Defending the indefensible

Sometimes justice almost works but I'd be tempted to put an even harsher sentence on this idiot than a 20 week suspended sentence. Firstly, she's the sort of moron that stone-age prohibitionists point to when they preach about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. This woman gives those cretins ammunition through her own stupidity and lack of restraint.

Secondly, this is absolutely no fucking defence:

Richard Bennett, defending Stevenson, said she was a 22-year-old with four young children by three different fathers who had found her life "extremely difficult and distressful".

He said: "There can be no doubt that this young woman was under a great deal of stress.

"She was depressed because of the break-up of her long-term relationship with the father of the two boys."

Seriously, if someone's a slut and bereft of common sense and any sort of foresight, that doesn't in any way mitigate or absolve their actions. Call me a cynic, but I highly doubt this woman found 3 different men she truly loved, all by the age of 22, and was with each of them long enough to make an informed decision about whether to have a child or not. She is the definition of a train wreck, and if there were any circumstances that would merit compassion, like a difficult childhood, a death in the family or whatever, then surely they should/would have been mentioned as part of the defence (assuming sense on the part of the BBC), ahead of some break-up with the latest of her baby daddies.

This woman is entirely responsible for her actions, which are undeniably reprehensible, selfish and reckless in the extreme. She does, however, deserve a second chance, but only if she cleans up. She has shown she cannot exercise restraint, and so cannot be trusted with drugs or alcohol if she is to continue interacting with her children. To that end, I'm not sure I agree with the judge's decision to publicise her name. Of course she should be made to feel ashamed (if she doesn't already), but rooting for "open justice" might have sunk her chance for redemption.

These children deserve a mother, and at the age of 4, they might be too young to remember the incident. But the upshot of a public verdict is that in all likelihood this woman and her kids will never be allowed to forget what happened. Is it fair that the children live in the shadow of this, or live without a mother? I am not saying Stevenson should get away with what she has done, but I'm not entirely sure what the judge was trying to achieve through "open justice"...