Well, an eleven-year-old girl is in the hospital. The best to be hoped for is that she will one day open her eyes. She is now the subject of a legal battle. On one side is her mother (who gave her up for adoption five years ago) and the state, who want to end the girls suffering. On the other side is the girl’s father, who has been charged with beating the girl and sending and sending her to the hospital, and who also faces murder charges if the girl dies.
How the hell does a kid get dealt a hand like this? Another passage:
And this guy is out on bail?!
Where were the school officials? Were they blind? We could ask “Where was the state?” But the department of social services are the ones that urged the mother give her daughter up for adoption to her sister.
This poor little kid. I know that this is more of a lament than a pitting, but this just leveled me. Sorry.
I’m further saddened by the fact that there can be no justice here. There is nothing—nothing—that can be done to those responsible that will either help this little girl or make the father pay enough. A death sentence, which I would advocate in some instances, seems to give this guy an out. He should be locked in a room for the rest of his life with the cries of that young girl piped through constantly.
And I pit in advance anyone who does anything for this guy other than increase his level of suffereing. Lawyers, take note.
Legal question – if the girl dies, Strickland gets tried for murder. If the state lets the girl die via euthenasia, does that count towards a murder charge? In other words, can the state force a murder charge on Strickland by killing the child?
Is he actually suggesting as a defense the she beat her self to death??? If not, what could he possible be suggesting? Her tendency to hurt herself (if that’s what happened) is just evidence that life in that household was unbearable even before he picked up the baseball bat.
And…my god what went on here? This is the sister who was a better candidate for mother?
I think the better question is can Strickland weasel out of murder charge by keeping her alive. Which seem to be what he’s trying to do.
Not that the state procecutors should have a say in it either. I would hope it would be a medical decsion…but then that’s a lot to hope for under the circumstances.
I listened to an account of this on NPR this morning. They were quoting a doctor who said that her brain stem had been sheered. This child is not going to open her eyes, and she will not be waking up.
The report said that she was taken out of her mother’s home because the mother’s boyfriend was sexualy abusing her. Child protective services seem to have been in and out of the addoptive home regularly, fairly recently. The family was in the radar, I have no idea why the hell this child was still in the home.
I am torn about removal of life support, but very few people live long after this kind of injury, even with life support. It takes a lot of care beyond the life support systems to keep them alive. Usualy they die of infections from bed sores or from pnemonia or from one of the many hospital bugs. She will die, most likely sooner, rather than later, and eventually the bastard better be charged with murder.
This is one of those things you hear about and just know there will soon be a Pit thread about it. This is just horrible, and he’d better not be allowed to make this decision.
Was the baby sitter a minor and therefore felt she couldn’t do anything? I mean, even they can call child protective services anonymously, right? Or an adult (if she is under age) could report it for her. She witnessed plenty on her own.
And it makes one just a bit suspicious about the ‘murder-suicide’.
Can someone who works for CPS (the case worker) be held accountable in some way? Is there some thershold of abuse or pattern of abuse that, once crossed, he, or she, must remove a child, and the failure to do so has consequences beyond a scolding or firing?
I heard about this on NPR this morning. Just the end of the story, about the step-father trying to keep her alive so he won’t be charged with murder. It’s good to hear he’s concerned about her welfare. :rolleyes: :mad: :mad:
I hope someday he realizes how much pain and suffering he caused, but as that’s unlikely, I hope he rots in hell.
May her next life be filled with loving kindness.
It isn’t “forcing a murder charge.” The medical decisions regarding the child’s care are being made by her doctors, who, I understand, have petitioned the court to remove some or all of her life support. That’s why Strickland is petitioning to be named her guardian; as her guardian, he can order the life support to continue and thus delay when he will be tried for her murder. He can also hope that there will be some independent intervening cause that he can suggest is the actual cause of her death (a mistake in the hospital with the wrong medication, or an infection). But once life support is removed, the state will amend the charges against Strickland to add murder, because the cause of her death will not be the removal of life support; the cause of her death will be the injuries inflicted allegedly by Strickland.
So noted. I won’t bore you with the reasons this is impossible, but will simply say that I hope that this young girl’s attacker or attackers are tried, accorded all rights due them under the constitution and rules of court, and then convicted.
Not to defend the jerk, but to me it seems like a bizarre form of justice to try the guy based on a decision that doctors make. I think he should be tried in one particular way regardless of the decision. But I realize that’s not how the justice system works.
Think about it this way. Suppose George shoots John. The police arrive, and bundle John into an ambulance. John is taken to the hospital, where the doctors rush him into surgery. John does not survive surgery. George killed John.
Suppose instead that John survives surgery, and is put on life support, but after a day, he dies. George is still responsible.
I recognize that this is a harder case to visualize because of the attenuation between the time of the attack and the time when we agree that death has occured, but the question for the court will be a medical one: what is the cause of the victim’s death? If the cause is injuries resulting from a beating, then you arguably have murder (I say arguably because I don’t know the law in whatever state this is).
And I’ll just add that without lawyers willing to step up and provide a legal defense even to the most wretched and loathesome elements of society despite their personal feelings on the matter, that conviction would indeed be impossible.
The whole thing is just fucked up.