Taken to its logical conclusion do you honestly believe, in general terms, that if a stupid person commits a crime they deserve a lesser sentence than an intelligent person who commits the same crime?
No need to extend this to general terms, the sentencing guidelines for causing/allowing specifically mention domestic violence and learning disabilities.
The judge dismissed domestic violence on the basis that there is plenty of evidence of Frankie arguing with Savanna, therefore fear of domestic violence couldn’t have been a factor. This is extremely ignorant of the dynamics of domestic violence: victims aren’t all trembling quiet mice. This is a harmful stereotype that the judge has bought into, and used it, in spite of plenty of witness evidence that Savanna had definitely been violent to Frankie, and that multiple people were frightened of Savanna, let alone her actual girlfriend. There is even video evidence of Frankie being intimidated by Savanna. The judge is also ignoring the fact that domestic violence destroys a victim’s judgement and free will.
The judge also dismissed Frankie’s low IQ being a factor, saying that Frankie could understand proceedings, read through her bundle (of court documents), and attempt to justify her actions, which the judge said showed something like guile and cunning.
This is ignorant, an IQ of 70 is in the bottom 2nd percentile. Every 50th person you pass on the street will be as unintelligent as Frankie. They are not potatoes, as the judge seems to expect. They are perfectly capable of having a basic understanding of court proceedings. An IQ of 70 is about equivalent to an average 9 year old; at the age of 8-9 my parents began a vicious custody battle, and we had a basic understanding of proceedings at that age.
People with a borderline IQ are just about functioning adults, but will always be vulnerable to those with significantly higher intelligence, which is the point in these guidelines for causing/allowing.
Unfortunately Savanna’s IQ was not mentioned by Frankie’s defence. I don’t know what her IQ is or if it was in the evidence but not mentioned, but it’s very obvious that Savanna is massively more articulate than Frankie. Combined with the fact that Frankie was only 18-19, whereas Savanna was 26-27, there was a huge power imbalance in this relationship.
That is the point of learning disabilities and domestic violence indicating lower sentences for causing/allowing: both if these factors mean the person charged with causing/allowing could more easily have the wool pulled over their eyes; be convinced that something wrong was acceptable; or hamper their already compromised judgement on the appropriate actions to take.
There is no evidence that Frankie suspected Savanna of assaulting Star before the weekend of the recycling plant CCTV assaults, 11th-13th September. There is text evidence that Frankie believed that prior injuries were accidental. In thousands upon thousands of messages, nothing incriminating was found before this weekend that Frankie knew Star was being hit. This indicates that Savanna never injuriously assaulted Star in front of Frankie.
Star only saw Savanna twice after that, both with Frankie present. On the day of the murder, two other small children were present. It’s not unsurprising for a very dim girl with compromised judgement to think that Star was safe from injury in her presence, as she always had been before. Let alone with two children present for a quick toilet break.
So in answer to the question, YES I believe that stupidity should be considered in these cases.
The whole point in causing/allowing is whether they knew or should have known that the child was at risk of death.
Given Frankie’s impaired judgement due to low IQ and DV, and given the lack of evidence for her knowing of any assaults before the recycling plant weekend (and even than Frankie was only suspicious), I really don’t think she did. Did she know? No. Should she have known? Still no, because she was so thick, and was being actively manipulated by an intimidating, older and more intelligent woman.
I was glad she
was convicted, because there is ample evidence (including her own admissions) that Frankie was guilty of child cruelty, but unfortunately she wasn’t charged with that. So for justice, I was glad she was still convicted of
something.
However, given how tenuous the evidence was for a causing/allowing conviction, I really don’t think the sentencing should have been that long. And the judge was extremely ignorant. Frankie’s lawyer did a bad job there.
I do get the impression that a lengthened sentence is just to satiate the pitchfork-wielders who don’t know the details of this case, because changing it to a 12 year sentence to be served in a young offenders with a minimum half term, effectively only increases her time in prison by 8 months, as the initial 8 years had a minimum two thirds term.
