Kathleen Folbigg will receive a $2 million payment from the New South Wales government. She was wrongly convicted of killing her four children and spent 20 years in prison.

The payment is an ex-gratia payment, meaning it is a payment of grace and goodwill. Ms. Folbigg's lawyer, Rhanee Rego, has stated that the amount is "profoundly unfair and unjust" and "woefully inadequate." She believes the sum does not reflect the pain and suffering Ms. Folbigg endured, including the loss of her children and two decades of her life. Ms. Rego also pointed out that Lindy Chamberlain received $1.7 million for three years in prison, while Ms. Folbigg is offered $2 million for 20 years.

Ms. Folbigg was released from prison last year after receiving a pardon following an independent inquiry. This inquiry heard new scientific evidence suggesting her children may have died from natural causes or a genetic mutation. The children died between 1989 and 1999, at ages ranging from 19 days to 18 months.

A spokesperson for the NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley stated that the decision followed "thorough and extensive consideration" of the materials provided by Ms. Folbigg's legal representatives. The government has agreed not to publicly discuss the details of the decision at Ms. Folbigg's request.

Greens MP Sue Higginson also called the offer "shocking and insulting," suggesting that $2 million barely covers what Ms. Folbigg could have earned in wages over 20 years, not including the loss of her children, home, employability, legal costs, and superannuation. She described the payment as "Go Away" money, reflecting a failure to take responsibility for the injustice inflicted. Ms. Folbigg has spoken about the lasting effects of her incarceration, including anxiety and a lingering sense of caution from her time in prison.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information in this article. It reports on a past event and a government decision, offering no steps or guidance for the reader to take.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by explaining the concept of an "ex-gratia payment" and contrasting the compensation received by Kathleen Folbigg with that of Lindy Chamberlain. It also touches upon the role of new scientific evidence in exonerations. However, it does not delve deeply into the scientific aspects or the legal processes involved in wrongful convictions.

Personal Relevance: The article has limited personal relevance for most individuals. While it highlights a significant injustice, it does not directly impact a reader's daily life, finances, safety, or personal decisions. The discussion of compensation amounts is specific to this case and not a general guide for personal financial planning or legal recourse.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function. It does not offer official warnings, safety advice, emergency contacts, or tools for public use. It is a news report about a specific legal and governmental outcome.

Practicality of Advice: There is no advice or steps provided in the article, so its practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article does not offer advice or information that would have a lasting positive impact on a reader's life in terms of planning, saving, or protection. It reports on a resolved situation.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article may evoke emotions such as sympathy for Ms. Folbigg or frustration with the perceived inadequacy of the compensation. However, it does not provide tools or strategies for readers to manage these emotions or to feel empowered.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven language. The tone is factual and reportorial.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed opportunities to provide more comprehensive information. For instance, it could have explained how individuals can seek redress for wrongful convictions, provided resources for legal aid, or offered more detail on the scientific advancements that led to Ms. Folbigg's release. A normal person could find better information by researching organizations that support victims of wrongful convictions or by consulting legal professionals specializing in such cases.

The story of Kathleen Folbigg and the compensation offered by the New South Wales government raises concerns about the erosion of family bonds and the neglect of personal duties within the community.

The wrongful conviction and subsequent imprisonment of Ms. Folbigg for two decades has caused an irreparable breach in the natural order of family life. It has severed the mother-child bond, leaving a gaping wound that no amount of compensation can truly heal. The children, who died at such young ages, have been robbed of their future and the chance to contribute to the continuity of their clan. This tragedy highlights the vulnerability of children and the sacred duty of parents and kin to protect and nurture the next generation.

The inadequate compensation offered by the government further compounds this breach of trust. It suggests a disregard for the profound loss and suffering experienced by Ms. Folbigg and her family. The sum, as described by her lawyer, fails to recognize the value of a mother's love, the irreplaceable nature of a child's life, and the duty of a community to support and uphold its members. This neglect of responsibility weakens the fabric of the community, eroding the trust and solidarity that are essential for survival.

The comparison to Lindy Chamberlain's compensation is particularly telling. It underscores the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of these payments, which can do little to restore the broken bonds and shattered lives. The offer of $2 million for 20 years of imprisonment, when compared to the $1.7 million for three years, reveals a lack of understanding or respect for the true cost of such injustices.

The lasting effects of Ms. Folbigg's incarceration, including anxiety and a sense of caution, are a reminder of the deep scars that such experiences leave on individuals and families. These scars can hinder the ability to trust, to form new bonds, and to contribute fully to community life. They also highlight the potential intergenerational trauma that can result from such injustices, further undermining the stability and resilience of the community.

The idea that this compensation is a form of "Go Away" money, as described by Sue Higginson, is particularly concerning. It suggests that the government is attempting to buy silence and avoid responsibility for the injustice inflicted. This not only diminishes the value of human life and suffering but also undermines the principles of justice and accountability that are essential for a healthy community.

If such behaviors and ideas spread unchecked, the consequences for families and communities would be dire. The erosion of trust, the neglect of personal duties, and the failure to uphold justice would lead to a fragmented society, unable to protect its most vulnerable members. The continuity of the clan and the stewardship of the land would be at risk, as the bonds that hold families and communities together would be weakened or broken.

In conclusion, the story of Kathleen Folbigg serves as a stark reminder of the importance of personal responsibility, local accountability, and the protection of family bonds. It highlights the need for communities to uphold justice, support their members, and recognize the inherent value of every life. Only by doing so can we ensure the survival and prosperity of our people and the land we call home.

The text uses strong, emotional words to describe the payment as "profoundly unfair and unjust" and "woefully inadequate." This language, attributed to Ms. Folbigg's lawyer, aims to sway the reader's opinion by emphasizing the perceived injustice of the amount. It highlights the disparity between the payment and the length of Ms. Folbigg's imprisonment and suffering.

The text presents a comparison between Ms. Folbigg's payment and Lindy Chamberlain's, stating, "Lindy Chamberlain received $1.7 million for three years in prison, while Ms. Folbigg is offered $2 million for 20 years." This comparison is framed to make the offer to Ms. Folbigg seem insufficient, as it implies a lower per-year payout compared to Ms. Chamberlain. It focuses on the duration of imprisonment to create a sense of unfairness.

The Greens MP's statement that "$2 million barely covers what Ms. Folbigg could have earned in wages over 20 years, not including the loss of her children, home, employability, legal costs, and superannuation" uses a form of argument that focuses on potential lost earnings. This frames the payment as a financial deficit rather than compensation for wrongful imprisonment and suffering. It emphasizes what was lost financially, implying the payment is a poor substitute.

The text uses the phrase "Go Away" money to describe the payment. This is a loaded phrase that suggests the government is trying to dismiss the issue and Ms. Folbigg's suffering without truly addressing the injustice. It implies the payment is a bribe to silence her and avoid further accountability.

The text states the government has "agreed not to publicly discuss the details of the decision at Ms. Folbigg's request." This phrasing, while appearing to respect Ms. Folbigg's wishes, could also be interpreted as the government avoiding public scrutiny of their decision-making process. It hides the government's rationale behind a request from Ms. Folbigg.

The text conveys a strong sense of outrage and injustice regarding the compensation offered to Kathleen Folbigg. This emotion is evident in the lawyer Rhanee Rego's description of the $2 million payment as "profoundly unfair and unjust" and "woefully inadequate." Similarly, Greens MP Sue Higginson calls the offer "shocking and insulting." This outrage is a powerful tool used to highlight the perceived inadequacy of the compensation when compared to the immense suffering Folbigg endured, including the loss of her children and two decades of her life. The purpose of this emotion is to evoke a similar feeling in the reader, prompting them to question the fairness of the situation and to sympathize with Folbigg's plight.

A deep sense of sadness and loss permeates the narrative, stemming from the wrongful conviction and the deaths of Folbigg's children. The text mentions the loss of her children and the "pain and suffering Ms. Folbigg endured," which directly appeals to the reader's empathy. This sadness is not explicitly stated as an emotion but is implied through the description of her circumstances. Its purpose is to create a profound emotional connection with Folbigg, making her story resonate on a personal level and fostering a sense of compassion.

The text also expresses disappointment and frustration with the government's offer. The comparison made by Ms. Rego between Lindy Chamberlain's compensation and Ms. Folbigg's, highlighting a seemingly disproportionate amount for a significantly longer period of wrongful imprisonment, fuels this emotion. This comparison serves to underscore the perceived unfairness of the current offer and to build a case for greater compensation. The writer uses this comparison as a persuasive tool, making the current offer appear even more unreasonable by contrasting it with a previous, albeit different, situation.

Furthermore, there is an underlying emotion of concern for Ms. Folbigg's well-being and the lasting impact of her incarceration. Her own words about "anxiety and a lingering sense of caution" reveal the psychological toll of her experience. This concern is presented to humanize Ms. Folbigg and to emphasize that the consequences of the injustice extend far beyond financial compensation.

The writer employs several techniques to amplify these emotions and persuade the reader. The use of strong, emotionally charged words like "profoundly unfair," "woefully inadequate," "shocking," and "insulting" immediately signals the negative sentiment towards the compensation. The personal story of Ms. Folbigg, detailing her 20 years in prison and the loss of her children, is a powerful narrative tool that elicits sympathy and highlights the human cost of the injustice. The comparison with Lindy Chamberlain's case serves to create a sense of imbalance and to further fuel the reader's outrage. By framing the payment as "Go Away" money, the writer exaggerates the perceived dismissiveness of the government's offer, making it sound even more offensive and reinforcing the idea that the government is not taking full responsibility. These tools work together to shape the reader's reaction, guiding them towards a position of sympathy for Ms. Folbigg and a critical view of the government's actions, ultimately aiming to change their opinion about the fairness of the compensation.