Justice??? You call this justice????? HA!

Here's the story of a very NOT lovely lady:
A woman goes to a video poker house in the early summer of 1998 (in South Carolina). She leaves her infant daughter strapped in her car seat in a CLOSED CAR!!!!! The child dies within two hours of dehydration. The woman, who's afraid her husband will get upset with FOR PLAYING VIDEO POKER, leaves the establishment. SHE HASN'T NOTICED her child is dead!!!!! In fact, she doesn't notice that the child is not breathing unitl 11:00 that night!!!!!
She takes the child to the hospital, but it's way too late. She is arrested for involuntary manslaughter and is jailed. Today, after entering a guilty plea, she is sentenced to TIME SERVED and 5 YEARS PROBATION!!!!! In a picture in the local paper, she and a friend can be seen SMILING and LAUGHING after leaving the courtroom.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?????

Sorry for the screaming caps, but I just cannot fathom this whole thing! Anybody else out there come across such a travesty?

I haven't seen anything this insane since the woman (also in South Carolina) drown her two children because her supposed boyfriend once mentioned he didn't like kids.

If you were the judge, what would YOUR sentence for this woman be??

Hmmmm. Wind her up tight with barbed wire, pour sugar on her and let loose the fire ants.

It's amazing that some people spend more time in prison for things like marijuana or paraphernalia possession than murdering a child. Or murdering anyone for that matter.

Unbelievable...yet, so believable. People in general are stupid, selfish, thoughtless, ignorant, foolish, and generally not worth the space they take up.

As a rule.



------------------
Stoidela

******Boycott shampoo! Demand REAL poo!******

Hey, at least the judge made sure that lady served some time. What about that woman who killed eight of her children and was only given probation?

Just out of curiosity, was this woman white?

------------------
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.

The knee jerk reaction is to ask for the death penalty. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but it's definately stupidity here and not malice. The Susan Smith thing where she tried to commit suiside by driving her car into a lake with her two kids strapped in with her, but chickened out and dove from the car leaving her kids to drown, and then covering up was worthy of capital punishment. This however, had no premeditation or intent, just stupidity. I'm not up for excusing stupidity, but what does it serve to punish this women severely? She has been dealt the worst punishment humanly possible by losing a child to her own hand. The fact she is seen laughing after the trial speaks volumes on her ability to care, but it still isn't a capital crime.

My sentiment is death to anyone who intentionally kills a child. I don't care if they were mentally insane at the time, only meant to injure the child, or what. If you cause a death intentionally then you will die. If your negelect or stupidity cause it, then I'm not so sure. Time served may be to lienient, but a life sentance just costs the taxpayer more money serving no purpose. Assuming there is no threat of a repeat performance, lock up does no good.

You want injustice, how about all the idiots out there driving around with several kids standing and moving around the back and front seats of cars not strapped in at all. The worst punishment they recieve in a non-moving traffic ticket, and usually can get it thrown out as long as they install a child seat before trial.

Children die all the time because of stupid adults, and people who generally have no right even having kids (15 year olds come to mind). Punishing them all severely is unrealistic, its just a fact of life that may not necessarily need to be legislated against. You can't stop stupidity, you can only hope to contain it.

Similar case involved a well-known businessman and his wife from here. They were on a business trip (was it in Delaware?)
Each thought the other had their infant son. Husband went to a meeting; wife went shopping. Baby was left in hot car and died. The couple never spent a day in jail as far as I know. Were tried and found innocent of any wrongdoing. Caused big outrage both here and where it happened. I had mixed feelings about the whole thing. On one hand, it seemed to be an honest mistake and the couple grieved terribly over it. How much more punishment would you levy on the anguished mother and father? On the other hand, it did seem rather negligent. How would the jury have treated the couple differently if they had been in a crack house during the child's death? I seem to recall another case in which the mother(a poor woman) left a baby in a hot car while she was drinking with several men. She got zero sympathy. The aforementioned couple (rich folks) still thrive here. The town is divided in opinion about them. Of course it's all very tragic and horrible, but which is the worse injustice? The unpunished killing or the inequity of treatment? I dunno.

C3:

Which is why, if I were emperor, there would be no such thing as free reproduction. Tests, licensing, etc.



------------------
Stoidela

******Boycott shampoo! Demand REAL poo!******

Pretty radical I know, but it might serve as a detriment as does the death penalty for murder.

The death penalty has never been shown to be an effective deterrent to murder (and even death penalty advocates will admit to that), but as usual, I'm not surprised that you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course, you said "detriment," so who knows what the hell you meant?

*****Prarierose-dont read this!!!*******


I am not at all surprised or even ourtraged.
Here in new brunswick in the last 10 or so years, an army couple beat, tortured and starved their 3 year old for his whole life, he was kept tied to his bed, and gagged with a sock.I think they got 8 years. Then there was the couple who left the dead body of their 3 or 4 yr old in her crib and let the family chinchilla chew on her little hands...she died of dehydration...when she stopped crying, they didnt bother to check on her till the next day, or the next, they got a couple years, and they plan on getting custody of the other 2 kids, and want to have another baby as soon as they are released, oh yeah, welfare bums/drug addicts.
And then just lately this HUGE man took his 3 month old girl, squeezed her until he broke her ribs and shook her brain loose, then threw her,(she died of course) 2 seperate trials have been hung...and despite court orders, he continues to see his wife and little boy. Neighboors call the police, they can hear him screaming at the child...its is doubtful that he will ever be convicted.New Brunswick is a great place to live if you kill children.

At least these people ( the car incidents) didnt mean to do it...but at the same time, death like that is probably more horrendous than we can imagine, they are concious as they are cooked alive, there is horrible pain and fear as they scream over and over, and noone comes, they will claw at their faces and pull out their own hair in panic and distress and they die alone.
Maybe sterilization is a more suitable punishment than jail.

There's a thread to make a new mom sob hysterically! I don't understand how anyone could intentionally OR unintentionally leave their infant in a car for any length of time unattended. Even in my sleep-deprived state I always know where my baby boy is...and his life is more dear to me than my own. The desire to take care of one's infant seems instinctive to me. The love part comes later I think. I didn't feel a huge rush of "mommy love" the first day with my son, but I was sure to respond to his needs. By the time we left the hospital, I was head over heels for him. I think these people never really bonded with their infants somehow....

I hesitate to take my new infant son anywhere unnecessary in this sort of weather (heat index of 105 in shade here in NE today) even with the air conditioned car.

These are usually the same idiots that leave pets in closed cars, too.

PR

------------------
If you're not part of the solution you're just scumming up the bottom of the beaker.

PLDennison said:

The death penalty has never been shown to be an effective deterrent to murder

That's not true. How many people has Ted Bundy killed recently?

Stoidela, YES!!! I find myself agreeing with you on more and more as I read your posts. Right now, reproduction is a right. Maybe it should be viewed as a privalege (sp?) since it involves directing the course of human history in the form of our children. Tough issue.

PLDennison said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The death penalty has never been shown to be an effective deterrent to murder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not true. How many people has Ted Bundy killed recently?

Are you being disingenuous or simply stupid?
The death penalty has, I reiterate, never been shown to act as a deterrent.

For the most part, it would be impossible to prove that the death penalty is OR is not a deterrent. You can't set up a control group as you don't know specifically which people will murder. Yes, I was being disingenuous (and a bit stupid to boot) but the only group that you can prove that it is a deterrent for is executed murderers. And you can't prove that it is not a deterrent.

Sure you can. You can take a look at the murder rates in the states with death penalties and those without, factor in the average length of time between conviction and execution, method of execution, variables for population, demographics and urbanization, etc., and look for a statistical correlation. And it's been done before.

Even most death penalty advocates have given up arguing the deterrent effect; it simply doesn't exist. Instead they argue the retribution function.

the only group that you can prove that it is a deterrent for is executed murderers. And you can't prove that it is not a deterrent.

Yes, and life in prison without parole would be the same deterrent, without the state punishing a person by doing to them the exact same thing that they did wrong in the first place.

DB- Only if they're in solitary.

Just to clear this up- I am NOT an advocate of the way the death penalty is instituted in this country. I can't remember the last time a person with an income over $50,000 was executed. If you're going to apply it, apply it equally and make sure that they have quality legal representation. Killing a person with the IQ of a 10 year old with and a public defender is grotesque.

My contention was with the statement that I can't prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. Aside from my wise-ass comment above, how could anyone prove it? Can you prove that it is not a deterrent?

I remember a great line from the movie "Parenthood" where Keanu Reeves (playing a brain dead slacker, how odd!) says "You need a licence to drive a car, or catch a fish. Hell, you even need a licence to have a dog. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."

A couple years ago out here in California some woman tied her daughter to the bed and let her nearly starve to death. Apparently the daughter was mentally and physically disabled and when welfare wouldn't pay for her special food anymore she decided to quit feeding her instead of actually going out to get a job to pay for it. The child was found by the grandparents who became suspicious when the daughter wouldn't let them visit anymore. They peeked in the window, saw the emaciated girl lying there in her own filth and broke in and called the cops. The mom came home about 6 hours later high as a kite. I read that in the paper on one of those days when I was just hanging by a thread to begin with and nearly had a nervous breakdown.

PL, who cares if the death penalty is a deterrent or not? What's wrong with it just being good, old-fashioned, healthy vengeance? And I too am a proponent of sterilizing people at birth and making them pass a parenting test before reversing it. Of course that danged old ACLU would probably object . . .

My contention was with the statement that I can't prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. Aside from my wise-ass comment above, how could anyone prove it?

In the same way that everything is "proven": observation. In this case, observing the facts and using the techniques that PLDennison mentioned above.

Rich

PL, who cares if the death penalty is a deterrent or not? What's wrong with it just being good, old-fashioned, healthy vengeance?

Well, for one thing, it increases the overall amount of brutality in society. (Don't believe me? Look at the societies that still have it.)

For another, it rests on the presumption that your life belongs to the state, which it does not.

For another, two wrongs don't make a right.

For another, it is hypocritical to punish killing with killing.

For another, the same end can be accomplished through permanent, irrevocable imprisonment. Which, with its constant threats of violence, sodomy, and the like, leads many prisoners to prefer death row.

This sounds like a TOPIC!

I believe I'll start it.



------------------
Stoidela

******Thesaurus: An ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary******

[[My contention was with the statement that I can't prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. Aside from my wise-ass comment above, how could anyone prove it? Can you prove that it is not a deterrent?]]


The overwhelming conclusion of professionals and academics who have studied the issue is that capital punishment is not a net deterrent. It is important because that fact undercuts a major past argument FOR capital punishment. Naked retribution, while not wholly illegitimate, is a tough justification for the government killing people it has securely in custody, IMO.

Omniscient:

Susan Smith to boyfriend: Will you marry me?

Boyfriend: Well, I would but I'm not ready to be a dad. Too bad you got those kids.

Susan Smith to police: My children have been kidnapped by a black man!

Susan Smith to police after the car's found in the lake: I was really trying to kill myself and them too 'cause I didn't want them to grow up without their momma.

Reality Check: Bullshit--that selfish twit killed those kids as was her intent once her boyfriend let her know he wasn't marrying a woman with children.

There's a continuum here, beginning with those acts we "normal" people can comprehend to those acts that are impossible for us to understand. Let me pick out a few points along this continuum, but keep in mind that there are infinite gradations between them:
1. Mom loves her baby and is concerned for baby's welfare. By pure freak accident she allows a tragedy to occur, an accident that could happen to any parent. (I saw a mom on TV once who carefully unplugged the iron before going to get her toddler up from a nap; the ironing board tipped over and the hot iron fell onto her newborn baby, melting the baby's face off. Did this woman want to kill herself? Yes.)
2. Mom generally takes good care of the kids but is sometimes careless. (Say, she's talking on the phone and leaves her toddler alone in the bathtub for just one minute.)
3. Along down the continuum, we have a mom who occasionally loses her temper and spanks her toddler a little too hard, then feels guilty about it. She tries not to let it happen again.
4. Right around here we have a mom who is blatantly careless. She leaves her baby in the car on a hot day, somehow not realizing this action will cause her child's death.
5. Mom frequently uses too much physical force. Once in a while, her child sustains a scar or two. Deep down, she knows this behavior is wrong but she can't seem to control herself.
6. Another mom freaks out and beats the child so badly the kid dies. She didn't plan to do it, in fact can't believe she did it, and feels terrible remorse.
7. Mom freaks out and kills her kid; it wasn't premeditated, but she feels little remorse.
8. A mom plots to kill her children, then carries out the act. This is where Susan Smith comes into the picture.

We can all identify with mom #1. At what point do you place yourself on this continuum, and at what point do you stop comprehending? (Personally, the actions of mom #6 are beyond my realm, although I would place myself between 1 and 2.) The place where understanding ends and horror begins is a little different for each of us.
Side note: why do we consider it more horrible when mom kills her kids, and less horrible when dad does the same?

For the most part, it would be impossible to prove that the death penalty is OR is not a deterrent. You can't set up a control group as you don't know specifically which people will murder. Yes, I was being disingenuous (and a bit stupid to boot) but the only group that you can prove that it is a deterrent for is executed murderers. And you can't prove that it is not a deterrent.

Years ago, when I would hear news stories about babies or kids murdered I would think, "oh thats terrible" and in a few minutes I would be thinking of something else. Now that I am a father of a 15 month old boy, any bad news involving children makes me literally sick to my stomach. I hate hearing about them because it depresses me so much now. I thank the powers that be that I dont actually meet people like Susan Smith for I fear that I may go insane and snap their neck like they deserve. As for the woman who left her child to gamble, wouldnt such a place be busy enough to warrant other people walking to and from the lot? If I ever saw a child in distress like that, I would bust the window, call 911 and care for the child until help arrived. Couldn't anyone have noticed or heard the child? I cannot comment anymore, thinking about such a tragedy is making me sick.

And as long as we're talking about idiotically short terms, what about gaybashers who get short sentences when they use the homo-panic defense?

"Gee, yer Honour, when he came on to me I just saw red."

Criminy. If this was a viable defense for anyone else, do you know how deep the bodies of straight guys would be piled on the street?

pldennison, good list. Here's 2 more problems with the death penalty:

1. The chance that the wrong person was convicted. There's been a lot of death row convictions thrown out recently due to advances in evidence technology (epecially DNA) proving that the person convicted was innocent.

2. The fact that it costs taxpayers about 10 or 20 times the amount of money to put someone to death than it does to imprison them for life. Millions of dollars more for each case. This is because of the many appeals that the prisoner is entitled to, over a period of roughly 10 years while waiting for execution. Even in cases where the prisoner is willing to accept a death penalty, advocacy groups take up the case.

So, when the government sets its spending budget, money that could be spent more productively loses out to 'good, old-fashined revenge' because of the death penalty.

[december]

Is the death penalty a deterrent? I agree that conclusive proof is not possible, but consider two points:

1. For hundreds or thousands of years most human societies have believed that it was a deterrent.

2. A few decades age, when death penalties were abolished or restricted in this country, the murder rate sky-rocketed. More recently, as death penalty was reinstated, murder rates dropped.

IMHO, these two points create some degree of presumption of a deterrent effect.

[Byzantine]

In another post out here I mentioned how several people in my town have kids when they shouldn't even have a dog. These kids are really sweet and basically good. They hang around my house (I work at home) to play with my dog (who is very well trained) and because I talk to them and think of games to play or teach them about things (like why the leaves change color in the fall). But I'm saddened thinking of when they go home to a mom and/or dad who couldn't care less about them, treat them horribly or don't care about them at all. When the boy down street got an award at school he ran home to show it to ME, not his folks. When I asked him why he said they don't care about this stuff. Man, that's so sad. All I could do was let him know that I cared.

Just last night at 11pm the two and three year old down street were still out playing on the sidewalk. I guess my question is WHY do these people have kids in the first place? I don't have kids and don't think I will because I see the full scope. I guess the only thing I can relate it to is my dog: I would never, ever hit her or 'forget' where she was or leave her in a car in the sun. In fact, I broke out a window in a car (no easy feat, let me tell you) to get a dog out of a broiling car. If I saw a kid in there I'd do the same. I got in a lot of trouble with the owner and payed for the window but at least that dog didn't die in there. After checking around with family/friends with kids all of them looked horrified at the idea that they wouldn't know where their kids were. It seems like lax parenting to me. And people who should stick with dolls rather than kids.

Still, I'd like to know WHY these people reproduce in the first place. Any ideas?

------------------
You can count the number of apples in one tree but never the number of trees in one apple.

[ruadh]

December:

A few decades age, when death penalties were abolished or restricted in this country, the murder rate sky-rocketed. More recently, as death penalty was reinstated, murder rates dropped.

You have numbers for these, December?

------------------
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.

[The Ryan]

Trumpy303
Member posted 07-21-99 07:52 PM

“If you were the judge, what would YOUR sentence for this woman be?”

Unfortunately, there are some people stupid enough not to realize that there is any risk involved in putting their children in their cars. If she is such a person, I say take any other children she has away from her. If she knew there was risk, but just didn’t care, then it seems that several weeks imprisonment would be appropriate. Although, when I say “imprisonment” I don’t mean “stuck in a prison”. I mean in a closed car, at just a low enough temperature not cause heat stroke.

TennHippie
Member posted 07-22-99 12:26 AM

“Of course it's all very tragic and horrible, but which is the worse injustice?
The unpunished killing or the inequity of treatment? I dunno.”

I don’t see that the two cases are the same. In the first, a woman actively placed her child in a closed car. In the other, the couple accidentally left the child in the car. I see a significant difference.


matt_mcl
Member posted 07-29-99 03:15 PM

“"Gee, yer Honour, when he came on to me I just saw red."
Criminy. If this was a viable defense for anyone else, do you know how deep the bodies of straight guys would be piled on the street?”

This argument isn’t completely without merit. After all, our society does train people, especially men, to act completely irrationally about homosexuals. That doesn’t making killing a homosexual right, but it does make it more understandable, because the blame for anti-gay attacks does not rest completely upon the perpetrator; it is shared by the rest of society, especially the religious right (‘love the sinner, hate the sin’? Like hell you do! If Jenny Jones can be sued, you should be too). But you're right; if straight men can use this excuse, gay men have an even greater right to it.

Byzantine
Member posted 08-15-1999 04:34 PM

“Still, I'd like to know WHY these people reproduce in the first place. Any ideas?”

Simple. Stupid people that don’t reproduce are not represented in the gene pool. Those that do are represented. Sucks, doesn’t it?


------------------
-Ryan
" 'Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.' " -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions