It seems incredibly excessive to me. The article says she could be eligible for probation in 30 years which is not quite as insane, I guess. Even that seems like a lot, though; going in at 25 and coming out at 55, that is a huge thing to do to someone. I would bet this woman was a victim of abuse herself, and I'd rather she got help more than punishment.

I guess I am soft on crime. I have this weird urge to protect/help outcasts and rejects, and criminals are about as outcast as you can get. (There's a limit though.)

The crime is sickening, but I don't think it's a good idea in life to hold on to a big negative feeling, practically fetishize it, and make a big decision in the midst of it.

It's probably not a big accident that I've never been selected in a jury duty voir dire.

First pregnant at 14. I'm reminded of that sidebarred comment:

"First we make criminals, and then we punish them, as Thomas More wrote as truly then as now. And then there's an unholy glee about it, as if punishment is a joyful thing in which we should find satisfaction, instead of the inevitable and probably necessary outcome of a series of tragedies building on tragedies."

Jocelyn suffered bleeding in her brain, a fractured rib, bruises and bite marks, and was in a coma for a couple of days.

Looks as if she came within shouting distance of killing her daughter.

Would a 99 year sentence seem inappropriate then?

Sandusky only got 30 years.

I say take away this woman's kids and put her in jail until she id biologically incapable of having more.

Would a 99 year sentence seem inappropriate then?

I think a 99 year sentence in an American-style prison for a single child murder would be excessive, yes. But this isn't even attempted murder. Child abuse is horrifying, but the child is alive.

I'm not trying to say it isn't heinous, terrible, atrocious, heartbreaking, wasteful, and a goddamn shame. It is, and I think, considering the way prisons are run here, the long prison sentence makes it more so.

I watched a movie called Doing Time about the Japanese prison experience. It struck me that their regimented existence served to break them down to a schoolboy frame of mind; the prison was certainly no summer camp but the enforced dependence on routine and authority, along with total control of the inmates' agency, left the inmates as receptive^* as junior high school students to retraining and assimilation into society.

It seems that in the American system, instead of guards and rules reducing their charges to a childish state upon which a better appreciation of the value of life within society's bounds can be imposed, we set our prisoners against each other and encourage a race to the bottom, where prisoners are debased to animal instincts and little to no attempt is made to build them anew.

I understand that even in systems where prisoners are treated relatively humanely and counseled with an eye to encouraging them to reintegrate into society upon release, there are occasional outlying recidivists who are probably lost causes. Charles Bronson, "the most violent prisoner in Britain," is an example, but you see people like him all over the American system. That ain't bragging.

This is a messy case and a questionable example on which to base an argument for prison reform. In American women's prisons the coercion and violence is more likely to be administered by authority, but fellow inmates help prevent rehabilitation as well.

I think people who do such awful, astonishingly cruel things must be separated from their victims and from society. But I think, once they are separated, it would help all of us if we tore them down and rebuilt them into something steady. Not all of our attempts would succeed. But it's better than tearing them down into animals and simply kenneling them until their release date. What we do now guarantees failure.

In short, like all criminals this woman needs systematic counseling and an honest attempt at rehabilitation, not a 99 year sentence in a debasing cage.

*Yes, I realize there is a wide variance in the receptiveness of even Japanese junior high schoolers to education and assimilation, but please bear with me.

Japan still has capital punishment.

I have absolutely no sympathy for this woman. She should have been sterilized when it first became clear she was incapable of being a parent.

Japan still has capital punishment.

While this is true, it has no bearing on the incarceration or rehabilitation methods under discussion.

Jeez, so sad all around.
She should never get those kids back, but I am not sure such a long prison sentence is useful for her or for the kids.
The daughter needs to feel safe and know that the mother is never going to hurt her again, but is this the only way to ensure that?
The mother should be punished and counseled but 99 years sounds like way too much o me.
I am not a victim of abuse, so my opinion may not be welcome, but I also don't think victims should be the ones to decide their aggressors' punishment.

Looks as if she came within shouting distance of killing her daughter. Would a 99 year sentence seem inappropriate then?

Still no, here. A lot depends on the particulars of parole. Ignoring parole.. What if it was someone else's child? What if there were two victims? Where you do go from there, 198 years? You've maxed out your punishment. Objectively, is this really as bad as the worse crime imaginable? Be careful where you set the bar of the life sentence.

Public satisfaction is a big part of justice, I know. But it's like when a doctor asks you to describe your level of pain on a scale from 1 to 10. Describe your level of righteous anger on a scale from 1 to 99. There's something kind of gross about it to me. It's too open to prejudice, too much about service of public bloodlust. Though sometimes I get carried away by it too.

I guess I'm coming from the land of racist verdicts, three strikes laws, and drug war mandatory minimums. If you ask me if sentences are too long, my first reaction is going to be yes, sentencing is at stupid levels in the US.

I worry that what I just said may have seemed like invalidating feelings but I don't want to do that.

If there were a checkbox of were you abused as a child I don't know if I would check it or not. My dad threatened to beat us but never did it. On the other hand, neglect and humiliation were up his alley, and some incidents I have asked other people if it's abuse and they go uh yeah dummy. In particular one incident dealing with getting me to stop wetting the bed, so something about this case made me feel something. But I don't think I would check that box, because I know many people have had it much much worse and I just don't know what that's like. I'm sorry if I was dismissive.

I'm all for the 99-year sentence, if the account of the crime in the linked article is true.