Talk:Murder of Nadine Lockwood

Untitled
Why did the mother get 15-to-life, and the father get 25-to-life? Most of the US Judicial System favors the mother over the father when it comes to custody of children (in the false belief that it's more important to have the mother as custodian). By their logic, shouldn't the mother have gotten a greater sentence than the father??? Or was there something different about what he did to the poor kid that merited a greater sentence? Or was it just 'blind justice' being hypocritical?
 * I don't understand it either. The mother was clearly the murderer. While the father apparently did little (if anything) to stop the abuse and therefore deserves punishment, it appears that he didn't perform any of the actual abuse himself. The question is, why did he get a harsher sentence than that of the known and confessed murderer? It's damn stupid, if you ask me. I'd have given him fifteen and her a minimum of life without parole. -- El Payaso Malo 99.36.205.22 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)