Man gets 20 years for baby's death...

[Wicker Man]

Once again Jim youre playing in a different ballpark. You Brits have Iron Maiden, Judas Priest and Black Sabbath...We have American Idol. 🙁

 

[BigJim]

Once again Jim youre playing in a different ballpark. You Brits have Iron Maiden, Judas Priest and Black Sabbath...We have American Idol. 🙁

Indeed. You give us JFK, McDonalds, baseball and hot dogs and we take them to our hearts. We give you John Lennon and........ erm...

 

[Wicker Man]

Oooooh! You sure know how to de-nationalize a guy dontcha Jim! Just make sure you purchase Angel of Retribution by Judas Priest (althought im sure you already have it)! I bet Priest are like the Beatles in Britain. Man, Freddie Mercury said the taxes are way too high God rest his soul otherwise id be asking you about real estate offers! 😀

 

[Mimi]

Mmm. Sorry Jimbo and Cozzie. I love you two dearly, but I'm on the "punishment should fit the crime" side with this case. Maybe it's because I'm a big softie and I feel all crimes against children and animals and those unable to defend themselves should carry much MUCH more severe punishments than they currently do, but this guy got off FAR too easy. Life in prison would have been much more appropriate.

I'm not gonna say the death penalty in this case, though. It was not intentional murder, as negligent as it may have been. Besides, his fellow prisoners will see to his "justice" when they learn he is in for a child related crime. Gotta love living in a country where even the criminals have enough morals to want to remove scum to hurt children from our society permanently.

Mimi

 

[BigJim]

Oooooh! You sure know how to de-nationalize a guy dontcha Jim! Just make sure you purchase Angel of Retribution by Judas Priest (althought im sure you already have it)! I bet Priest are like the Beatles in Britain. Man, Freddie Mercury said the taxes are way too high God rest his soul otherwise id be asking you about real estate offers! 😀

Not only do the taxes reach double yours, but gasoline is the equivalent of $6 a gallon.

 

[BigJim]

Mmm. Sorry Jimbo and Cozzie. I love you two dearly, but I'm on the "punishment should fit the crime" side with this case. Maybe it's because I'm a big softie and I feel all crimes against children and animals and those unable to defend themselves should carry much MUCH more severe punishments than they currently do, but this guy got off FAR too easy. Life in prison would have been much more appropriate.

I'm not gonna say the death penalty in this case, though. It was not intentional murder, as negligent as it may have been. Besides, his fellow prisoners will see to his "justice" when they learn he is in for a child related crime. Gotta love living in a country where even the criminals have enough morals to want to remove scum to hurt children from our society permanently.

Mimi

Et tu?


I guess it depends on perspective. 20 years is one hell of a savage prison sentence to be given out. I've rarely heard higher ones for any crime. Here of course life imprisonment is mandatory for murder, so we don't get the 99 year sentences you guys do, but a sentence as long as that for any crime without a mandatory sentence is rare as rocking horse apples.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

we'll have to agree to disagree Mimi. I don't think an accidental death can be compared with an intentional killing.

 

[Mimi]

we'll have to agree to disagree Mimi. I don't think an accidental death can be compared with an intentional killing.

If it were a complete accident, I'd have to agree with you Cozzie. But he intentionally neglected the child, and his purposeful negligence caused the childs death. That's far from purely accidental, and he should be served a stiffer punishment for not only causing that childs death, but for causing it to suffer immeasurably before it finally died.

This is why people should have to undergo mental, intellectual, and psychological testing before being allowed to have children. If you're stupid enough to leave a baby in a sweltering hot vehicle, ALONE, for most of an entire day, with the window barely cracked, you should be denied the right to be a parent. For petes sake, children have more sense than this guy did. He's too stupid to walk the streets.

Mimi

 

[Cosmo_ac]

i can't say from what i've seen there was intentional neglect. Yes, they did intentionaly leave the child in the car, but i don't see that as an intent for neglect. I think more then likely this person was a gambling addict. Just like a drug addict or an alcoholic, this is a disease, and can have tragic consequences. For this, while i can see him deserving punishment, i'm not ready to throw him to the mob.

 

[Wicker Man]

Regardless this piece of shit is gonna die ala Jeffrey Dahmer in jail because convicts hate cops and child killers in prison. Someone in this thread maybe Jim said its sad that we have to rely on our prisons to dole out justice, interesting point but we have no choice, thats the prison code. There gonna have to put this jerk in solitary confinement or he wont last 2 months. Guaranteed!

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Preposterous Arguments Regarding Child Murder

I only have one question for you Jim,

Whether it was accidental or intentional, is the child any less dead? Nothing will ever bring this child back. It's so incredibly unnecessary that it boils my blood to even read! He put his gambling habit over the life of an innocent child and now the child is dead. It is irrefutable and irreversible! Twenty years really isn't enough for him to live incarcerated with nothing but his thoughts. Whatever the length of time he lives his sentence, it's longer than he gave this child to live, isn't it? I don't think he deserves mercy when he didn't give any. Whatever happens to him while in prison, happens.

I have one answer for you; you are being simple minded. You are using emotiveness instead of logic and you are using gut-reaction instead of justice. Using what you just passed for logic you'd also hand out life imprisonment or the death penatlty if a parachutist crashed through a greenhouse roof and broke the neck of a pensioner polishing his tomatoes. You are far too ready to hand out punishment. Like a great deal of America you seem to relish the idea of punishing the criminal more than providing a safe society for the innocent. Like many of the "hang em and flog em" brigade you've yet to provide an explanation of why the country that is harshest in it's justice and sentencing than anywhere else in the First World (indeed it has worse standards than many second and third world countries - especially on the humanitarian front) has the worst crime rates and the most divisive internal troubles.

Anywhere else in the First World this crime would have probably received half the sentence it did in America, if that. I actually asked my father, after describing the facts of the case what he would have given the guy if he'd been a judge. My old man is uber-conservative and pretty much in line with conservative things. He supports the death penalty, thinks we were right to invade Iraq and would replace the Virgin Mary with a poster of Maggie Thatcher. He would have given the guy ten years with a reccomendation that he serve no less than than seven. And this coming from a guy who makes the Conservative Party look like communists!

I re-iterate: Negligence, no matter how emotively charged the subject and how vulnerable the innocent victim, is NOT murder. With such an attitude prevalent it is no surprise to me that there is so much hate, blood, guts, and strife tearing the country apart.

 

[BigJim]

If it were a complete accident, I'd have to agree with you Cozzie. But he intentionally neglected the child, and his purposeful negligence caused the childs death. That's far from purely accidental, and he should be served a stiffer punishment for not only causing that childs death, but for causing it to suffer immeasurably before it finally died.

This is why people should have to undergo mental, intellectual, and psychological testing before being allowed to have children. If you're stupid enough to leave a baby in a sweltering hot vehicle, ALONE, for most of an entire day, with the window barely cracked, you should be denied the right to be a parent. For petes sake, children have more sense than this guy did. He's too stupid to walk the streets.

Mimi

Being stupid on it's own isn't a crime Meems. Being stupid to the point of causing harm to someone else, as in this case, is of course. But it makes me desperately sad to see a streak in people that's bordering on the vengeful.


To reply to something Kis said, yes, the kid is dead and irreversibly so. Nothing can bring him back. Indeed not, not even putting this guy's knob on a stick in the middle of the town square. Slaking our desire to see revenge on a person who is undoubtedly a moron won't do any good, it won't serve any cause that isn't ignoble. This guy is unlikely to ever be let near a kid again, let alone have one of his own. He isn't a danger, nor is he intentionally a criminal. Stringing him up for the crows just allows people to take a savage joy in the sight of seeing him stripped of all humanity and that is a desperately sad backward step for the civillised.


I'm usually pretty detached from discussion here, at least emotionally so. But I can't convey just how upset I am reading some of the comments that have appeared here. No shit, I am as close to tears as I can get.

 

[BigJim]

This is why people should have to undergo mental, intellectual, and psychological testing before being allowed to have children.
Mimi

Would this mean sterilisation at birth that is reversed when you successfully apply for a parenthood license, or just a fine if you had a kid without being authorised?

 

[Wicker Man]

I love that argument "killing him wont bring the baby back" Newsflash: "Letting this gambling child-murder live aint gonna bring the child back either!" As Vincent Bugliosi once said "No punishment we can give in this court room can bring the victims back...does this mean we shouldnt seek to punish the individuals for this crime?" And you know who Bugliosi put behind bars! Hey why dont we let Manson out? He was in jail since 1970 isnt that enough? You know he wasnt at the crime scenes and to this day claims hes innocent. You people are gonna have to learn that fear (yes fear) is the only deterrent to crime and a 20 year sentence does not provoke enough fear to stop the gambling child-killer from placing his kid in the trunk and putting down 10 bucks at Belmont again! Gotta admit reading these liberal "right to life" arguments are getting me pissed so perhaps I should unsubscribe to this argument before I make enemies of some nice people. Moderators, this belongs in the P&R forum although ive never been there.

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Preposterous Arguments Regarding Child Murder

Simple-mindeness comes from simple facts:

My hopes aren't high... 🙁

he's a selfish, narcisstic addict who's addictions cost the life of an innocent child.

Yes, that I agree with and have already stated as such. Redundant comment. (I should know, I'm a master at them.)

A drunkard drinks to excess, gets behind the wheel of a car, and takes out an innocent child. A crack addict needs a fix, so he robs a store and shoots a child dead in the process. Do you feel sorry for him?

Not particularly. Not at all in fact. Like many of the judgemental right you confuse me with a criminal-lover, when in fact I loath the sons of bitches. I just choose to practice humanity towards all, not just the ones it's easy to love. You have a huge capacity for love I'd guess from reading you say things in other threads, but in matters of justice you're firmly embedded in the eighteenth century.

Doesn't his irresponsible actions deserve to be dealt with? It's all the same whether it be the examples I mentioned, or a man consumed with own gambling lust suffocating a child to death?

Yes they, do and yes it is. Well, the drug addict shooting dead a child by accident during a robbery is much more serious in my opinion than a gambling addict neglecting his child, but your other examples hold true in this respect. Again, if you'd bothered reading what I've written in this thread instead of just assuming I'm a limp leftie because I'm not as judisiously psychotic as you, you'd know this. This man was a cretinous idiot and as nelgectful in parental responsibility as it is possible to imagine without the situation being protracted. He deserves a severe punishment. He got one.

It's still murder and he still deserves the stiffist "punishment" mentionable.

Madam, you have less logic than a child having a tantrum and you're quite, quite wrong. I know the definition of murder better than most round here, but I nevertheless have just double-checked it word for word...

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another.

In other words, you need to have planned it beforehand and you need to have done it on purpose. He did neither and it being a vulnerable child who was the victim of his selfish idiocy doesn't make it any different. More repgunant to the caring person's mind yes, but not different in the eyes of the law. THAT is a fuh-fuh-fact!

He won't be able to do that to anyone else, will he? Sounds pretty logical to me too. How's that for emotion vs. logic?

Using that logic then you'd put to death anyone who does something harmful to society on the basis that they can't do it again? Congratulations, you've joined the ranks of Genghis Kahn, Atilla the Hun, Uncle Adolph of strange tasche fame, every vigillante who's ever existed and the butler who made Elvis's coffee on THAT morning.

He could've found a babysitter. He could have done a myriad of other decisions that would've led to the child living instead of dying. Being an addict out of control comes with consequences, even being in jail!

Yep, I agree with all of that, again you'd realise it if your righteousness-visor hadn't dropped down and made me look like how you picture a leftie.

It happens to drug and alcohol addicts everyday, why should I feel any differently for him? This was so unavoidable that I'm emotionally charged-you better believe it!

An alcoholic I'd put this on a par with because it's about irresponsibility and choice. They don't have to drive and the horse man could have found alternative arrangements. The drug addict is a more serious situation because if you go armed for a robbery, you accept more than responsibility. You go at least half expecting to deliberately end a life. The only time it's different is if you take the weapon, but no ammunition. Still a crime, but the premeditation is absent.

However, the law says that if someone dies as the result of your negligence, you should be punished! I didn't say it, the law did and twenty years is twenty more than the child will ever have. None of your eloquent philosophical banter will change that FACT!

No, but again you're being emotive, talking claptrap and trying to pass it as reason. I didn't dispute anything in the above quote; indeed, I've already agreed with all of it.

The child is still dead and he shouldn't be allowed a comfortable life as a result.

He isn't getting one he's in jail, as he should be. Despite what some extremists like yourself purport, being in prison is not comfortable. It's shitty, it's drafty, the walls themselves stink, everyone else is an arsehole and the food is slop. British prisons feed a prisoner on less than a quid fifty a day. Most prison riots have been about the state of the food, not the governor being on the take. So those three square meals yourself and other hang em-and-flog em members prate on about as if they're caviar, champagne and truffles are there to sustain life, nothing more. Certainly not a luxury.

This isn't some gut or knee-jerk reaction. This is the response of a mother who can relate to a mother who just lost her child over NOTHING!

Number four...

If you want to scream the emotional woman garbage, I have absolutely no problem with admitting to what God put in me naturally and what many men have used to attempt to control me. You're thoroughly missing the bottom line-a child is dead at the hands of her/his own. That's heinous by anyone's standards and it deserves no mercy from me.

I screamed the emotion garbage certainly, but your sex doesn't come into it. You're the most vociferous of the females in this debate, the only three who come close to your level are male, so please don't try and paint me as some sort of patronising chauvanist arsehole because I'm not that anymore than I am a racist.

You're not dealing with all the realities here and want to factualize a human being. You're thoroughly missing the bottom line-a child is dead at the hands of her/his own. That's heinous by anyone's standards and it deserves no mercy from me.

Madam I'm not missing that at all. I can't be as I've addressed it six or seven times prior even to this exchange. You however are thoroughly missing the point that there are degrees to everything be it robbery, negligence, death, sexually motivated murder or a rape. A man who raids a bank and shoots dead the woman behind the counter because she's too slow putting the money in the bag is a worse creature than the one who goes out for lunch, get's pissed out of his head to forget his shitty job and mows said teller down in the road on her way back to the bank from HER lunch break. Both are cretinous in their own way, but pre-meditated murder cannot be compared to vehicular homicide or aggravated manslaughter actioned by extreme negligence.

 

[BigJim]

I love that argument "killing him wont bring the baby back" Newsflash: "Letting this gambling child-murder live aint gonna bring the child back either!"

That isn't the point and never has been. A judicial punishment, whatever it may be is there to punish a law-breaker and if necessary keep them away from the public. People are advocating the death penalty here for a mistake, not a wilful act. It's a horrendous, unforgiveable mistake certainly. I can't imagine one more purely stupid, selfish or retarded, but it wasn't pre-meditated and it wasn't murder.

As Vincent Bugliosi once said "No punishment we can give in this court room can bring the victims back...does this mean we shouldnt seek to punish the individuals for this crime?"

No it doesn't. Happily there has been no participant of this thread who's suggested such an idiotic thing. The only thing we're contesting is that the death penalty should'nt be extended to crimes other than murder or particularly horrific rapes. I feel Wick that like who feel as strongly as you do over something, you virtually demonise those who don't agree with you, putting them in your mind right up the other end of the spectrum. Actually I'm half way along it.

He was in jail since 1970 isnt that enough? You know he wasnt at the crime scenes and to this day claims hes innocent.

Some people might claim it is, especially considering he could claim diminished responsibility because of his arse being regularly invaded over a period of years by ...... oh yeah, the people responsibile for caring for him. Interesting you should think of Charles Manson, because no case illustrates more that overly zealous vengeance in justice is counter-productive.

Personally I'd keep him where he is because every time I've seen him on the TV he's come across as being totally fucking crackers. That's another matter altogether though. where's ElectricEye when you need him?

You people are gonna have to learn that fear (yes fear) is the only deterrent to crime and a 20 year sentence does not provoke enough fear to stop the gambling child-killer from placing his kid in the trunk and putting down 10 bucks at Belmont again!

I'd like to see anyone make a selfish bollocks up like this, spend 20 years in prison and then think twice before doing it again. Such a carefree attitude calls for detention in a secure asylum, let alone prison!

Gotta admit reading these liberal "right to life" arguments are getting me pissed so perhaps I should unsubscribe to this argument before I make enemies of some nice people. Moderators, this belongs in the P&R forum although ive never been there.

The thread can't go there just because the debate has gone into a temper spiral and that's what we normally assosciate P&R with. Granted, Myr or someone else might do such, but I don't think that qualifies personally. You're free to disagree.

I'm no right-to-life member and never will be. I just don't respond to every problem with the hangman's noose and hope the most exerting efforts will bring the most rewarding results. That's the way the middle-ages were governed and I have no desire to return there. I agree this prick should be punished and be punished frigging hard! I just don't agree with your extreme methods.


P.S. WM, don't ever be pissed that people disagree with you. It doesn't mean they're bad and it doesn't even mean you don't have an awful lot of common ground with them. We do agree on ninty-odd per cent of this debate. It's just the sentence we disagree on.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

It'sd nopt like this man parked his car in a garage and left it unattended for several hours. He continued to check up on the child, apparently, so it obviously shows concern for the child. The probem in this case is that the damage being done to the child was not something that could be seen. If it was something he could have seen, he probably would have done something. I'm not saying what this man did was right by any standards, but lets not make it into somethings it';s not, and it's not a man intentional killing his child. He made a costly mistake. Just like a parent who shakes there child a little too hard and accidently kills them.
There was no intent to cause harm here. The mans a moron, but not a monster.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Hmmm... somewhere down the line this went from a logical debate to an emotional uproar. While I don't totally agree with your side, BigJim and Cosmo, I commend you for taking the more level-headed approach to this debate.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

intent makes a huge difference Kis. In fact, some would say it makes all the difference. If it was a case where a guy was beating his child, and she died because of one of his blows, and he didn't intend for her to die, this would be another case. Who? Because there was the intent to hurt the child. Thats not the case here. The man says, i don't know anymore then Lime posted,he went several times to check on the infant. This obviously shows concern. It just doesn't show intelegence and forsight.

As far as the baby shaking, i brought that up as a comparison. I'm not talking about picking the baby out and shaking it at arms length like your shaking up your best friends beer. Babies are extremely fragile, and it doesn't take much to harm them in some ways. Once again there's no intent to harm the baby, but because the person was reckless, or what have you, the baby died.

Your right about one thing though Kis, the Baby is dead, and it's not coming back. I can't argue that, nor would i try. I'm just not ready to condem another life for an accident. One life has already been destroyed, i see little point in destroying another.

 

[natural tickler]

However, I do think this whole case has to be determined by wrecklessness vs negligence, and then to determine intent. I think that's the key word: intent😀

 

[BigJim]

Big Jim,

I got through as much of your post as I could without inducing nausea. I didn't call you a racist-I can only assume you're intelligent enough of a man to know that. Maybe you were responding out of EMOTION rather than logic because there is nothing backing that up.

You certainly didn't accuse me of being a racist, which is why I bought the word up. It's well established between you and me (we've talked about many things that have involved one sort of racial question or another) that I think racists are morons with no two brain cells to rub together. It's why I mention it in the same breath as something else I'm not. I wasn't denying being a racist, I was comparing the two.

Your approach is way too antiseptic for me and obviously many of us on this forum are not as evolved as you. You are the only one who has no passion and treats the life of this child as almost non-human.

Tis a flat-out untruth and almost as offensive as if I HAD been called a racist! Just because I don't demand public executions for all and sundry does not mean I'm uncaring and regard a dead child as an "object"! There is a world of difference between having my baser desires for ultimate revenge under control and not having regard for what most decent people would think of as the ultimate tragedy!

This type of incident is going to evoke passions from people around the country, especially parents. My suggestion is simply DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!

I have done so, equably better than most. This comment smack of being a go home line from a wrestling promo than a legitimate argument. Reminds me of the time Boy George was in the A-Team.

No-body messes with the A-Team.

So there!

Obviously sir, you are the voice of complete wisdom so you'll just have to tolerate the rest of us that know the man caused the death of a baby in order to get his gambling "funky" off. He doesn't deserve mercy, nor will he get any once he gets behind bars. I don't make prison justice, I just obey the law so I don't end up having to deal with it. He should've done the same and whatever happens while he's there should be considered self-inflicted. I can sling mud and call names, but that is an exercise ignorant people participate in and it takes away from the truth-he's irresponsible, selfish, self-centered and those are qualities every murder has!

I know it just as much as you do. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise when the posts that havn't been arguing with you have been condemning him to Hades and back. And how the smeg do you have the face to mention the word "ignorance" in the same breath as yet again erroneously referring to this as murder, when it FACTually isn't and has never been considered such by the authorities?

This would be the part of this thread that I will simply agree to disagree because I am a passionate emotional being and very proud of it. It's what God gave me and every woman with a pulse, so when people tell me I'm emotional, I tell them "thank you!" Men have a habit of saying that to women as if it were something to be ashamed of. So now you know it's not something that bothers me in the least. Being accused of calling you a racist is offensive and I would think that after almost two years on this forum, you'd know better.

I see where some of this misunderstanding has arisen. We'll forget the racism comment for the moment, because that was a regretable mis-understanding on your part.



There is world of difference between having emotions and being emotive. At least in this case there is. Emotions are a natural reaction to anyone with aforesaid two braincells and working heart. Mine were horror, being appauled, sorry and deep regret for the waste of two lives, especially the child's. They were deeper than the sorrow I'd have had as a reaction to the murder of another adult, even though that is also tragic.

But that doesn't mean I would let that affect my judgement as so many others obviously have. It being an especially tragic case doesn't make the decision any different and I hugely resent the implication that what some might call reasonableness is cold-bloodedness. It isn't and it never will be. It's reason, compassion and dare I say it without being hooted to the Havens for being a raving, communistic, pot-smoking, long-haired hippy with halitosis... love. That last emotion lets me see that murder is murder and negligence is negligence and that to see otherwise is totally losing focus on the world. It may horrify decent kid-loving folks anywhere, but there bar the Grace of God go any of us! I doubt many would stoop to the selfish depths this guy in particular has, but every one of us has been negligent at some point or another. My own father was one of the most patient and effortful parents I could name, but he was negligent in letting me too near his saw when I was a kid and I lost part of one of my fingers. A few inches difference and it would have been my radial artery in my wrist and I could've bled to death. That wasn't selfish of him in the same way as this guy, but it was negligent. Would you have let him off with only hard labour?

I'm also an intelligent college-degreed woman who graduated with a 3.6 gpa who can make decisions for herself. I don't need a mob mentality to carry me through. I read, digest, and post-I've never cared if anyone liked it or not! Yeah, and vociferous doesn't even begin to cover it! Seemingly right or wrong, I stand by what I say even if I have to stand by myself. That is a quality more people should obtain and stop being so gullible!

Myself by comparison, was ejected from school at 15 and have fewer academic qualifications than a laboratory rat. Perhaps I was the lucky one. Who knows? Without an education I have no idea what a 3.6 gpa is, but I have a higher IQ than Einstein allegedly did. Isn't worth shit of course. 🙁

God forbid I hope something like this never lands on your doorstep. If you ever found yourself in this situation, would you be so subdued and factual? Or would you be enraged like so many others (including myself) here? You're the one who's being unrealistic and extremely short sighted, not me.

No chance in hell would I be clinical or reasonable. I would first of all be a complete wreck and virtually insensate and then I would metamorphose into a ragin, lumbering caveman who would have to be restrained by eating the person in question alive (with farva beans and a nice chianti).

I would like to point out (again) that I am already enraged at what was done to this girl. If I'd found the guy I would probably have battered him to within an inch of his last breath. Our only disagreement is that you'd hang him without a second though and I find that appauling under any circumstances because it achieves nothing and has been proved so. It's especially appauling here because it's become apparent that you'd include many other things in the bracket of capital crimes than already exist.

It's stupid to compare me to Khan, Hitler, and others. That must've been another one of your emotional moments. That was pretty much a cross between a misplaced lob and a cheap shot! Careful Jim, you're emotional side is beginning to show!

If it was a lob, it was what my old man would have called "a tickler". (Now there's irony for you!) A high one intended for effect rather than a serious attempt to score on the baseline.

And I've never been afraid to show my emotions as many could testify. But I do temper mine, even, nay especially! when the circumstances are as extreme as this. IF you looked at it in a religious manner, it would be Jesus telling someone it was more important to love your enemies than your friends and family because it's easy to love those you like, but difficult with people that don't deserve it. I feel only by leading by example and giving things to people who don't deserve them will we ever evolve. I remember one black lady whose son was lynched by two young dickheads from the KKK. As they were led out of court one of them broke down and she stood up and hugged him and told him she forgave him because he had showed great regret during the trial.

Now that is leading by example. THAT is an evolved person. That is a role-model. Forgiveness and mercy doesn't mean they get away scott-free, it just means control, love and temperance. It means exercising the hand of punishment while it's curled into a fist, not wielding a baseball bat with a nail pounded through the end of it.

And I'm not extreme right-wing anything. I didn't put any of them in office and don't support them in the least. I believe in the punishment befitting to the crime especially if it costs someone their life. I don't believe twenty years will be enough. The man committed a crime that killed someone. Be it with a shotgun or a suffocation in a car, the child IS STILL VERY DEAD AND NOTHING WILL BRING HER BACK, WILL IT????

And intent means nothing to you? Of course not, you've already answered that question. Others would disagree.

We can have all the back-and-forth debate we want, but the SIMPLE MINDED FACT of the matter is someone died needlessly. Someone was a mother, and now is not. No amount of punishment is severe enough in my book.

The true simple fact is that this was not murder, or even a killing. It was wanton negligence of a not uncommon kind that ended in tragedy. Another simple fact is that you can't get past that legal f-a-c-t because a helpless child was involved. Many people the country over have been equally negligent, but they were lucky because a cloud went over the sun. They weren't any less of a prick than this bloke. Someone who actually commits a murder has something in common with all murderers. This man doesn't. Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert. Dic mihi solum facta, domina.

 

[ticklemad]

I have been sat here reading this thread with absolute amazement.

Whatever happened to rational thinking? Jesus if you guys were ever on a jury you'd have folk hung just from the indictment. Seems to me one of the very few people speaking any sense here is Big Jim and yet you condemn his opinion and attack his character for it - why not open your minds to what he is actually saying, step back from the emotion of it all and look at the facts for a minute. Dont attack him when you know little about him. This guy could not be more caring and sensitive if he tried and I would trust him implicity with my life. He is my closest confidant on here and the person I always turn to when I need a rational angle on something.

Yes a child is sadly dead - that cant be changed, but is the child the only victim here? The father did not Murder the child, it was not pre-meditated, there was no intent. He had been stupidly negligent yes, but not totally uncaring as he had made regular previous checks on the child. Is not the fact that he has been imprisoned and will have to live with this for the rest of his life punishment enough? An eye for an eye proves and solves and does nothing in society other than breed hatred and contempt for one another. Whatever happened to 2 wrongs dont make a right?

A dog can die in under 3 minutes during heat locked in a car with inadequate ventilation - would you also wish to hang the owner of said dog whose owner was on their way back by car from taking it for a lovely walk yet stopped off for snacks at the store and had to wait in the queue to pay that bit too long. Does it matter if the life is human or animal, a life is a life after all. Should we hang all women who chose to abort their unborn child because they slept with someone and failed to take precautions? that is far more Murderous a crime than what this father did to his child IMO.

Would I have hung my rapist who got me pregnant and then left me to be beaten later to the extent I lost my baby and am unable to have children now - No I wouldn't because I am not the only victim here and neither is that fathers baby.

You have to get things into perspective.

Have your opinions - but dont attack others for theirs

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Ticklemad, your a better human then most, and i applaud you. Though you lose points for not commenting on my speaking common sesne 😉

 

[Iggy pop]

I am reluctant to post here, but I guess I will anyway. I agree with Jim, Cosmo, and Mad. Intent is what are murder laws are based on and there is reason for it. Nobody is saying this guy should have been let go, but I'm not ready to join the mob mentatlity and start lynching people from trees just yet.

 

[Wicker Man]

I HATE to use this argument but you guys asked for it...hey, what if this was your kid who suffocated so this "gentleman" could catch the daily double? Would you be begging on your knees for his life to be spared? HED BE LAUGHING HIS ASS OFF AT YOU FOR 2O YEARS AND THE REST OF HIS LIFE AFTER THAT BELIEVE ME!!!!! Now ill save my emotions for the Yankees/Red Sox opener next sunday which the Sox winning the 2004 World Series is an almost as bad crime. 😡