She had left school in the sixth grade and was a slow learner with no long term goals. She lived from hand to mouth and was very poor.
The social worker said that the accused appears to be emotionally immature and does not pursue the interests of her children. She is not emotionally or financially able to take care of her children.
“She cannot express herself verbally and displays almost ‘childish’ behaviour. She claimed that if the accused were to return home, she would continue to live the same way she did before her arrest with little responsibility and accountability for her actions.”
No victim impact report was submitted. The court relied on a report from a social worker and correctional supervisor.
They were in a dispute over the issue of sentencing. The reformatory supervisor shared the view that the accused was a good candidate for correctional supervision “if the court considered correctional supervision an option for sentencing”.
The social worker said the minimal sentence option was viable. She argued that societal rulings “in themselves are not appropriate penalties but rather that the accused needs to undergo treatment and treatment while in prison to help her identify certain life skills and coping mechanisms”.
The woman’s lawyer said there were “substantial and compelling circumstances for the court to deviate from the minimum sentence” of 15 years, which included that she had pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, was young, had young children to raise, and was abused by her boyfriend.
The state said that the woman’s alcohol consumption prior to the crime, her child’s poisoning, and the seriousness of the offense were all aggravating factors.
She was well aware that she had given her child poison. She did not call the elders to help. The police waited. There was no remorse. “She should have directed her anger at her boyfriend, not the underage child,” the prosecution said.