Court: Child-renting sentence too short

From an AP article:

A federal appeals court threw out the 10-year prison sentence of a woman who rented her 9-year-old daughter to a pedophile more than 200 times, saying the punishment was too lenient.

While I find this whole situation rather disturbing, there is something slightly amusing here. The woman who remains nameless to protect her innocent victim - her child, was originally sentenced to 17 1/2 years. This was the minimum sentencing per the sentencing guidelines. When she appealed her case, the appeals court sent it back to the original judge if I read it correctly. They clarified for him that he might have sentenced a shorter time if he had known he was not bound by the guidelines. He then gave a sentence of 10 years which it appears they then threw out because it was too short. I think they disagreed mainly due to his reasoning which was at the least questionable if not completely wrong. In case you missed it which would understandable, the slightly amusing part was that the original sentence was appealed and the appeals court sent it back thinking he might have given a lesser sentence, which when given they threw out for not being long enough. Sorry if it wasn't that funny.

I still think the whole situation is extremely messed up. That's putting it nicely. What kind of mother is this? Not any mother by my reckoning. I am not a woman and therefore not a mother so I suppose I can't judge. I do know a few mothers, including my wife. I would be willing to bet a rather large sum that none of the mothers I know, my own or my wife would condone or even excuse this kind of behavior. I will have to wait for her to read this to see. I think this kid for their own protection should not be allowed anywhere near this mother or her associate. This man, if he can be called that, should be locked away from any kids as well. He is the prime example of the sex offenders that the registrations are meant for. I would hope that there is a siren and a letter going out to everyone anywhere near him when he moves into an area. I don't care if it infringes on his privacy. I am usually not in favor of such things as infringing on privacy. This is a notable exception. You voided your right to that level of privacy when you committed these acts on a nine year old sir. This is not to say that other acts on other kids were not also committed. Suffice it to say, you have earned any punishment that comes your way. I doubt very much that prison will be a safe haven for him. I sure hope not. I think the woman should definitely get at least an equal if not greater sentence to the man here. She is a poor excuse for a human, much less a mother. I guess I'm done venting for now. Sorry if I offended anyone. I hope you will understand.

While I thought I was done venting, my wife read this and spun me up a bit more. Keep in mind folks, she didn't even read the article. I read her the first sentence after the part I quoted and she almost became ill. She was kind enough to point out that this woman has forever changed the life of her child. This child, through no fault of her own, will never be a whole person. At the very best, she will be traumatized horribly for many, many years. At the worst, she could very well become even more sick and twisted than her mother. Just what we need. This woman deserves far more than the original sentence, I think it is quite reasonable for that to be the minimum. Those are good guidelines. They could be much higher and it would be fine with me. How about 200 years for the 200 times? Would that be fair? Not really. You see, the damage is done, no matter how much the woman suffers, it will not undo or 'right' the wrongs done to her child. Hope that helps a little.