united-states criminal-law any-jurisdiction sentencing child-abuse
What crime(s) was Deedee Blanchard guilty of, and what sentences do they carry (in any jurisdictions)?
<p>Deedee Blanchard was found to have been <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Dee_Dee_Blanchard" rel="nofollow noreferrer">murdered</a> by her daughter and her boyfriend. The daughter was going to receive 30 years imprisonment but upon the court hearing of the crimes to which she has been subjected by her mother which presented the backdrop to Deedee’s murder, they reduced this to 10 years for Gypsy Rose.</p>
<p>Does this suggest that in some sense or other, the crimes of Deedee against her daughter were somehow “worth” 20 years of imprisonment?</p>
<p>Regardless, if Deedee’s abuse of Gypsy Rose had occurred in any given jurisdiction (first and foremost her own in the US), what would she have been guilty of, and what sort of sentences might she have expected to receive?</p>
<p>I’m most  interested in the likely sentences in the U.S., including any states folks may especially know about, and then England &amp; Wales, and then any other European or other global jurisdictions.</p>
<hr/> 
<p>It’s really hard to encapsulate the extent of the depravity of Deedee’s abuse of her daughter, but it amounted to insisting to her and to society that she was terminally ill and spuriously subjecting her to copious harmful medical treatments, not allowing her to stand or  walk out of her wheelchair, socialise, live normally, and forcing her to be very malnourished.</p>

<p>I am addressing only a detail of the question, but I think it is important.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does this suggest that in some sense or other, the crimes of Deedee against her daughter were somehow “worth” 20 years of imprisonment?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No.</p>
<p>For most countries(*) criminal procedures are not a matter of revenge or settling the scores. They are not something between the criminal who caused the damage and the victim who suffered the damage, but between the criminal who broke a law and the state that established that law and wants it enforced.</p>
<p>The opinion of the victim is, theoretically(*2), not important. It does not matter if they pardon the criminal or even if they think that they deserved the crime, the state should prosecute the criminal nonetheless. A very usual example is marital violence; many jurisdictions have guidelines forcing the state to prosecute even if the victim does not want to press charges.</p>
<p>So, how long could Deedee Blanchard have been convicted to has no relation at all with those twenty years that you claim were &quot;reduced.&quot;</p>
<p>And from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Dee_Dee_Blanchard" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the WP page</a> it seems that she pleaded guilty, which means that a deal was reached with the DA. She got a reduced sentence, the DA ensured a conviction. Nothing out of the ordinary here.</p>
<p>Maybe the DA thought that the case against her was weak and not good enough to pursue a first-degree murder accusation. Maybe the DA thought the mother abuse could be used as part as a successful insanity defense. Perhaps the DA even feared the jury showing some sympathy for her.</p>
<p>We cannot tell, so the whole &quot;was going to receive 30 years imprisonement&quot; thing is just your opinion.</p>
<p>*1 And certainly all Western countries.</p>
<p>*2 At a practical level, if the victim does not want to press charges, it can help the criminal as either the prosecution feels that they will not be able to get evidence without the victim's testimony, or because they want to concentrate their resources on other crimes. But theoretically it would not matter.</p>
