviour is when someone is detached from reality and acting out of hallucinations or delusions, so no, Im not describing that behaviour. Im describing the sort of behaviour I have seen from lots of parents who are neither angry or psychotic but illequipped, panicked, depressed, overwhelmed or sleep deprived and make very very poor decisions without thinking through or comprehending exactly what they are doing.
What are you talking about? We do know specifics as they have been reported on and mentioned in this thread. She was 15, she had no support, she had two sick parents one of which was in hospital, she was expected to keep her baby quiet. Her baby cried a lot, she struggled to cope. All of which to me make her situation bad. We could know nothing and you still couldn't compare it to other people as she is not other people she is an individual person and her baby was an individual. You could have given her a different baby and chances are it wouldn't have turned out the same. It was a series of unique events that led to the babies death same as with any other crime.
It is not irrelevant, you are trying to compare her to people but you don't actually know who these people are or if they even exist and if they do exist you don't even know what happened with them and their babies so how can you say others did not do what she did? Who are these others?
That doesn't mean killing a baby is justified, even in poor circumstances, though it perhaps makes it easier to understand. My point was, other women will have had babies in poor circumstances and yet didn't kill their babies as many put them up for adoption.
Not saying this situation was right, and thank god times have changed, but I do still think that would have been preferable to her killing her baby. As you say, her baby was unique, and it never had a chance to live when it could have.
Psychosis or psychotic behaviour is when someone is detached from reality and acting out of hallucinations or delusions, so no, Im not describing that behaviour. Im describing the sort of behaviour I have seen from lots of parents who are neither angry or psychotic but illequipped, panicked, depressed, overwhelmed or sleep deprived and make very very poor decisions without thinking through or comprehending exactly what they are doing.
Failing to understand serious actions that cause death or harm to others due to current mental state, be it temporary, very much is psychosis.
Anger could also cause these behaviours or learning difficulties- failing to understand basic bodily functions and how your actions could cause death to others.
If someone is so panicked, depressed, overwhelmed and sleep deprived that they smother their baby to death when they didn't want to, I could definitely see an argument of temporary psychosis brought about by the above aggravating factors.
That doesn't mean killing a baby is justified, even in poor circumstances, though it perhaps makes it easier to understand. My point was, other women will have had babies in poor circumstances and yet didn't kill their babies as many put them up for adoption.
Not saying this situation was right, and thank god times have changed, but I do still think that would have been preferable to her killing her baby. As you say, her baby was unique, and it never had a chance to live when it could have.
No one said it was justified, how could it be, a baby died. All some people are trying to say is that they understand how this happened and understand what the lady was feeling and how she must be living in hell because of it.
No one said it was justified, how could it be, a baby died. All some people are trying to say is that they understand how this happened and understand what the lady was feeling and how she must be living in hell because of it.
Comments
What?! I'm saying many women had a tough time as single/ underage mothers in the 60's, that's not 'fictional women', that is the situation she was in and many other women faced too.
Now since the time it occurred is literally the only thing we know about her situation, what exactly are you alluding to, when you say her situation is 'unique'?
Actually, I wrote it as, they wouldn't know either way and so have to accept her word as it's the only evidence they have.
I would assume in the same way that you are unique, as we all are.
The point being is that people often get a bit misty eyed when they come out with statements like 'well we coped' or 'loads of people coped in those situations'
Actually many mothers did not cope, their babies were adopted, or brought up by relatives or they had break downs and spent most of the rest of their lives on valium. Poverty was worse, child abuse was worse, child accident rates were worse, why, because some people didnt cope. Just like this poor girl.
And theres no point comparing what are often savvy 15 year olds of today to some frightened, naive girl from the 60s. Teens are all different and act differently, even today. Some are very resilient, some are disastrous at everything. She would not have had (by the sound of it) much supervisory support, mum and dad both not in a position to support her emotionally or practically and a sister moaning that her baby was keeping her up.
The general situation wasn't unique to her, and that's all we know about in this case as we don't know about the specifics.
That comparison was in fact nothing to do with how attitudes to having babies has changed, but more to do with what 15 year olds understand, because it was a point I was making about how likely it'd be that she'd fail to realise that smothering a baby would kill it.
Im not sure what's so hard to understand about her being unique and her baby being unique so here's an example. A girl in my school got pregnant at the same time as me, we both came from the same sized families and both had parents who were spilt up. Both of us were still together with the fathers of our babies when they were born. Both of us stayed in school after we had our babies so both situations sound similar except my baby had colic and I had post natal depression whereas the other girl had a baby who slept all night from very early on and she didn't even so much as cry with the baby blues. Had I had her baby that slept all the time I would have found it easier as I wouldn't have been struggling to comfort a distraught baby while I can barely function mentally. Now had this girl had my baby she would probably have been able to support him better because she was in a better place mentally. So although we were both teen mums with similar lives we were two entirely different people with two different babies and as such our circumstances were not the same.
How two people react to the same situation will be different as we are all individuals.
Unless you work with lots of parents across the whole age/class/intelligence spectrum, you will never understand what safety aspects people fail to realise about their children.
What someone understands on one level, may not be what they know on another at a point of panic, depression, exhaustion or whatever else she felt at that precise moment.
We don't know anything specific about this woman either apart from the year it occurred. It's a fact that this attitude was prevalent then and a fact that some women suffered because of it. Whether I am talking about specific people or not was irrelevant to that point. If you actually knew any specifics that made her situation particularly bad or unique, you might have a point. I'm presuming in other cases where women have been found to have killed their babies under similar circumstances, they would receive similar sentences.
You're right, I'm assuming most 15 year olds understand that smothering a baby, blocking both its nose and mouth will kill it.
If some people don't know that by age 15, I find it very worrying, which is why I asked (seriously) if the woman had learning difficulties earlier on in the thread.
But you are assuming, that the thoughts that go through her head when she puts the pillow over the baby's face is 'I know Im covering the baby's airway and it wont be able to breath'.
Its likely that her only thought, was 'shut up', she wont have been thinking about noses and airways and consequences. Lots of people do things without thinking about the consequences and dont have learning needs or mental health problems. They may be in an emotional state at the time which prevents them from fully assessing their actions and the consequences of them, but that is different.
Its likely, although obviously an assumption, that she may have thought that the pillow was quieting down the noise so the others couldnt hear and calming him down. I work with teens (and youngers) and the things they believe and their perceptions are all over the place about things we think they should 'know'. Of course they know things on one level but interpret knowledge in a different way dependent on what is happening for them at the time.
What are you talking about? We do know specifics as they have been reported on and mentioned in this thread. She was 15, she had no support, she had two sick parents one of which was in hospital, she was expected to keep her baby quiet. Her baby cried a lot, she struggled to cope. All of which to me make her situation bad. We could know nothing and you still couldn't compare it to other people as she is not other people she is an individual person and her baby was an individual. You could have given her a different baby and chances are it wouldn't have turned out the same. It was a series of unique events that led to the babies death same as with any other crime.
It is not irrelevant, you are trying to compare her to people but you don't actually know who these people are or if they even exist and if they do exist you don't even know what happened with them and their babies so how can you say others did not do what she did? Who are these others?
I think it's fair to say we're both assuming possible scenarios.
Sounds like you are describing psychotic behaviour, a lack of normal rational thinking. Imagine a similar behaviour if it were directed at an adult 'they wouldn't shut up, so I killed them' .
I also think you have to be careful not to confuse anger with lack of knowledge. I mean, most people know it's wrong to hit someone, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if something makes them angry enough.
My overall view is that I have sympathy for her, but don't agree with what she did and I think based on the circumstances of the time and lack of evidence, her sentence is fair.
Psychosis or psychotic behaviour is when someone is detached from reality and acting out of hallucinations or delusions, so no, Im not describing that behaviour. Im describing the sort of behaviour I have seen from lots of parents who are neither angry or psychotic but illequipped, panicked, depressed, overwhelmed or sleep deprived and make very very poor decisions without thinking through or comprehending exactly what they are doing.
That doesn't mean killing a baby is justified, even in poor circumstances, though it perhaps makes it easier to understand. My point was, other women will have had babies in poor circumstances and yet didn't kill their babies as many put them up for adoption.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/sin-and-the-single-mother-the-history-of-lone-parenthood-7782370.html
Not saying this situation was right, and thank god times have changed, but I do still think that would have been preferable to her killing her baby. As you say, her baby was unique, and it never had a chance to live when it could have.
Failing to understand serious actions that cause death or harm to others due to current mental state, be it temporary, very much is psychosis.
Anger could also cause these behaviours or learning difficulties- failing to understand basic bodily functions and how your actions could cause death to others.
If someone is so panicked, depressed, overwhelmed and sleep deprived that they smother their baby to death when they didn't want to, I could definitely see an argument of temporary psychosis brought about by the above aggravating factors.
No one said it was justified, how could it be, a baby died. All some people are trying to say is that they understand how this happened and understand what the lady was feeling and how she must be living in hell because of it.
Then, I agree.