State Appeals Lenient One-Year Sentence for Father Convicted of Infant Abuse
The State Attorney's Office appealed to the Supreme Court against a one-year prison sentence given to a father convicted of severely abusing his infant son by choking him until he lost consciousness.
The State Attorney's Office appealed to the Supreme Court on Sunday against the lenient sentence of a father convicted of severely abusing his infant son, beginning when the baby was just one month old, and sentenced to one year in prison.
According to the verdict, the father choked his son until he lost consciousness in order to stop him from crying and to put him to sleep. The State Attorney's Office argues that the sentence does not reflect the severity of the acts and is demanding a significant increase.
The Method of Inducing Sleep
For several months, the father abused his son through pinching, biting, and shaking. When the baby cried in the evening, the father would place two fingers on his neck and press until he lost consciousness for several seconds and stopped crying. The court determined that the father turned choking his infant son into a regular method to put him to sleep.
The Jerusalem District Court established that the appropriate sentencing range stood between two and four years in prison, but decided to deviate from it due to rehabilitation considerations and the passage of time, sentencing the father to 12 months in prison. This occurred despite the prosecution's request for a five-year prison term.
In the appeal filed by attorney Yitzhak Pardman from the Criminal Department of the State Attorney's Office, it was argued that the court erred both in determining the sentencing range and in its decision to deviate from it. The prosecution emphasizes that this involves repeated abuse of a helpless infant, exploiting his absolute dependency on his father and placing his life in real danger.
Contempt for the Offenses
The prosecution further asserts that there was no justification for leniency based on rehabilitation grounds, noting that the father denied the acts throughout the trial, some professionals treating him failed to recognize their severity, and no probation officer report was submitted. The court itself raised doubts regarding the extent to which the father internalized the severity of his actions and his responsibility for them.
The State Attorney's Office stresses that the father's actions placed the infant in real mortal danger, which "by a miracle did not materialize." According to the prosecution, a sentence of only one year in prison under these circumstances "constitutes genuine contempt for the offenses of abusing and assaulting a minor by a responsible party." Consequently, the prosecution is asking the Supreme Court to accept the appeal and substantially increase the father's sentence.
