Bolding mine.
That’s where you went wrong. You’re expectations were too high.
I assume the photos actually show the abuse being perpetrated.
I think they mean that there would be visible signs/injuries. I’m wondering though, if they aren’t counting fingers, pencils or the like? 
I’m hoping that this is the case, and that the poor baby didn’t have “bigger” things penetrating her. (Where’s that pukey smiley?)
Maybe I’m missing something, but what the hell are you talking about? Jebus.
NOTHING and it happens far to often! She should have recieved the harsher penalty. She was the mother.
Gee, it seems pretty clear to me. The perpetrator forfited his right to claim protection on “sancity of life” grounds by his actions. The baby did nothing of the sort. Torturing and murdering an inncoent baby trumps an individual’s right to life.
Nope. Sanctity of life means just that - life is sacred, we should not take it away. Just because the perpetrator himself clearly doesn’t believe in the sanctity of life, he does not “tarnish” his own life by his actions - his life as still as sacred as that of the child whom he killed. If you believe in the sanctity of life, you believe that is it “untrumpable”, to use your words.
At least, that’s the way I understood it. I don’t believe in sanctity of life myself, though I am anti-death penalty.
No, unfortunately. Rape (legally) requires genital penetration, otherwise it’s just indecent assault.
No, she was just the rapist’s girlfriend.
One doesn’t want to blame the mother in this sort of case, but - I agree that it’s surprising she didn’t notice the injuries, and a little more research into the backgrounds of the “babysitters” would have prevented the incident.
Isn’t this a semantics issue then? If I used the wrong term, then I apologise. Basically I believe that each person has an absolute and complete right to life, however they have the ability to forfit that right by their actions.
There’s a contradiction there; an absolute right cannot by definition be forfeit.
I wouldn’t have a problem executing the guy; I just wouldn’t use “sanctity of life” as an argument.
Then how about this: I really love babies. I really hate baby-torturing-and murdering scumbags. On that basis alone, I’ll happily screw a pistol in his ear and send him on to glory myself.
Exactly. People who believe in sanctity of life believe it is an absolute right, one which under no circumstances is forfeited. You (Weirddave) believe that it is a *very important * right, but that given some circumstances (like here, inhuman behaviour) are enough to lose that right. That’s the difference.
By the way, i’m in agreement with you here - this guy most certainly deserves the death penalty. Were I not against it, I imagine i’d share your position entirely.
I agree. Although I am against the death penalty if it was my child I would be wrestling Scumpup’s gun off of him.
One of the other links above was to a story about babysitters raping a 12 week old baby. The mother was ignorant of the abuse until police showed her pictures of the abuse that the babysitters had taken.
I’m far too vindictive to support the death penalty myself. Let him serve his 22 years as a known baby killer, leave the vigilante justice until he gets released.
Ooooh ok. I knew I had to be missing something; thanks for the clarification. There are too many horrifying stories for me to keep up with, apparently. Again, Jebus. People make me sick sometimes.
Then how can the girlfriend be admitting to charges of rape? I’m a little confused.
It doesn’t have to be genital penetration with a penis. The woman’s fingers, a random item that’ll fit, etc.
No, rape is defined in the Sexual Offences Act (2003) as
which is basically the same as the definition under the preceding 1956 act.
The 2003 act introduced a new offence of “Assault by penetration”, but that wasn’t in force at the time of this crime.
As an accessory. If two robbers break into a house, armed with a gun, and shoot the occupant, both are guilty of murder, even though only one pulled the trigger. This case is the same.