Most ‘clients’ of the Correctional Services department do not take too kindly to people who abuse children. They have their own special treatment to mete out for such horrendous criminality.
So, if it’s any consolation, the 8 years that the culprit will spend behind bars will be hellish for him. He’ll probably wish that the death penalty WAS available in Australia.
Can any legal types explain why this is manslaughter and not murder ? Is it because the scumbag didn’t set out to kill the child, just keep it quiet ?
Anybody heard anything about the mother ? One of the articles said that she asked the scumbag to hit the baby. If that’s true, isn’t she an accessory ?
Lovely family, by the sounds of it, either way 
Poor kid. Nobody deserves to be killed like that.
I was thinking the same thing.
Before long, killing newborns will be acceptable. Not, hopefully, in this manner but in some other ways. Its the slippery slope of allowing abortions, and PBAa and having lax terms for offenders of this type of crime. We get what we ask for. Liberal judges will perpetuate the problem. Lets try real hard to block all of Bushs conservative nominees shall we?
As you know Goo IANALegal-type, but from the news reports it seems that the child died from asphyxiation from choking on his own vomitus. Therefore, according to the letter of the law, the accused did not directly kill the child.
It sucks, but them’s the breaks eh. :rolleyes:
No. According to the article the defendant plead guilty to manslaughter. It had nothing to do with vomit.
Yes, Rhum, the defendant DID plead guilty to manslaughter, but Goo was querying why he managed to get that rather than murder, (which of course attracts a higher penalty).
Y’see, the injuries to the child should have earned the accused the maximum jail term for murder. But I suggested that because the actual ‘cause of death’ was asphyxiation, then the accused did not directly cause the death, and therefore managed to scrape by with a charge of manslaughter.
It is not the usual course for people to admit to manslaughter just to get off’ve a charge of murder, if the evidence permits. Well, they might TRY, but they generally don’t get away with it.
Murder is murder afterall.
Ok, now you’re talking like an idiot. The defendant wasn’t convicted of anything, he plead guilty. Understand? The fact that the cause of death was asphyxiation has nothing to do with murder. Murder is not a cause of death, it is a crime. Christ, look at what you are saying man!
Officer 1: Victim died of a gunshot, guess it wasn’t murder since the defendant didn’t ‘cause’ the death, it was the gaping hole in his chest that did him in.
Officer 2: Um, well, didn’t the defendant cause the gaping hole when he shot him?
Officer 1: Oh. Yeah. But it still isn’t murder, right?
Officer 2: You are fired.
Now, you may rightly question why the state would accept a plea in a case like this, but remember there is always some doubt when the evidence is submitted. Look at the O.J. trial here in the states a few years back, the guy was absolutely guilty, yet he got off.
The state may have thought that a plea to manslaughter was better than rolling the dice with the judge/jury, especially if the defendant was pointing the finger at the mother and there was some evidence that she was responsible. So, the state assumed that in a brutal case like this they’d be able to get the max, and 25 years was pretty good. Then they got screwed by the judge. That is the person you should direct your anger at, well, and the defendant.
Please, drop this shit about vomit and cause of death though.
I humbly apologise for ‘talking like an idiot’ Rhum, but I am just attempting to provide an explanation for why the guy got off on a charge of manslaughter rather than murder. I am NOT trying to minimise his culpability in any way, rather, I believe he SHOULD have gone for the max penalty that was available to the courts. Getting off on manslaughter seems to me like a cop-out on all counts.
And you can rightly fuck the fuck off too mate.
:rolleyes:
I’ve been Aussied! I’m honored! Sorry, I shouldn’t have been such an ass. It’s hard for me sometimes. I’m working on it, though so far with little success.
Hahahaha…!!
Funny stuff.
You’re an ass for making that sort bullshit post ina thread about a murdered baby though.:mad:
By us I gather you don’t mean Australians. The latest newspoll in Australia (August, 2003) showed that 56% are in favour of the re-introduction of capital punishment.
The reasons this particular guy got off are very odd. The prosecution’s change to manslaughter makes no sense because the entire prosecution case had been presented before he copped the lesser plea. The judge mentioned in sentencing that the prosecution murder case was very strong.
According to The Director of Public Prosecutions the plea to a less serious offence was acceptable if:
Not one appears to be true.
Not really.
Ive participated in numerous threads and even started my own about similar topics. Im against murdering children BTW.
I didn`t think I needed to say what everyone is thinking with a “Me too”. So, I added a political commentary that was appropriate for the topic.
Given the proximity of the poll to the Amrozi sentencing in Indonesia, the poll result probably isn’t all that surprising.
You’d probably get a similar result if you asked a question like “Should baby-killers be sentenced to death?” You get an automatic “yes” response from from people that haven’t thought it through.
If you asked instead, “Should Lindy Chamberlain have been sentenced to death”, you might get an altogether different answer.
Preach on, brother! You sure hit the nail on the head with this insightful bit of commentary. If we don’t give this guy a 25 year sentence, or reverse 25 years of abortion law, pretty soon it’ll be acceptable to kill newborns. And soon after that, it’ll be acceptable to kill infants, and then toddlers. Who knows? Five years from now, we might have no laws against murder at all!
That sure is a bleak outlook for the future. But you know, there are far, far worse problems looming right around the corner. One of them is the dreaded euthanasia.
Yes, friends, if the followers of Dr. Kevorkian are allowed to assist with the suicide of terminally ill patients, who knows where that slippery slope will take us? Pretty soon, doctors will be murdering perfectly healthy patients! Because, of course, there’s no way to draw a line there. Once you start down that slope, there’s no way to stop your inevitable descent into anarchy.
Today, it’s terminal patients. Tomorrow it will be cancer patients with months to live; the next day it will be AIDS patients with years to live. By next week it’ll be healthy children with chicken pox! And there will be nothing that laws or society can do about it!
And speaking of slippery slopes, you know what’ll happen if we start allowing gay marriage?
First it’ll be two men getting married. Then three men. Then an entire football team. Pretty soon, a man will marry a horse and a woman will marry Leda, Jupiter’s ninth and smallest moon! And once again, there will be nothing we can do about it, because there’s absolutely no way to distinguish between those situations!
Referring to kids with chicken pox as “healthy” is also an inevitable consequence of not giving this particular killer a 25 year sentence, BTW. See how it works? We’re already sliding down into oblivion!
I find the poll results unsurprising for different reasons. I think the results are in fact fairly typical. In the poll of August 15-17 56% of respondents favoured the death penalty, 36% were against it and 8% were uncommited.
Market research house, Quantum Australia SCAN has conducted a survey for the last five years polling whether Australians favoured the death penalty.
Just after Bali the figures were 51% for, 31% against and 18 % uncommitted. The average over the previous five years was 44% in favour, 31% against and 25% with no opinion. Of those with an opinion 59% were in favour of the death penalty. I have never seen a published poll in which the majority of committed Australians are against the death penalty. It may well be true that politicians and lawyers are opposed to it but that is only because they are not representative (in either sense) of the majority of the population.
Personally I am not certain that a yes answer to “Should baby-killers be sentenced to death?” means that the respondent hasn’t thought it through. I’ll allow the same for people who say “No”.
As for the Lindy Chamberlin question you may as well have used Olivia Newton John, neither committed a crime.
As for me I say no for all of them - the guy in the OP, Amrozi, the hypothetical baby killers, and Lindy Chamberlain but I think they should do away with the likes of Ivan Milat, the Grannie Killer and Sydney’s current spate of serial pack rapists. The world would be a better place for their absence.
Olivia Newton John, unlike Lindy Chamberlain, wasn’t convicted of murder you stupid, stupid, prick. :rolleyes:
And there was I thinking you chose Lindy Chamberlain because she was wrongly convicted of murder and subsequently exonerated thus making the question ridiculous. What a stupid stupid prick I am. Oh, you’ve used that argument.
Hey, youre pretty insightful. Im glad you came around to my side.
Relax though, it`s not as bad as it seems. You can still pettition your congressmen to ease up on restricting some of the conservative appointees and all this can be averted. ALL IS NOT LOST!! (especially with folks like yourself spreading the word.)
Can I quote you for my sig??
I am still floored by the mother ( I mean breeding machine ) that asked the monster to " hit him (Jordan) twice because he was crying " Who the fuck smacks a seven month old baby for crying? That bitch deserves a little smacking around.