Battered women jailed for "letting" abuse happen

Post Reply New Topic

FWIW that article is nearly 8 years old from the Dallas newspaper when it was first reported, my opinion is really immaterial as all of ours are since we don't have have access to all the evidence and witnesses that jurors did obviously but I'm guessing the reason she got 45 years is because of the way she was characterized here is how the prosecution saw it and ultimately the jurors saw it. Assuming that she left the house and refused to call 911 from a beating so savage that a neighbor overhead and confronted him while she left "to go shopping" with a friend is true, then I think she was negligent no matter how intimidated she was. The plight of a battered woman is tragic but they have a way out if they choose it, I understand the psychology behind them staying and the physical and mental power that their abuser can have over them but a battered child has no way out. It is a parent's responsibility to protect their child and leaving them to be victimized even when they themselves are as well makes them complicit in the death of this defenseless 3 year old child , it seems that if Lindley called 911 when she should of then this child would be alive today. Did she not call the police because she wasn't worried about her child, because she didn't want for her boyfriend to be arrested? Or are we to believe she legitimately fear for her life to the point that she left her 3 year old child in the care of a man she had just witness beat the kid and couldn't call 911 even when she had left the home and was no longer in physical danger? I guess we'll never know for sure what went through her mind. In my opinion someone that enables abuse and allows it to continue is culpable as well as the abuser, being a victim of abuse yourself doesn't absolve your responsibility to do the bare minimum to protect your child from what ultimately was a fatal beating and call 911. My mom works for CPS and its seems like cases like this are all too common, I think she would agree with my sentiment here but I will bring up this case the next time I talk to her.

Your argument is compelling, but I still think the psychological element of her mental state is not being addressed. It is possible for people to become completely dissociative when confronted with the behaviour this man exhibits. I would like to know if that was an element here.

I have to imagine her mental status was explored in the trial, what else realistically could been her defense? I feel that Buzzfeed article is misleading in order to push its narrative of "victim blaming" of battered women since it leaves out the critical fact that Ms. Lindley essentially did nothing at all to stop this beating and left the child in the care of this monster while no point ever calling 911. Instead she went out shopping with a friend to get beauty supplies. Digging around more I found somewhere say that the reason she didn't call 911 was because she was afraid that CPS was going to remove her child for the home which is not acceptable defense of her actions and goes to show your what her frame of mind was. That child being removed from that home and away from danger is exactly what needed to happen.

I'm wondering now whether her friend was charged with something too, she witnessed the beating as well and went shopping with Ms. Lindley, what was her excuse?

I'm pretty sure they covered that.

... My bad. I was confusing the two articles.

But at any rate, I still disagree with you about her doing nothing as being necessarily inexcusable. In any case, you are probably right that they explored this in court.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... _courtroom

Pretty good article laying out some of the problems of prosecutorial power I've been talking about, for those who are interested.

I know a public defender, and that guy works his ass off. He routinely puts in 20-40 hours more per week than a prosecutor (80-100 hours a week, I'm saying) and has a caseload 5 times as big. There have been times when he's had 3 potential-death-penalty cases at a time, on top of all of his other work. He knows his clients are not usually innocent; what he wants is not to 'get them off,' but to get a penalty that represents "justice" rather than societal revenge.

The thing about public defenders though is that while they may work very hard, they have to deal with practically hundreds of clients at once and so often do not have time to dedicate themselves fully to one particular case. If on the other hand, you have enough money to afford your own attorney, then that lawyer can dedicate more of his time to your case and so could probably do better than what a public defender could do. So, it's as if the people with money end up getting a higher standard of justice than poor people without money.

Yes.

And there is a myth that children can't abuse their parents so therefore parents can't be victim of domestic violence caused by their child. But yet it would be considered child abuse if the parent tries to kill their child or does and if they defend themselves against them. Children can be bigger than their mom or dad and can seriously hurt them too because they do get strong and become the size of an adult. Sadly there are no laws to protect families and parents from the abuse from their own child and sibling. Unless your kid was special needs or had a mental illness and they were abusing you, then you might get off with probation or get a light sentence because you suffered enough. But yet if your kid was normal and they were doing this, god forbid you defending yourself. Even children have gotten in trouble for killing their abusers and so have battered women.

Wow, only a year for failing to protect your children. yay for Oregon. How I interpret this law, it is saying it's illegal to be in a abusive relationship when you have children. Yeah if only we all had the ability to see how the guy will turn out when you marry them or are with them long enough before they show their true colors.

I also see it as the same as children failing to protect their own sibling from the abuse because they fear the abuser as well and know they will get the same treatment as their sibling if they intervene. But when you are a parent, they don't see you as the victim like they would for your children.

I admit I am still bias about men failing to protect the child from the abuser because I see them just as bad and what is there to be afraid of while I know women can be just as abusive to a guy as a man can to a woman. But yet if you are a woman and fail to protect your kid from the abuser, you're the victim too because the man is stronger than you and can hurt you and you are helpless. Not a situation I hope to end up in.

I am hoping someday the laws would change to protect these women too.

However you might say the of the murderer. The murderer may have been abused as a child, that doesn't make it right.

The point is some mental illness is normal. Mental illness it supposed be at least 1/4 of people.

The only thing that would invalidate the conviction, is if they completely were unable to comprehend wrong. As in not compus mentis.

So even if there was some mitigation, it would not invalidate guilt.

Sentencing is another matter, and there is no science to sentencing.

It places the responsibility on the individual. So it is the individual responsibility to protect the children whether in a relationship or not. There is no requirement to have foresight, simply if you are children are in danger to protect them lawfully.

Also this is imminent danger, and risk of death we are talking about.



Minors aren't expected to know how to handle these situations. As a parent you are legal responsible for looking after your children. Unless you hand over custody.



I'm not really sure which side you are advocating.

But that is in the past. The woman in this instance was undergoing abuse at the time of the crime. I think her culpability is marginalized because of this.

This