3 ms·
From the second article ---- She alleges that the violence against her went from choking to punching to death threats, and says it continued after they were b
by ALittleLight 5y ago
From the second article
----
She alleges that the violence against her went from choking to punching to death threats, and says it continued after they were both arrested on child abuse charges.
Still, she never imagined he would lay a hand on a child. He wanted her kids to call him “dad.” During their relationship, which lasted just under a year, though, she sometimes noticed her daughter had some bruises. One time, her daughter fell off the bed.
When she asked Good about it, “He always had a story for what happened like … He was holding her and you know, she slipped and fell or that she slipped and fell or the dog knocked her down. You know, he always had something,” she said. “And honestly, I believed it because nothing in my mind at that time ever fathomed that anybody would hurt a child.”
---
That pretty clearly establishes that abuse was a pattern, he was beating and choking her. That abuse of her daughter was a pattern, the daughter had multiple bruises that required multiple explanations. That also establishes that the pattern of abuse continued over time.
If the story was just that she went out, came home, discovered her beaten daughter and took her to the police - then I, and I hope everyone else, would agree that she didn't deserve to go to prison. That doesn't really seem to be what happened though. At least not as far as I can tell from reading news articles.
- rendall 5y agoI see. I'm probably being more charitable to her than a stranger would, but it sounds like a woman in denial to me, not a person who intentionally allows her boyfriend to beat her daughter. To my mind, a case could be made for a harsh sentence if a mother deliberately allows her boyfriend to torture her children, but in the case of an abused woman in denial, I would hope a justice system would not be so harsh. Remove the children to safety, probation, mandatory therapy, sure; but a 20 year sentence in that case helps no one: not her, not her children, not society. Your interpretation is the least charitable, in my opinion, but I won't try to talk you out of it. Given what you gathered from the article, I still don't understand supporting a 20 year sentence, but I definitely understand being horrified by the descriptions of the abuse. When I first heard about this, I also thought surely there must be something wrong with Elizabeth and the situation to have earned such a sentence, but I no longer believe this. Anyway, thanks for replying in good faith and being honest about your interpretation! Sincerely appreciated.