A recent report from The Clarion-Ledger told an unbelievable story of a homicidal mother who will receive custody of her 9-month-old son. Sheryl Hardy, a former Florida resident, was sent to prison 10 years ago for the death of her 2-year-old-son. Her son died from head injuries sustained while being shoved headfirst into a toilet and beaten with couch cushions, punishment because the child soiled his pants. Judge Thomas Russell of Jerseyville, Ill., rendered the decision to give Hardy custody of the 9-month-old child on Nov. 16. This may be the most ignorant ruling in the history of the American legal system. I have never been more shocked at an article from a newspaper than I was when I read this. How could a person who even claims to be able to think rationally make such a decision? This woman has already been convicted of killing one child, and this judge is giving her the opportunity to do it again. I sure hope the young boy does not soil his pants.
First of all, Hardy should still be in jail. She was convicted of killing a child 10 years ago. Why is she even out on the street? Even in jail, crimes against children are looked down upon. Yet, by the graces of our legal system, this woman served less than 10 years in prison. Do the inmates in jail have higher moral standards than society? I do not think so. I just believe that incompetent judges are making bad decisions. I conclude that utter stupidity has somehow drained into our legal system in the form of judges like Russell.
I believe a person can be rehabilitated in many cases. However, when a murder takes place, one should not put convicted criminals in the same situation again. Now, not only has Hardy been released from prison, but a judge is giving her the chance to commit crime again. Would a decent parent employ a child molester as a babysitter? Of course not, so why make a convicted murderer a mother. It simply makes no sense. A judge should be able to distinguish right from wrong and use reason to decide the type of punishment to fit each crime.
There is no doubt this child will make some mistakes. How will Hardy respond? No one knows, but how she responded in the past is known. Would a different ruling not violate the rights of being a mother? To that, I respond that Hardy is no mother. A mother is someone who cares, nurtures and provides for a child, not someone who abuses and ultimately kills their child. A person loses rights when they kill, and Hardy’s right to motherhood was lost 10 years ago along with her 2-year-old son. What is more important, Hardy’s rights or the life of a 9-month-old baby? It seems unjust that with many good people who want children cannot have their own; a judge would order a convicted murder be given custody of a child.
I do not understand the logic the judge used in making this decision. While I do not know all the details of the case, I do know Hardy took part in killing one child, and now she could do it again. Russell believes she has been reformed. I hope he is right for the sake of a 9-month-old child.