Now here's an interesting one. Here's a man that none of us would care to defend, killed a 6 week old baby and deserves, at least, what the judge threw at him.

"How you were able to act in such a wicked and abhorrent manner towards a helpless infant is beyond the understanding of all right-thinking people."

'Wicked' man gets life for murdering baby

But that's not why I'm posting. Look a bit further..

Simpson was charged with assaulting the baby girl on various occasions between November 8 and December 9, seizing hold of her, shaking her and compressing her chest, leaving her so severely injured that she died in hospital in Edinburgh.
...
Lord Uist told Simpson: "This crime did not consist of a single incident arising from a sudden loss of temper on your part but of a repeated course of violence...
"This is an extreme case of repeated physical cruelty to a baby..."
...
[Detective inspector Richie Guild], who led the investigation into the baby's death, said: "Alexis died as a result of injuries inflicted upon her over a period of weeks after her mother moved in with Simpson.
"Evidence heard during the trial indicates there were at least three distinct ages of rib fractures and that Alexis' brain had suffered at least two episodes of trauma.

So, sure, string the guy up or since we're too soft for that lock him up and throw away the key.

But where was the mother?

Aha, hang on, the judge is calling for an inquiry:

In a statement the judge said: "I consider that there are two matters which call for an inquiry with a view to preventing a tragedy such as the one that occurred in this case ever occurring again."

Yes, good!

Lord Uist said three separate drugs had been prescribed for the baby by a doctor following a consultation over the telephone with her mother, without the medic seeing or examining Alexis.

Sure, that doctor needs looking into. This is a child just weeks old, for God's sake!

"Moreover, it must be a matter of concern that a young mother who was seriously concerned about her baby's health and sought an appointment with a doctor on a Thursday was offered one only for the following week."

Sure, let's look into the entire doctor's practice. Actually, while we're at it let's find out what the hell all the medical practitioners, pharmacists, social workers [sic] and even neighbours were doing during this poor kid's short few weeks of life.

But what about the mother?

Aha, here we are:

Ms Sheach recalled: "At first, when Alexis died, I didn't want to believe that anyone could do that sort of thing to a baby..."

What? You didn't notice the bruises around the cracked ribs, the damaged skull, or the screams from a tortured child? Even a first-time mum can't be that blind! (Especially when, in my experience, a first-timer is far more likely to be concerned about minor things, not ignore major things.)

"I trusted Mark because he seemed to know what he was talking about...
"Throughout our time together he never once mentioned any concerns he had with my handling of Alexis"

Run that by me again? He convinced you of his knowledge by keeping silent?

So just what was the mother doing?

Detective inspector Richie Guild of Grampian Police said he hoped the verdict would help Ms Sheach "move on with her life".

Ah, yes, that's it. She shacked up with a man who wasn't the father, she ignored (helped?) as he beat the shit out of the poor baby and she goes free.

At the very least, there should be an inquiry that includes asking what her part was in her baby's death. Even if it can't be proven that she actually assisted in the injuries, she sure as hell didn't prevent them and is complicit.