Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, November 18, 2008
The Ladies By Nature
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
A horrifying crime—a man beats a little girl to death, in the presence of her mother, whom he also abused—is compounded by an also-horrifying double standard: The man, the killer, receives 26 to 29 years, while the woman, who said she feared the killer would kill her too, gets a sentence as much as 17 years longer. The reasoning? The woman—the "mommy," as the prosecution referred to her repeatedly —had an extra obligation, as a mother, to prevent her abusive husband from beating her child.
The prosecution's (and the jury's) presumption: Men are violent, women nurture. When a man behaves violently, he is acting out his nature; when a woman fails to nurture, she is violating hers—a crime far more heinous than if she'd actually delivered the fatal blows.
1
She gets 40-43 years. The guy who physically dealt the blow gets 26. I expected to read the article and discover some possible explanation for why. But... there isn't any.
The only possible clue is the quote "Mr. Rodriguez did the beating, sometimes with encouragement by Ms. Santiago, or else her acquiescence". But even then, why on earth would her sentence be longer? It makes no sense.
The only possible clue is the quote "Mr. Rodriguez did the beating, sometimes with encouragement by Ms. Santiago, or else her acquiescence". But even then, why on earth would her sentence be longer? It makes no sense.
2
Frustrating, indeed, but don't discount the somewhat likely possibility of a downward-departure at sentencing. Everything (well, most of what) you're upset about will be argued by defense counsel at sentencing and taken into consideration by the court.
3
Ahhhh, the American Judicial system at work.
Why does it still amaze me how unbelievably dull and primitive people are?
Why does it still amaze me how unbelievably dull and primitive people are?
9
This is the same reasoning that made women the primary targets of the Salem Witch trials. For a woman to act with malice aforethought was considered worse than the same actions by a man, because women are the "gentler sex." Boys will be boys, right?
11
I don't have much patience for parents who don't protect their children from stepparents, but putting extra legal culpability on them? Absolutely unacceptable.
12
"There’s a sacredness about the role of mother,” he said. “When a woman is not fulfilling her role, it shocks the conscience, more than if she commits a crime. If she was prostituting herself or dealing drugs or stealing to feed, clothe and shelter her children, people would be more sympathetic"
This is a sexist and unfortunate acceptable view/judgement/stereotype of mothers. The uterus may be able to carry a baby, though as far as I know, it does not carry the anciet text of "the sacredness of mothering". My sense is that Ms. Santiago has probably been abused perhaps since she was 7 or before.
I am thankful that child is finally out of an unimaginable hell hole.
This is a sexist and unfortunate acceptable view/judgement/stereotype of mothers. The uterus may be able to carry a baby, though as far as I know, it does not carry the anciet text of "the sacredness of mothering". My sense is that Ms. Santiago has probably been abused perhaps since she was 7 or before.
I am thankful that child is finally out of an unimaginable hell hole.
13
Is there any possibility that what they meant was that the woman in this case was the parent 'of the victim'? And that maybe its more horrifying to let happen or participate in the murder of your own child, than it is to murder someone else. Not saying I agree with that, but possibly if in this case the murderer had been some father's girlfriend, and the father stood by doing nothing, in that case the father also would have gotten a longer sentence.
15
I know, I know, you absolutely must see sexism in everything you read. It's part of your nature.
For those that aren't so blinded, read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/nyregi…
See that fourth paragraph? The one that describes why she was charged with more? I don't believe "she was a woman" was mentioned. In fact, they both were sentenced to the maximum for what they were convicted on.
For those that aren't so blinded, read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/nyregi…
See that fourth paragraph? The one that describes why she was charged with more? I don't believe "she was a woman" was mentioned. In fact, they both were sentenced to the maximum for what they were convicted on.
16
Juries are comprised of the old and stupid, your either old and don't have anything better to do and enjoy the attention, or your too stupid to figure a way out of jury duty...
17
@15. That fourth paragraph doesn't explain anything. It just says that they apparently gave different evidence in their videotaped confessions, so she had an additional charge. It is still pretty strange that the person who physically caused the death received a lighter sentence than the person who watched.
18
@15
'A juror in that case, Nicole Dorce, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that Ms. Santiago bore a greater responsibility than her husband: “She was the mother. It’s her duty to protect her child. He killed her, and she allowed it.”'
Sounds pretty goddamned sexist to me. It may not have been the judge talking but it was apparently the shared sentiment of the jurors
'A juror in that case, Nicole Dorce, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that Ms. Santiago bore a greater responsibility than her husband: “She was the mother. It’s her duty to protect her child. He killed her, and she allowed it.”'
Sounds pretty goddamned sexist to me. It may not have been the judge talking but it was apparently the shared sentiment of the jurors
19
The mother was tried for multiple claims, more than the killer. She committed more crimes, hence more time served. Additionally, she had legal duties, as the guardian/mother, to the child that the killer did not have. Quibble with that if you want, but it's not sexism.
21
@17. It does seem strange, but that paragraph explains exactly why -- she was charged with more because they (the prosecutors) believed they could make more stick based on her videotaped confession. They were both given the maximum sentences for their convictions, so the key point is what they were convicted of doing.
They were both convicted of the same crime, manslaughter, but she was also convicted of assault, presumably because she admitted to separate incidents in front of the camera that he didn't.
Incidentally, the article mentions that the man was originally charged with second-degree murder, but only convicted of manslaughter (separate trial, separate jury, different judge, btw). If he'd been convicted of what he was originally charged, and he was given the maximum sentence, he'd be spending more time in jail. This strikes me as unfortunate happenstance, and not deliberate sexism.
They were both convicted of the same crime, manslaughter, but she was also convicted of assault, presumably because she admitted to separate incidents in front of the camera that he didn't.
Incidentally, the article mentions that the man was originally charged with second-degree murder, but only convicted of manslaughter (separate trial, separate jury, different judge, btw). If he'd been convicted of what he was originally charged, and he was given the maximum sentence, he'd be spending more time in jail. This strikes me as unfortunate happenstance, and not deliberate sexism.
22
@18. If the roles were reversed, and the juror had said "He was the father. It’s his duty to protect his child. She killed her, and he allowed it," would that be sexist?
It may be worth noting that the man that killed the girl was not the girl's father, but the girl's stepfather. Stepparents that don't adopt their stepchildren have fewer legal responsibilities to those children than the original parents.
It may be worth noting that the man that killed the girl was not the girl's father, but the girl's stepfather. Stepparents that don't adopt their stepchildren have fewer legal responsibilities to those children than the original parents.
23
So, the take home lesson - if you're going to axe-murder kids or let someone do it, deny that you had anything to do with it and insist on a lawyer and admit nothing.
And don't go drinking with your girlfriends in a bar as a way to cope with the pain - that will get you a longer jail sentence too.
And don't go drinking with your girlfriends in a bar as a way to cope with the pain - that will get you a longer jail sentence too.
24
@22 -- But that's not what happened. Have there been cases where the roles WERE reversed, and the man was treated the same way for failing as a father? Because that would prove to you that the perceived sexism here is misplaced, right? Let's find out what the expert said:
"B. Keith Crew, a professor of sociology and criminology at the University of Northern Iowa who has researched gender and racial differences in criminal sentencing, says that women who are not perceived as good mothers often “get the hammer” in sentencing."
Hmm. Sorry, Steve P. I honestly wish I lived in your world, and wasn't so "blinded" by all the imaginary sexism I read about and witness every day in MY world.
"B. Keith Crew, a professor of sociology and criminology at the University of Northern Iowa who has researched gender and racial differences in criminal sentencing, says that women who are not perceived as good mothers often “get the hammer” in sentencing."
Hmm. Sorry, Steve P. I honestly wish I lived in your world, and wasn't so "blinded" by all the imaginary sexism I read about and witness every day in MY world.
25
@24 - I don't deny that there is sexism in some sentencing cases, just as there is racism in some sentencing cases as well. But in this particular case, both the man and the woman "got the hammer" in sentencing, because they both got the maximum sentence. She, however, was convicted of more crimes because she said more in her videotaped confession.
26
From an earlier NYT story, Ms. Santiago egged her husband on for this final, lethal, beating. Then she stood by as her daughter was brutalized and did nothing -- didn't call for medical help, didn't call the police, never left her husband. This daughter was the scapegoat; the other children were apparently not abused.
The mother was either insane or a monster, and the defense did not plead insanity. That leaves monster.
"She lived with Ms. Santiago’s five other children and the couple in a three-bedroom apartment in Bedford-Stuyvesant. She was the family scapegoat and was frequently beaten and tied to a chair in a room equipped with a litter box for a toilet. One evening in early January 2006, she was accused of taking a container of pudding from the refrigerator without asking and of jamming Mr. Rodriguez’s computer printer. He confronted her, beat her viciously, held her head under cold running water and left her in a bedroom. A few hours later she was dead.
"Ms. Dwimoh, an assistant district attorney, told the jury of 10 women and two men that Ms. Santiago, knowing Mr. Rodriguez’s propensity for violence, had urged him to discipline Nixzmary. “She took it upon herself to be the match that ignited her husband’s rage,” Ms. Dwimoh said. “She says, ‘I heard him yelling at her, and he began hitting her.’ And during this rage of terror, she says, ‘Nixzmary, just admit it, just admit it.’ ”
"After the beating, as Nixzmary lay on the floor, Ms. Santiago took her 6-month-old son into another room and turned on the television, though she could hear Nixzmary moan, Ms. Dwimoh said. She went to check on the girl more than once and eventually reported to her husband that something was wrong, but did not seek help, Ms. Dwimoh said.
'“The last words of 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown, moaning in pain, gasping for air, were ‘Mommy, Mommy, Mommy,’ ”Ms. Dwimoh said. “She was Nixzmary’s last and only hope. Her mother. Who turned her back and did nothing.”
"When Ms. Santiago finally went to use a neighbor’s phone to call 911, Ms. Dwimoh said, Nixzmary had been dead for hours.
More...
The mother was either insane or a monster, and the defense did not plead insanity. That leaves monster.
"She lived with Ms. Santiago’s five other children and the couple in a three-bedroom apartment in Bedford-Stuyvesant. She was the family scapegoat and was frequently beaten and tied to a chair in a room equipped with a litter box for a toilet. One evening in early January 2006, she was accused of taking a container of pudding from the refrigerator without asking and of jamming Mr. Rodriguez’s computer printer. He confronted her, beat her viciously, held her head under cold running water and left her in a bedroom. A few hours later she was dead.
"Ms. Dwimoh, an assistant district attorney, told the jury of 10 women and two men that Ms. Santiago, knowing Mr. Rodriguez’s propensity for violence, had urged him to discipline Nixzmary. “She took it upon herself to be the match that ignited her husband’s rage,” Ms. Dwimoh said. “She says, ‘I heard him yelling at her, and he began hitting her.’ And during this rage of terror, she says, ‘Nixzmary, just admit it, just admit it.’ ”
"After the beating, as Nixzmary lay on the floor, Ms. Santiago took her 6-month-old son into another room and turned on the television, though she could hear Nixzmary moan, Ms. Dwimoh said. She went to check on the girl more than once and eventually reported to her husband that something was wrong, but did not seek help, Ms. Dwimoh said.
'“The last words of 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown, moaning in pain, gasping for air, were ‘Mommy, Mommy, Mommy,’ ”Ms. Dwimoh said. “She was Nixzmary’s last and only hope. Her mother. Who turned her back and did nothing.”
"When Ms. Santiago finally went to use a neighbor’s phone to call 911, Ms. Dwimoh said, Nixzmary had been dead for hours.
27
Sure you don't.
Own your words.
I don't deny that there is sexism in some sentencing cases, just as there is racism in some sentencing cases as well
Sure you don't.
If the roles were reversed, and the juror had said "He was the father. It’s his duty to protect his child. She killed her, and he allowed it," would that be sexist?
Own your words.
28
There is obviously something quite mentally wrong with the mother. I'm surprised they didn't go with some sort of mental illness defense.
29
@25. She was convicted of additional assault charges; he was convicted of murder. I think we can probably agree that murder is a worse crime than multiple assaults, can't we? So this seems odd.
Now let's compare: she was abused by her husband and abused her daughter; he abused his wife and beat and killed his stepdaughter. She was sentenced to twelve more years in prison, not because she murdered the girl, only because she neglected to prevent it.
There is a stark imbalance here. The judgment does not take into account that she was abused by her husband. The judge and jury nonetheless blamed her for the death, because "she was the mother." Which is why ECB saw this as an example of the fallacy of gender essentialism. Because the sentences are not logical, unless you accept that this woman committed some gross violation against motherhood, which is somehow more monstrous (see @26) than a violation against fatherhood. The man was, after all, in a fathering role, right?
I really don't see how you can argue that, by pointing this out, ECB is "blinded" and sees sexism everywhere. There are very good reasons to suspect the female judge and female jurors were biased in their views.
Now let's compare: she was abused by her husband and abused her daughter; he abused his wife and beat and killed his stepdaughter. She was sentenced to twelve more years in prison, not because she murdered the girl, only because she neglected to prevent it.
There is a stark imbalance here. The judgment does not take into account that she was abused by her husband. The judge and jury nonetheless blamed her for the death, because "she was the mother." Which is why ECB saw this as an example of the fallacy of gender essentialism. Because the sentences are not logical, unless you accept that this woman committed some gross violation against motherhood, which is somehow more monstrous (see @26) than a violation against fatherhood. The man was, after all, in a fathering role, right?
I really don't see how you can argue that, by pointing this out, ECB is "blinded" and sees sexism everywhere. There are very good reasons to suspect the female judge and female jurors were biased in their views.
30
I wouldn't be surprised if the husband had more experience with the "justice" system than the mother, and knew to keep his mouth shut. If you are accused in our system and you don't have a good defense, silence really is golden.
I do think the mother shouldn't have been sentenced that long, but she's not innocent either. She shouldn't have an "extra" obligation as a mother, but she does have some obligation as an adult, as a human being, to have stopped the abuse long before her daughter's death.
Besides just having an academic discussion about the inequities of sentencing, but let's also remember the kids were the real victims. I hope they're in a good place. And locally, people should support CARA and New Beginnings. We need to provide every opportunity as community members to help stop the cycle of abuse.
I do think the mother shouldn't have been sentenced that long, but she's not innocent either. She shouldn't have an "extra" obligation as a mother, but she does have some obligation as an adult, as a human being, to have stopped the abuse long before her daughter's death.
Besides just having an academic discussion about the inequities of sentencing, but let's also remember the kids were the real victims. I hope they're in a good place. And locally, people should support CARA and New Beginnings. We need to provide every opportunity as community members to help stop the cycle of abuse.
31
As has been said before:
1. Different trials
2. Different confessions to different crimes
and to dispel ECB's nonsense about sexism: yes, the law is sex-blind when it comes to the "special obligation" that biological parents have to their children.
You're not legally obligated to save a stranger. You're legally obligated to protect *your* child.
But breathless hysteria about sexism makes for simpler-to-swallow rhetoric.
1. Different trials
2. Different confessions to different crimes
and to dispel ECB's nonsense about sexism: yes, the law is sex-blind when it comes to the "special obligation" that biological parents have to their children.
You're not legally obligated to save a stranger. You're legally obligated to protect *your* child.
But breathless hysteria about sexism makes for simpler-to-swallow rhetoric.
32
I'm having trouble feeling sympathy for either parent. It's the child who has paid the highest price. An innocent little child.
33
@31.
Re: your use of the terms "nonsense" and "breathless hysteria."
You are aware that these are classic examples of sexist language used to marginalize women's arguments, aren't you?
Way to argue your point, AR!
Re: your use of the terms "nonsense" and "breathless hysteria."
You are aware that these are classic examples of sexist language used to marginalize women's arguments, aren't you?
Way to argue your point, AR!
34
"In March, a deeply divided jury convicted Mr. Rodriguez of manslaughter but acquitted him of murder. Justice L. Priscilla Hall sentenced Mr. Rodriguez to the maximum term.
Shortly after Mr. Rodriguez’s trial, jurors said that prosecutors had not proved that Mr. Rodriguez acted with “depraved indifference to human life,” the standard for second-degree murder. Mr. Rodriguez had admitted to the authorities that he had abused Nixzmary, and that he had beaten her severely on the night she died as punishment for jamming his computer printer." (from the nytimes article linked to above).
That makes absolutely no sense. I think what this really boils down to is that they were tried separately, which I believe is fairly common. It seems like one of these trials was handled better than the other - it seems likely a better combination of prosecutor's in the trial of the man could have lead to a murder conviction.
Shortly after Mr. Rodriguez’s trial, jurors said that prosecutors had not proved that Mr. Rodriguez acted with “depraved indifference to human life,” the standard for second-degree murder. Mr. Rodriguez had admitted to the authorities that he had abused Nixzmary, and that he had beaten her severely on the night she died as punishment for jamming his computer printer." (from the nytimes article linked to above).
That makes absolutely no sense. I think what this really boils down to is that they were tried separately, which I believe is fairly common. It seems like one of these trials was handled better than the other - it seems likely a better combination of prosecutor's in the trial of the man could have lead to a murder conviction.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS