That's what the current sentencing of offenders against children appears to indicate.
Take this story from Stuff:
The young girl's plight came to national attention when police found her hiding in a cupboard in her West Auckland house on November 15, 2010. She was starving, dehydrated, bruised and was suffering from broken bones and anaemia from internal bleeding. A police statement released a month later made public the horrific details of her abuse - including prolonged beatings and having her toe nails ripped off. The girl had been in Child, Youth and Family (CYF) care most of her life after being taken away from her parents as a baby.
Her mother got 7.5 years with 5 year non-parole period as a sentence. Yet when she is released she can still breed, still default to getting custody of children, wont be banned from living with or working with children, wont be a registered offender who has to report where she lives.
You see a woman torturing a child is not as traumatic, it would appear, as a man molesting one. She was a sadist, she isn't fit to be near children and should be permanently denied access to children. However, she needed to sexually abuse the girl for things to be seen to be that serious. She's appealing her sentence of course.
How about the child's father?
The father also hit the child in a way that was ''unacceptable'' and deliberately concealed the situation from the child's school by keeping her at home when her injuries would have made it obvious that she was being physically abused.
So he knew it was wrong, covering things up to protect the sadistic monster of a mother and himself.
(his lawyer) said he was caught between trying to control his daughter's ''disturbing behaviour'' and getting through to his partner.
Astonishing. He couldn't actually figure out that this girl, of 9, being tortured by her mother, who had been sexually abused by a relative previously and who had spent most of her life not being loved, understood, listened to and helped, would behave in ways that are disturbing? This entity, called the "father" is barely fit to go to the toilet himself let alone be a parent.
Judge Gibson responded by saying that the girl had been subjected to ''the most appalling revictimisation'' due to the couple's contention that the abuse was a result of her ''difficult'' behaviour. ''You continued to blame the child for what happened to her and I utterly reject that,'' he said. In sentencing the man, Judge Gibson said he wanted to denounce his conduct, deter others, hold the man accountable, protect the community and send a clear message to people who stood by and did nothing to intervene. ''It is clear that your daughter is unable to understand why she was tortured, and that is the appropriate word for it. ''You didn't do your duty as a parent.''
No doubt this entity thinks he is a "big man", I'm sure he plays up being tough and staunch and every other faux "value" low lives like him posture about. Yet he faces only three years in prison, with two years non-parole. He to is not being denied future custody of children, not being denied the right to live with children. Who can doubt his dick will be out pumping kids into the next ego-less strumpet who thinks so little of herself she'll take him, and the evil entity who is the girl's mother will no doubt create another tragic child, so she can feel "complete".
Garth McVicar is right. The sentencing is insufficient, both deserved much more. She should have a sentence commensurate to the harm done.
Let's look at some other sentences:
- 13 year sentence for stealing war medals.
- 17 year sentence for producing an illegal substance that other adults wanted to buy
- 8 year ban from owning a dog due to neglect ( no ban from having kids that you neglect though)
- 5 year nine month sentence for breaking and entering, robbing, tying up a 19yo woman and "indecently assaulting" her (which means kissing her on the lips when she did not consent)
- 6 years and four months for fraud
The core role of the state is to protect citizens from violence. In the case of parents who abuse their children, it is a particularly despicable crime for those who are entrusted to protect children do the opposite. Banning smacking didn't have an effect on these two. However, having sentences that effectively incarcerate such egregious sadists for the period of their greatest fecundity and fertility, would be a step forward, as would denying them ever being allowed to live with anyone under 16.
Meanwhile, wouldn't it also be a good start for the state to deny anyone convicted of serious violent offences ever being able to claim welfare?