Evil child abusing bastards.

According to The Daily Telegraph a Welsh couple were found not guilty of murdering their 3.5 month old baby daughter but both admitted cruelty.

The mother was given a 3 year community rehabilitation order, the father 3 months in prison.

What ?? 3 fucking months for murder because that’s what it was despite the verdict of not guilty.

The child had 40 rib fractures, 2 skull fractures and other fractures to wrists, legs, shoulder and arms as well as a brain haemorrhage.

These 2 useless pieces of festering cock cheese tried to walk the baby at 2 MONTHS OLD!!! when the normal age for a child to learn to walk is 10-18 months.

When an aunt asked how the child had got the bruises she had noticed the mother just laughed and both parents said in court that if they had been more experienced then maybe the baby would still be alive today.

So what experience do you want you gobshites.

Truly the mind boggles at the total ineptitude of the courts to deal with these people as they should be dealt with.

Dear god.
I hope one of the conditions of their getting such light sentences was that both be sterilized.

Assuming the fact as presented are true, (and it wouldn’t make any difference because the two weren’t convicted) don’t you wish Britain still had the death penalty? In my world, anyone abusing a baby like that deserves to die. No questions, no excuses, I’d put the barrel between their eyes and pull the trigger myself, then go home and eat a big dinner, hug my kids, make love to my wife and sleep the sleep of the just.

You can read about the case here. As appalling as it is, the couple haven’t actually been charged with murder yet, so the OPs claim of a not guilty verdict is a little bizzare.

Locked away for the rest of their days, throw away the key? Yeah. Make them work (behind bars) at something that can benefit others? Sure. Get 'em outside building homes for Habitat for Humanity? Absolutely. Roll out more Prison-Raised Service Dog Programs? They seem to work well! Kill 'em all? No.

I can’t stand by and condone the eye-for-an-eye thing. I’m not sure what it accomplishes, really.

I obviously hate any one who abuses a child (or an adult, for that matter) with a fiery passion - who doesn’t! But I don’t think I’d ever be able to “take them out” myself and celebrate.

Why? Your value in life is what you do with it. Do something like this and you’ve forfited your right to life. Celebrate? you’re damn right I’d celebrate, because I would have just made the world a better place.

Your value in life is what you do with it - on that, we’ll agree. But I don’t see why we couldn’t put people “to work” to better the world for those less fortunate, instead of offing them just because we can. I’m not talking about attempting to rehabilitate (most can’t be rehabilitated, likely) but I am talking about churning out something good out of the bad.

I would never feel good about taking another life, no matter how evil, no matter how destructive. Once you start with that philosophy, it’s hard to tell where the limits are. Who decides what’s right? Who decides what’s wrong? Who decides if you live or die? People in power? The “silent majority”?

Ahh, fuck, you got me. Nevermind. That was just the father in me speaking. I still plan on frowning strongly at these people if I ever see them tho, ok? :wink:

Go to the link, click on the RH side top item, read about halfway down, “The judge returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY to the charge of murder”

In reply to WEIRDDAVE, yes I do wish we still had the death penalty and so do many other Britons

While I do not wish for the death penalty this make me feel sick! Two little premmie twin boys beaten to death.

How can people like that live with themselves let alone wait for “us” to judge them?

I don’t know if you’re suffering from a lack or understanding about the English judicial system, or it’s simple lack of comprehension of the English language


There was no trial. The prosecution realised that they didn’t have a good case and stopped everything, which requires the formal verdict of not guilty. Now the prosecution have a better case, they can hopefully get Pyscho Baby Killer Guy put away for a long, long time

Welsh and English, actually.

In fairness, the original posted article is ambiguous about this, since it says: “Ceri Thomas, 23, from Bridgend, was cleared of murder”, which implies he’d actually been tried.

My issue with the lack of incarceration is that, if not viciously cruel, then they’re clearly too stupid to be allowed out without minders, the funding for which could be spent better elsewhere.

Wrong. He has been tried and found not guilty. No further charges can be brought under the double jeopardy rules. There is no such thing as a ‘formal’ verdict of ‘not guilty’- just ‘not guilty’. The only way that the prosecution could reopen the case is for there to be discovery of new evidence that was not available at the time of the trial. Assuming that the trial took place after the autopsy, there will be no new evidence, just the finding of a coroner’s court which found that the child had been unlawfully killed. I would expect that the mother would also be protected from further prosecution as the CPS did not progress a murder charge against her, but charged with and found guilty of child cruelty on the same facts as she might have been charged with murder or manslaughter.

Unless some new evidence is produced, there should be no further charges.

Not permissable under English Law, and IMHO, not desirable either. Once you let the state start making decisions like that as pure retribution (it would not stop either of them becoming carers for other children) then the state is engaging in acts beyong that which IMHO should be allowed to it.

Both parents will have been placed on the register as child abusers and will not be able to work with children, nor probably be allowed to parent any future children.

No. The fact that we have decided to abjure from judicial killing is one of the hallmarks of our civilized society. The threat of a potential death penalty is most unlikely to put a stop to child abuse and killing.

I have worked with many such parents, and in very few cases was there ever an intention to kill- mostly it was inadequacy in the face of multiple life challenges for people who gradually lost control. IMHO such people are generally to be pitied and protected from doing themeselves or others any further harm.

Killing them would be mere retribution.

Although there is a small kneejerk majority when such questions are asked in opinion polls, deeper questioning usually results in that majority reducing considerably. In any case it would be legally impossible for the DP to be reintroduced without doing serious economic and social damage to the country as a whole. The issue is essentially closed.

It is quite possible to hate that act and the history, but still act positively towards the individual human being Society needs some people who will act with empathy towards the most hated and to provide them with at least the minimum which they are due as human beings. I do not demand that everyone acts like this, but I do feel happy that people expressing murderous and retributive thoughts about such people do not freely enter into providing health, mental health and social services for such people.

So are you suggesting that we should have incarceration for the innocent? Or continued incarceration following the completion of the legally mandated sentence? Who would decide? How would it be governed? How many people would need to be locked up in this manner (in my practice I often encountered people who were hopelessly inadequate to raise children, live an adult life, or even manage their own day to day survival adequately. Shall we lock them all up? Where? For how long? with what cause? With what intention?

When the recent Mental Health Bill for England was discussed, one of the Government’s main concerns was to stop killings by people who were mentally disordered- mentally ill, mentally impaired or psychopathic personality disordered. It was suggested that administrative detention should be used. This despite the fact that more murders are committed proportionately by the officially mentally well than by the officially mentally disordered. The Royal College of Psychiatrists produced evidence to suggest that to stop a single killing by a person with mental disorder it would be necessary to incarcerate about 2000 other people!

Similarly, how many socially inadequate people would need to be detained to prevent a single death?

pjen, it was hyperbole.

Fine, but some people really think that incarceration is the answer to any criminal or social problem (our present government seemingly included- prison population nearing 80,000 and mental health service detaining nearly three times as many people as twenty years ago).

Hyperbolic explanation accepted. :slight_smile:

TAPIOCA DEXTRIN…I actually know very little about the English judicial system, what I do know is that when it comes to handing out appropriate sentences for criminal/civil offences the whole thing is woefully lacking in common sense.

As for my being able to comprehend the English language I think I’m fairly competent in that field.

I don’t think your insinuation was warranted.