Eight years for termination

  • 25 Replies
  • 4147 Views

Sunshine Meadows

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 01:48PM
I am looking at this now including reading the links within the Guardian article.

My initial thoughts are,

Boccius could have formed his opinion of the Judge from more than just the one article or in relation to just this one case.

also I did read this earlier and was not phased I think because usually when I have read the phrase 'right wing Christian nutter' it is refering to groups of people in America and to a lesser extent the UK who call themselves Christians but define their fath in terms of the Old Testimant.

Hopefully Boccius will come and explain what he meant but for me right wing christian nutter does not describe the majority of Christians I know or who went to church today.

I can see how it would offend people though.

I'll be back.


seegee

  • *
  • Charter Member and Volunteer
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5166

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 01:49PM
Is there any evidence that she even took the drug she bought?  Obviously she meant to (or why spend time & effort researching it, then buy it?), but it's possible she actually gave birth naturally - unless there's any objective proof of the drug in her body, only she can know that. 
If there was actually a live birth, that would explain her reluctance to tell anyone what she did with the body; the charge would then presumably have been murder (infanticide), with a much longer sentence.

The judge's personal beliefs aren't relevant, the law is pretty clear that abortion is illegal after a certain time. 
She knew that, had been to a couple of clinics asking for termination months before the birth.  How could any judge have decided that she didn't understand what she was doing or didn't have full knowledge that it was illegal?  Apparently she successfully hid the pregnancy from her husband.

She had also had experience of both abortion & live birth before - she had given one baby for adoption, had at least one previous abortion, had living children with her husband.  She had, therefore, experienced pregnancy several times before & probably knew she was pregnant reasonably early.
It seems very unlikely she didn't know the foetus/baby would be "viable" (able to live outside her body) at the time of the abortion/ birth.

The judge may/ may not be right-wing or extreme in his personal views, but without any evidence of the state of the foetus/ baby at birth... if there really was a stillbirth (induced or otherwise), she may serve less time if she explains what she did with the remains... if the remains are discovered & it is found that she killed it after birth/ left it to die somewhere, she will face a trial for murder.

Sunshine Meadows

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 02:50PM
As I read through the links I opened I realised that even if I found I agreed with what Boccius wrote it is still not a turn of phrase that can be used here on Ouch Too. However I cant just delete the phrase because there has been two replies since it was posted, so this is what I have done.

I have added a warning to Boccius's post because it is important that he, I and everyone remember we come from different backgrounds even though it can be difficult to always remain aware our words might offend we need to do our best to avoid hurting someone else's feelings..

In my opinion Boccius was not trying to deliberate offend and therefore has not receive a member warning.

I put advisory comments on the next two posts to maintain the dialogue through to this post I am making here.

For those who want to know more about Justice Jeremy Cooke here are a couple of links, he comes across as calm and thoughtful. eg not extreme or crazy



and

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sarah-louise-catt-sentencing-remarks-17092012.pdf

For me the idea that judges should ''applying God's justice on the ground' does not fit with my view on how should societies work or my views on religion and the state. A lot of good things are done by both people who are religious and also those who are not. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to take a quote I think from somewhere in the bible we should 'live and let live'.

Hopefully the thread can move back to its core issue now.

Sunshine Meadows

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 02:51PM
Quote
She knew that, had been to a couple of clinics asking for termination months before the birth.  How could any judge have decided that she didn't understand what she was doing or didn't have full knowledge that it was illegal?  Apparently she successfully hid the pregnancy from her husband.

I agree and it is an important point.

boccius

  • *
  • Diamond member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 03:29PM
Having realized that my use of the word 'nutter' was offensive to some people, I came back to apologise and amend the post, but at that point it was locked.

Anyway, I apologise. I should have called him a right-wing Christian extremist, or a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, or whatever, and I would argue that he and the organisation with which he is involved deserve either description.

I have, quite obviously, nothing against any religious person, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whoever. It's only when any religious group tries to get national law to reflect their religious beliefs that I see great dangers.

I too know, or know of, wonderful people who follow certain religions, and I think they are wonderful people, who happen to be this or that religion, and this or that sex, or ethnic group, or age, etc., and they all do wonderful things.

A

Sunshine Meadows

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8037

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 04:07PM
Boccius,

Quote
Having realized that my use of the word 'nutter' was offensive to some people, I came back to apologise and amend the post, but at that point it was locked.

There is that downside to locking the thread, I am glad you mentioned coming back.

Quote
I should have called him a right-wing Christian extremist, or a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, or whatever, and I would argue that he and the organisation with which he is involved deserve either description.

You are right because extremist or fundamentalist would have indicated people outside what can be considered outside or beyond the norm for many Chritians. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, albeit it there are more times on Ouch Too when it can be better to agree to disagree than there ever were on the free speech current affairs forum I used to manage.

You might wish to take a look at this thread from last year http://ouchtoo.org/index.php?topic=1178.0


seegee

  • *
  • Charter Member and Volunteer
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5166

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 04:30PM
I don't belong to any religion or believe in any god(s). 
However, I object to the terms "Islamic fundamentalist", "Christian fundamentalist", "religious fundamentalist" when applied to anyone advocating/ participating in acts of violence - on the grounds of inaccuracy. 

The foundations (or fundamental beliefs) of the main large-scale religions practised in most of the world include tolerance and support of fellow humans and explicitly forbid killing/ deliberately harming others even if they do not share your beliefs, or if you think/ know they will steal from you.  Most followers of those religions do their best to live according to these beliefs. 

Unfortunately, there are some with extreme views not held by most believers who claim to live according to the "fundamental truths" and are known as "fundamentalists".  Some of those people have beliefs that seem to contradict some of the basics of their professed faith.  If I hear of a "muslim" or a "christian"  who has killed several people, I have to wonder whether they know anything of their "religion" at all - if they do, they are deliberately misrepresenting their "faith", if they don't they have been horribly mis-taught. 

The vast majority of people, belonging to any religion or none, try to live reasonably peacefully with others - the so-called fundamentalists are a very long way from being representative of anyone but a tiny group of people who are dissatisfied with society & are very sure that everything would be lots better if everybody was exactly like them.  If everybody was exactly the same, they would still find something to disagree over.  ;-)

Monic1511

  • *
  • Moderator Welfare Rights
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2494

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 06:43PM
Im a Christian, which in no way makes me perfect or always right  >doh<, and if there is anything wrong in the sentencing of Sarah Catt she will have the right to appeal the length of the sentance.  Yes our beliefs influence how we think but I still think that the 8 year sentance is about right especially when you consider she will be out in 4 years - theres enough time behind bars for her to get a degree or other qualifications if thats what she wants to do.  The hardest thing for Sarah Catt will be staying safe in prison, other offenders can be quite cruel to people they meet inside as they seem to have their own justice scales of what is an acceptable crime or not.  Either way I would not want to be her in jail and I hope that she isn't assaulted by others either.

According to the police she has shown no remorse, has refused to explain where the baby's body is, Im sure hiding a corpse is also an offence and it makes people suspicious that she is hiding the body because the baby was born alive and she killed the baby.

As for deriding the Judge because he has a faith - I don't think thats fair, I would never take the mickey out of a non believer - thats your right just as its mine to have a faith.  Do you really want to turn decision making over to computers because thats what we would need to do to have completely impartial sentencing, we all have some sort of moral code based on our upbringing.  Anyway Judges are human - remember the judge who was referred for further training after telling a burglar he was corrageous - I was shouting at him.

The facts that I can see are that Sarah Catt has had several children born alive (3 I think) has had abortions previously within the legal timescale, but this time waited and then when she was told she was 29 weeks pregnant that she couldn't have an abortion then sourced drugs to rid her of the baby.  I still don't understand why she didn't just have the baby especially considering that babies often survive prior to 30 weeks.  She must have know what she was doing but believed her rights superseeded the rights of the baby and the law of the country.  yes she had the right to ask for an abortion but the UK law says it can't be done after a certain time.

To blame her sentance on the faith of the judge is offensive to other people of faith as you appear to be inferring that the judge is incapable of thinking outside his faith.
Im sure when judges write up a sentancing report they have to give their reasons & I don't think "my faith influenced my thinking" would be allowed.


Part of my faith is that I don't drink alcohol or smoke but that doesn't stop me from being friends with people who do, nor do I judge them for exercising their choice to do so.  I don't preach at them either so from my experience it is possible to have strong beliefs and not impose them on other people. I will always try to be fair to others points of view
 >dove<
Monic
amended to add the name of the woman involved Sarah Catt
« Last Edit: 23 Sep 2012 07:22PM by Monic1511 »

Otter

  • *
  • Charter Member and Volunteer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 09:53PM
they suspect murder, but can not find a body to confirm it. If the child was poisioned it would show up in its bones. She won't tell them where it is so they can't prove the above. yes?




devine63

  • *
  • Guest

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 23 Sep 2012 10:41PM
Yes Otter

and by charging her with self-poisoning, I think they probably avoided and possibility of creating any double jeopardy, so mother can still be charged with infanticide or murder or whatever if the body is ever found

regards, Deb

bulekingfisher

  • *
  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980

Re: Eight years for termination

  • on: 11 Oct 2012 01:07PM
Hello Fiz

I fully agree with what you say in reply post no 511