Guest Frank_Nabbit Report post Posted February 23, 2004 Judge Throws Book At Abusive Mother A judge sentenced a 24-year-old woman to 60 years in prison Thursday for deliberately scalding her 2-year-old son. District Judge Mary Roman delivered punishment several hours after jurors found Yvonne Espinoza guilty on two counts of felony assault on a child. Espinoza cried uncontrollably following the sentence. Jurors allowed Roman to decide the defendant's fate and in a rare move, they listened in to Roman's punishment. "We felt she needed to be punished for what she did," said Sarah Burrell, a juror. "I think we all thought that we would feel some sort of relief that it was over and we felt comfortable in our decision but, it's just so sad. It was just heartbreaking." Jurors deliberated three hours before finding Espinoza guilty of burning her son, Jarred, with scalding water from a shower in March. The boy suffered second- and third-degree burns. He also suffered cuts with a razor blade and had been burned with cigarettes, trial testimony revealed., The defense argued that the incident was an accident, but prosecutors pointed out to jurors that the mother confessed to police about holding her son under burning water. The defendant must serve 30 years of her sentence before she is eligible for parole Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2004 Good. More people like that need to serve some real hard time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justsoyouknow 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2004 That's just horribly fucked up. How could someone do that to a child? Then she turns on the waterworks and expects sympathy? This is why I hate people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted February 23, 2004 Since murderers get less of a sentence I find the prison term to be too harsh. 15 years and mandatory hysterectomy would be more just. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justsoyouknow 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2004 The kid is going to have to live the rest of his life horribly disfigured, all because his evil bitch of a mother thought it would be fun to torment him. I dare say that this is worse than murder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted February 23, 2004 it says second and third degree burns which will probably lead to skin grafting. Doesn't say major disfigurement. Still, the child is alive and in court. Alive > Dead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justsoyouknow 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2004 ...The kid was two. TWO. He had no means of defending himself or knowing what was going on. And is skin grafting absolutely perfect now? Plus the numerous razor blade cuts and cigarette burns...but I guess he can get those covered by skin grafts too, right? God bless modern science! It allows for people to pretend that crimes are justified. Where else can you hear somebody say, "That penalty is too harsh....he'll just get some skin cut from his thigh and pasted over the burn! That's no big deal!" Let's face the facts here, Frigid. The kid was two years old, and his mother intentionally tried to harm him. I really don't understand how you can pretend that she doesn't deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted February 23, 2004 I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to be punished. I'm just questioning how she can get a prisoner term harsher than somebody who commited first degree man-slaughter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2004 I'd kill her. I'd kill the mother of my daughter if she did shit like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justsoyouknow 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2004 I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to be punished. I'm just questioning how she can get a prisoner term harsher than somebody who commited first degree man-slaughter. Maybe because the kid was two? No way to defend himself? Maybe because there were multiple counts of abuse? Multiple razor blade cuts, multiple cigarette burns, on top of the 2nd and 3rd degree burns. She should be punished for each individual act. The combination of all of these horrendous acts should be more than 60 years in my opinion. But say what you want. Tell us a story about how you used to go out to bars and knew a guy named Muffin, then go back on that and claim that you can't leave the house because you have multiple personality disorder. How about you get your personality with a conscience out here and have him reply in this topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted February 23, 2004 Hold up man, we're on the same page. I'm not sticking up for her at all. I think she deserves to be punished. However I'm just asking how does she get 60 years out of this? There have been people to kill children and get hit with a first degree murder charge which is less than this. That's what I'm wondering, it just seems like they're saying. Child abuse bad, murdering child not as bad. Also you must have skimmed the stuff on me because you got all that shit wrong. Father knew the guy and I don't have MPD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justsoyouknow 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2004 I guess Jack's view of things are more than the documentation of years and years of doctors I've had. Along with the 3 I have right now. By this theory people with Multiple Personality Disorder are just lonely losers who should interact with others more. Alright, I guess I inferred that you had MPD from that second piece there. My mistake...I'm just of the school of thought that you should never, EVER do something this horrible to someone who can't defend themselves. I lump child abusers in the same boat as wife beaters. Shit, I was going to go over to my ex-girlfriend's house and kill her dad one day because he hit her (you can find the thread on that if you want to do some research). It's just the whole thing about people exerting their strength on those that can't defend themselves that gets me going. Again, I apologize for the fuckup. My mistake, and nothing personal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted February 24, 2004 I'd kill her. I'd kill the mother of my daughter if she did shit like that. I gotta agree Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 Just because murderers sometime don't receive has harsh a sentence has they should. Doesn't mean other convicted criminals should be treated any less leninent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 So a thief should get the same sentence as a murderer? While I agree that she got what she deserves, I have to confess that the first thought in my mind after reading her sentence was "She could kill someone and have gotten less time than this. A lot less time." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 How do you get that? I said just because some convicted killer receives a light sentence, doesn't mean in lesser crimes the convicted should receive a lighter sentence than a killer given a light sentence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DerangedHermit 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 Then she turns on the waterworks and expects sympathy? She turned on the hot waterworks. ... But, seriously, I don't think she deserves to be in jail for this. I think she needs to be locked away in an insane asylum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 Alive > Dead Not always. Some people live lives where death would be welcome. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 No. Don't kill her. And don't send her to jail. Let the punishment fit the crime, and follow the old "eye for an eye" adage. Put her in a defenseless position, and have someone much more powerful burn her repeatedly with cigarettes. And cut her repeatedly with razor blades. And scald her with hot water. Have her go through years of excrutiating pain while she gets skin graphs. Have her go through years of mental anguish as she revisits the pain she felt while getting tortured. nl5: believes that "cruel and inhumane punishment" is justifiable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 Let the punishment fit the crime, and follow the old "eye for an eye" adage. Put her in a defenseless position, and have someone much more powerful burn her repeatedly with cigarettes. And cut her repeatedly with razor blades. And scald her with hot water. Have her go through years of excrutiating pain while she gets skin graphs. Have her go through years of mental anguish as she revisits the pain she felt while getting tortured. While I sympathize with your position -- and part of me agrees with you -- the fact remains that we live in a civilized society. Torture is evil, and we're better than that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted February 24, 2004 Alive > Dead Not always. Some people live lives where death would be welcome. You ignored the whole post just to put that. By cutting out the rest of the post you don't grasp the full meaning. I said in court cases they view the victim as still being alive better than the victim being dead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 Alive > Dead Not always. Some people live lives where death would be welcome. You ignored the whole post just to put that. By cutting out the rest of the post you don't grasp the full meaning. I said in court cases they view the victim as still being alive better than the victim being dead. I'm sorry, I missed your two page treatise on the subject. It was a two line post, and I cut off one line. Get a grip. And yes, I did grasp the full meaning, and I disagree with it, as I said. There are instances where a victim is left worse than dead...rape-torture cases, for example. For some of those people, death would have been more preferable than letting them live the life they're forced to lead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted February 24, 2004 Even though it only had one word, I'm taking credit for that third line Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2004 She'll be out in six months (30 years my BUTT)... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted February 25, 2004 Let the punishment fit the crime, and follow the old "eye for an eye" adage. Put her in a defenseless position, and have someone much more powerful burn her repeatedly with cigarettes. And cut her repeatedly with razor blades. And scald her with hot water. Have her go through years of excrutiating pain while she gets skin graphs. Have her go through years of mental anguish as she revisits the pain she felt while getting tortured. While I sympathize with your position -- and part of me agrees with you -- the fact remains that we live in a civilized society. Torture is evil, and we're better than that. I agree that we should be above that ... but I also feel that the end justifies the means. If people thought that they'd face painful, irreparable punishment, perhaps they'd think twice about committing an atrocious crime such as torturing a toddler. I'm also in favor of castration for serial rapist and molesters (either chemical castration or the real deal), and using serious criminals in place of animals for what's now known as 'animal testing' (e.g. hairspray in the eyes, etc.), and most of all in favor of the punishment fitting the crime ... if you hurt a kid, someone hurts you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
