When morons breed...

[Architect]

I don't understand this view of humanity.

I'm afraid that this does not make your position any more tenable.

They killed a child, either through malice or through recklessness of such an extent that they are criminally culpable. The same verdict would have occured in Europe. Get over it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm afraid that this does not make your position any more tenable.

They killed a child, either through malice or through recklessness of such an extent that they are criminally culpable. The same verdict would have occured in Europe. Get over it.

They were ignorant of child rearing. For this they must rightfully be imprisoned for ever?

Anyone with such a view is clearly insane.

Tell me, Architect, as you seem to be in the know....what other dastardly deeds might send someone to prison, for ever?

 

[Architect]

We do tend to reserve that one for Murder. Which is what the Jury decided they had done.

 

[DanishDynamite]

We do tend to reserve that one for Murder. Which is what the Jury decided they had done.

You agree with the jury?

 

[skeptifem]

Why?

Please, you don't need to live up to the lawyerly decisions you made before.

As a human being, why do you feel ignorance of proper child rearing should be punishable by life imprisonment?

They are in jail because their actions KILLED A BABY.

have you seen a baby that small before?

this is a baby that weighs 3 lbs and some change



and your argument doesnt matter anyway, ignorance isnt an excuse (even though I highly doubt they didnt know that babies need to be examined by doctors, especially one that small).

In your world, if I get pulled over for drunk driving I can simply say "officer, i had no idea it was illegal to drive drunk!", and they should let me go.

"I thought my wife needed to be beaten up, I didnt know any better", and no one goes to jail.


it can go on and on and on. Its not an excuse. Wether or not they knew doesnt change the fact that there is a dead baby, and its their fault.

 

[Alt+F4]

Evidence, please.

Reread the links in this thread. It is a FACT that they were convicted of premeditated murder. If you personally don't believe they are guilty then that's a separate issue.

 

[Z]

I think a good analogy for this situation would be to consider Asimovian laws here... With regards to the care of dependents (elderly, children, pets), there is a very specific philosophy that covers the law in America (and probably elsewhere): you may not harm a dependent or, through inaction, allow a dependent to come to harm. This is why they were found guilty of murder - though they did not set out to harm the child, they also did nothing to prevent harm from coming to that child. Ignorance of the law is not a defense - especially not in America.

And, yes, there are specific laws regarding the proper care of a child. If any professional suspects child abuse or neglect, even client confidentiality is overridden, and the professional has a legal requirement to report their suspicions to the authorities. Failure to adequately feed an infant is grounds for removal of the child from the home, termination of parental rights, and civil and criminal legal action, depending on the severity of the case. Ignorance of how to feed an infant is no defense whatsoever, just as ignorance of DWI/DUI laws is no defense for a drunk driver.

No, as a human being, I have to say that parents should NOT have the freedom to raise their child any way they like; at the very least, they should have the legal and ethical responsibility to see to the health and mental well being of their child. Other than that, I don't see any reason to interfere with parenting.

Just as a free person has a legal and ethical responsibility to not murder others, to not destroy property that does not belong to them, etc., so too should a free person have a legal and ethical responsibility to take proper care of their children.

If they had really made the proper effort to take care of their child, they would have sought advice on the care and feeding of their child; they would have immediately sought medical advice, even if over the phone, about their child's obvious malnutrition and illness; in fact, they would have taken ANY measure to ensure the well-being of their child imaginable - including risking germs at a doctor's office.

That they didn't is willful ignorance and neglect on their part.

DD, Since a jury of their own peers found them guilty of murder, my guess is that your self-righteous and unfounded opinions are, fortunately, minority ones. I'm quite glad that you are not representative of human beings in general. And I bear a sincere hope that any children you elect to care for are fortunate enough to survive your laxidaisical and ignorant life philosophy, and that they take it upon themselves to try to learn something about how the world really works, rather than wander aimlessly through the world as you seem to.

And that's not meant to be insulting, DD - it's a simple observation based on the nature of your posts here.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes

Nope.

Simple manslaughter is rarely a life sentence, at least in my country.

That the busybodies only got interested after the baby died is of interest to some, what I noted previously in my disagreement with Z is that given their intention to have a child was not in order to starve it and joyously watch it die, I find it hard to call this case murder, or treat it as such. They are already punished by having lost their child, who they wanted but were too stupid to keep alive. (Sad, indeed.)

How is it a valid exercise of the state's resources to act the bully, to pick on the retards, and lock them up for life?

That's repaying a cruelty with a cruelty, for zero societal gain. The only gain for "society" that I see is that these two idiots didn't raise a third idiot, and that someone got to bully two rather stupid people.

NO honor here, no glory. It's rather like you or me bludgeoning one of the dumber CT's on the CT forum, though in this case, the RL matter was tragic, particularly for the two clueless parents.

The only losers in this case that I can see are:

The taxpayers who have to support the two maroons in jail

The guys who write the Darwin awards, who have a subject for their award in about 16 years, when that baby does not grow up stupid, raised by stupid, and thus very prone to compete for that most prestigious award.

DR

 

[g4macdad]

Me too, and that's what the prosecution was trying to prove: that they intended to murder their child and used the vegan lifestyle as a ruse.

As to what evidence the prosecution had of intent, I don't know since the trial transcript doesn't seem to available online. The twelve jurors who found them guilty beyond a resonable doubt belived there was intent to murder. Since they heard all the evidence and I didn't, I'll side with them. Guilty as charged.

As for the mandatory sentence of life, this seems to be a change in the right direction. Baby killers usual get lighter sentences then those who kill an adult.

I'm my opinion, justice in this case was served.

Do you, as I do, feel justice was served in the O.J. trial?

Or are you like most people, and only believe justice is served when harsh punishment is the outcome?

Are you a pro-lifer?

 

[LostAngeles]

Well said, sir.

As a parent of young children, I find the couple's actions beyond comprehension unless malice is involved. These is not a simple mistake. And it wiped out a human life.

Actually, it's ma'am. Thank you, though

From friends.

Then shouldn't these friends have also read that soy milk was not to be given to infants?

They were unobsrevant.

That's not an excuse. Parents, especially of young children, need to be mindful. Neglect of a child to the degree to which the child's health becomes poor is more than ample reason for a child to removed from a home.

I never understood the idea that ignorant people were responsible for their ignorance. In their own minds they did the best thing they could. Because they weren't better informed, they must go to jail for ever.

I don't understand this view of humanity.

Ever since Gutenberg invented the printing press, information has become widely available to nearly everyone in an industrialized country. The information is there, it is free, and if you refuse to go and get the information, that is your choice. Because you've made that choice, the consequence are also your's.

Freedom does not mean that there are no consequences. Ignorance of the law and ignorance of how to care for an infant is not a defense.

 

[g4macdad]

Freedom does not mean that there are no consequences. Ignorance of the law and ignorance of how to care for an infant is not a defense.

Is it an offense? Is the more relevant question. Is it murder?

 

[Lonewulf]

Is it an offense? Is the more relevant question. Is it murder?

It is manslaughter.

 

[LostAngeles]

Is it an offense? Is the more relevant question. Is it murder?

Yes it is an offense since these people are responsible for a death.

I echo the stance of an earlier poster in that I would want to see the transcripts before personally coming to such a conclusion. I do however think that is is such a strong example of gross negligence resulting in a death, that they should definitely be in jail for a good few decades.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes it is an offense since these people are responsible for a death.

I echo the stance of an earlier poster in that I would want to see the transcripts before personally coming to such a conclusion. I do however think that is is such a strong example of gross negligence resulting in a death, that they should definitely be in jail for a good few decades.

I'd like to see the transcripts as well.

It is hard for me to believe that the courts would give a harsh sentence without due cause. I would not be surprised if there were even more to the story than what we are getting... such is the case with court cases, usually.

 

[gtc]

From the article I linked to above, their child died because the parents fed it too little food. Simply feeding the child more of the same foods would still have damaged the child, but not fatally.

The parents seem to have been found responsible for the child's death because they recieved adequate warning about what they were doing to their child but still did not act to protect it. The soy milk cartons carried clear warnings and the child's grandparent also warned the parents.

In Australia, it may not even be necessary to prove that the parents read the carton, simply that they were able to read. The relevant case in Australia is Balmain Ferries 1905. I suspect it is the same in other countries with British-based legal systems.

It is clear that this case is not about being ignorant about what a child needs. It is about deliberately failing to take care of a child while knowing how to properly take care of a child.

 

[Kerberos]

One thing that puzzles me though, the OP says they were convicted for, among other things, involuntary manslaughter. How can you be convicted both of involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder? Am I missing something? I certainly won't challenge that they were criminally negligent, but I'm not certain about the premeditated murder and by extension the severity of the sentence.

 

[g4macdad]

From the article I linked to above, their child died because the parents fed it too little food. Simply feeding the child more of the same foods would still have damaged the child, but not fatally.

The parents seem to have been found responsible for the child's death because they recieved adequate warning about what they were doing to their child but still did not act to protect it. The soy milk cartons carried clear warnings and the child's grandparent also warned the parents.

In Australia, it may not even be necessary to prove that the parents read the carton, simply that they were able to read. The relevant case in Australia is Balmain Ferries 1905. I suspect it is the same in other countries with British-based legal systems.

It is clear that this case is not about being ignorant about what a child needs. It is about deliberately failing to take care of a child while knowing how to properly take care of a child.

Being a father myself. I really don't understand what possible punishment you could give to someone, who cares nothing about their own child's death.


If they willingly caused the baby's death. They obviously have a serious mental illness. If this is the case, they have my deepest sympathy.

Any thoughts of some other motive?

 

[gtc]

Being a father myself. I really don't understand what possible punishment you could give to someone, who cares nothing about their own child's death.


If they willingly caused the baby's death. They obviously have a serious mental illness. If this is the case. They have my deepest sympathy.

Any thoughts of some other motive?

I have no idea. Veganism doesn't appear to be the reason and their fear of germs doesn't seem to be a strong enough reason not to seek help.

You may be right about the mental illness.

 

[Lonewulf]

If they willingly caused the baby's death. They obviously have a serious mental illness. If this is the case, they have my deepest sympathy.

Any thoughts of some other motive?

Desire to get rid of what they perceived as a nuisance? I dunno.

I wouldn't be quick to label mental illness. One could argue, in that case, that any murderer, at all, would have to be "mentally ill". I do not think that someone killing their children automatically denotes mental illness... at least, not in the legal or professional stance. Mentally disturbed, maybe, sociopathic possibly (which is a form of mental illness, I'll admit).

In this particular case, I'm not sure about mental illness or culpability. I do know that there is a form of negligence, but that's all I know about the case, honestly.

 

[g4macdad]

Desire to get rid of what they perceived as a nuisance? I dunno.

I wouldn't be quick to label mental illness. One could argue, in that case, that any murderer, at all, would have to be "mentally ill". I do not think that someone killing their children automatically denotes mental illness... at least, not in the legal or professional stance. Mentally disturbed, maybe, sociopathic possibly (which is a form of mental illness, I'll admit).

In this particular case, I'm not sure about mental illness or culpability. I do know that there is a form of negligence, but that's all I know about the case, honestly.

Negligence is fine. They were charged with murder though right?

I am no law expert, but I believe this requires that a motive be proven.