I 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 b

I 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.