Girl allegedly raped, murdered and dismembered by family members on her 10th birthday

The story below, if true, is just horrific.  It also demonstrates that gender is no barrier to horrific and just evil acts.  In this case 2 women and 1 man appear to be involved and the one is her mother:

A mother, a boyfriend and a third person have been arrested in Albuquerque, N.M., after police discovered the burned, dismembered corpse of a 10-year-old girl who was drugged, raped, stabbed, strangled and killed hours before her birthday party…..

According to KOAT, police said Martens and Gonzales confessed Wednesday to injecting the girl with meth “to make her calm down so they could do what they wanted with the little girl.”  (full article here)

Female sex offenders are no different than male sex offenders in that each case, each offender is unique unto themselves.  I am sure that this poor little girl suffered neglect and abuse prior to this incident.


Related Posts:

Community corrections professionals’ attitudes about sex offenders: Is the CATSO applicable?

We have added another study to the Bibliography pages.  This one is:

Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E., & Payne, B. K. (2012). Community corrections professionals’ attitudes about sex offenders: Is the CATSO applicable? Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 25(2), 145-157. doi:10.1080/1478601X.2012.699733


Little is known about how criminal justice officials perceive fairness, efficacy or scope of sex offender registration, community notification procedures, residency restrictions, and beliefs about sex offenders. The present study examines the utility of assessing community corrections professionals’ views of sex offenders using the community attitudes toward sex offenders scale. Evaluation of the applicability of this standardized scale for understanding community corrections professionals’ views reveals problems with the scale’s application.


Related Posts:

Twenty-five year sentence cruel?

In a recent case, People v. Benton,  the Michigan Court of Appeals looked at whether or not a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct constituted cruel or unusual punishment.  The case involved a 12-year-old student.  The defense argued:

the defendant wanted the court to be able to take into account her assertion that she never used force, violence, or coercion and her assertion that she did not physically or psychologically injure her victim.

My question is how does anyone know that there was no psychological injury done?  Psychological problems can manifest days, weeks, months or even years later.  There is also the possibility that she made any existing issues worse.

The next piece is even more telling:

The defendant claimed at trial that her victim’s testimony about his inexperience with condoms created the untrue impression that her victim was sexually inexperienced.

So if a child is “sexually experienced” this in some way makes an offender less responsible?  This was a 12-year-old, not even a teen yet.

Trying to argue that she was less culpable than most other sex offenders because of her method of grooming and abusing her victim was different from some other sexual offenders is, I think, just a way of trying to minimize her actions.  (Thank you to FM for the story tip)


Related Posts: