When morons breed...

[Lonewulf]

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.

As I said, it would be nice to have more details.

As it stands, the courts, lawyers, and individuals involved have much more in-depth knowledge of the case than we here at the forum do.

 

[gtc]

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.

I believe you have to show intent, not necessarily motive.

 

[Architect]

The wiki article explains it well in lay terms.

 

[Checkmite]

They intentionally fed the baby something which, according to its own informational label, should not be fed to babies. The guy was told he should take his baby to the hospital, but he didn't.

These aren't people who 'didn't know any better'; they had several warnings and pointedly rejected them.

 

[g4macdad]

They intentionally fed the baby something which, according to its own informational label, should not be fed to babies. The guy was told he should take his baby to the hospital, but he didn't.

These aren't people who 'didn't know any better'; they had several warnings and pointedly rejected them.

Not so long ago people were feeding babies formula instead of breast milk altogether. We now know this was not correct. This causes unnecessary immune system problems. Breast feeding is now highly recommended by the majority.

In this day and age it is very difficult to know who and what to believe. I find it very hard to believe these people intended to kill their baby.

Manslaughter, Maybe.

Murder, No way.

 

[Alt+F4]

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?

Personally, I feel O.J. was guilty but if I was a juror that was presented with the evidence that jury had, I would have voted to acquit.

A baby's life is just a valuable as an adult's life. If murdering an adult warrents a life sentence, then so should for the murder of a baby.

I'm no pro-lifer. Don't you agree that once a baby is born it should have all the same rights as any other human being?

 

[g4macdad]

Personally, I feel O.J. was guilty but if I was a juror that was presented with the evidence that jury had, I would have voted to acquit.

A baby's life is just a valuable as an adult's life. If murdering an adult warrents a life sentence, then so should for the murder of a baby.

I'm no pro-lifer. Don't you agree that once a baby is born it should have all the same rights as any other human being?

I believe that the adults have the same rights as the baby, yes. I don't believe these parents intended to have an abortion.

 

[shuize]

Without reading through the whole thread (apologies if this has already been posted), here is a very brief answer as to how this could be murder:

Depraved heart murder

Depraved heart murder is an American legal term for an action that demonstrates a "callous disregard for human life" and results in death. In most states, depraved heart killings constitute either second-degree murder or first-degree manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart_murder

I can easily image a prosecutor making a case that willful neglect of a newborn qualified.

ETA link.

 

[Checkmite]

Not so long ago people were feeding babies formula instead of breast milk altogether. We now know this was not correct. This causes unnecessary immune system problems. Breast feeding is now highly recommended by the majority.

That's different. People used formula then because it was generally accepted to be OK (we've acted on what we've learned since then). These people had not even that excuse. The carton said DON'T FEED TO BABIES. They made a choice to disregard the warning.

In this day and age it is very difficult to know who and what to believe. I find it very hard to believe these people intended to kill their baby.

I don't find it too difficult to imagine as a possibility. When people are starving to death, the signs generally manifest quite a while before death occurs, and are rather unambiguous. What I find much harder to believe is that anyone - even "inexperienced parents", could look at a baby that's starving to death and not realize that it's starving to death. There comes a point at which mere ignorance or inexperience doesn't doesn't hold water as an excuse.

 

[Architect]

In this day and age it is very difficult to know who and what to believe. I find it very hard to believe these people intended to kill their baby.

I find it very hard to believe that people would want to sexually abuse children. I find it very hard to believe that men would get their kicks from beating their wives. I find it very hard to believe that some men want to rape women. Nevertheless these things happen. My personal views and incredulity in no way minimises the chances of such crimes arrising.

Whether or not they intended to kill the child is, in any event, not the only consideration. Reckless disregard is sufficient in all western legal regimes. And, as I explained before, the benchmark is what a reasonable person would do.

It is not reasonable to ignore specific advice on the carton. It is not reasonable to ignore warnings from friends and neighbours. It is not reasonable to refuse to seek medical assistance where a child is clearly severely malnourished and ill.

Should the charge have been culpable homicide, or manslaughter? That is a matter for the relevant legislative framework. In all cases is it likely that the accused would have been facing a significant jail sentence? Certainly.

 

[g4macdad]

I find it very hard to believe that people would want to sexually abuse children. I find it very hard to believe that men would get their kicks from beating their wives. I find it very hard to believe that some men want to rape women. Nevertheless these things happen. My personal views and incredulity in no way minimises the chances of such crimes arrising.

Whether or not they intended to kill the child is, in any event, not the only consideration. Reckless disregard is sufficient in all western legal regimes. And, as I explained before, the benchmark is what a reasonable person would do.

It is not reasonable to ignore specific advice on the carton. It is not reasonable to ignore warnings from friends and neighbours. It is not reasonable to refuse to seek medical assistance where a child is clearly severely malnourished and ill.

Should the charge have been culpable homicide, or manslaughter? That is a matter for the relevant legislative framework. In all cases is it likely that the accused would have been facing a significant jail sentence? Certainly.

You are really just repeating what has already been discussed.

We need to decide if we (individually) believe the parent's neglect is an intention or motive for murder. Or is it a tragic case of bad judgement?

We are not really concerned about how the outcome was reached in the case, as much as we want to know if we actually agree with it.

 

[Architect]

We need to decide if we (individually) believe the parent's neglect is an intention or motive for murder. Or is it a tragic case of bad judgement?

No, you misunderstand the legal reality. For a crime to be commited it is not necessary for malice to be involved. Recklessness can also be of sufficient nature. There is a point at which it becomes criminal. The drink draver example given earlier is a perfect example.

 

[g4macdad]

No, you misunderstand the legal reality. For a crime to be commited it is not necessary for malice to be involved. Recklessness can also be of sufficient nature. There is a point at which it becomes criminal. The drink draver example given earlier is a perfect example.

Oh boy! Listen, I don't care about the legal mumbo jumbo.

Is the outcome justified in your, personal opinion, or anyone else's?

Please stop repeating how the verdict was reached. We already know.

 

[Architect]

"legal mumbo jumbo"? I see. Make sure you don't cross the courts at any point in the future, eh?

Yes, in my personal opinion I believe that reckless conduct of this level, whereby a person dies, should be punished with a severe jail sentence.

 

[g4macdad]

Make sure you don't cross the courts at any point in the future, eh?

You too, without a Lawyer.

 

[LostAngeles]

g4macdad, Danish Dynamite, I'm sorry, but I have to call total and complete bullsh** on the two of you knocking Architect for having legal knowledge.

The matter we're discussing has both a moral component and a legal component and the two are not separate in this matter. Architect has been arguing that the law does in fact ask that these people receive such a strong punishment and has been explaining the legalities of why the law would ask for this.

So when you ask, "Why were they punished so!?" and he gives you an answer based in the legalities of it, stop berating him for it. He knows the law. The law was the reason why they were punished so.

If you two trolls could stop with using the word, "lawyer," like it's an insult, we might be able to have a substantially more productive discussion.

 

[Lonewulf]

The law is the law, and we are dealing with the law. Architect is explaining the law.

If you don't agree with it, that's fine. But don't ask why something is the way it is, if you do not want to hear the answer.

 

[slingblade]

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.

I remember when I had my own babies, and car-seats were relatively new things. I remember (anecdotally, I'm sorry), hearing news stories about parents who didn't have a car-seat, or who didn't bother to strap their kid in, and they'd get in an accident, and the kid would be killed.

They'd be arrested, too, those parents, and charged with...well, probably not murder, but something like neglect resulting in death, or manslaughter. Sometimes they'd get prison time as a sentence.

And I would think, "How cruel to have to go to prison, when you've already lost a child--isn't that punishment enough for their stupidity?"

I wasn't quibbling with bringing charges, levying fines, or even requiring community service. But I often thought prison time sounded pretty harsh, considering.

However. They had 6 weeks to be stupid in, these parents. The baby suffered. He suffered every day. He was hungry. Someone should have to pay for that, and it shouldn't be pleasant. That's just my opinion, I know.

I honestly can't settle on how I feel about it. But something bothers me about the "they just lost a child--isn't that punishment enough?" argument.

My answer would have to be: No. Losing the child is not punishment enough.

I'm not certain that prison is necessarily the right answer, but I feel some kind of punishment and education is definitely called for.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I remember when I had my own babies, and car-seats were relatively new things. I remember (anecdotally, I'm sorry), hearing news stories about parents who didn't have a car-seat, or who didn't bother to strap their kid in, and they'd get in an accident, and the kid would be killed.

Yes, and before car seats were available, people had wrecks in which kids were killed and they didn't go to jail for it. So, where is the crime that warrants imprisonment?

I wasn't quibbling with bringing charges, levying fines, or even requiring community service. But I often thought prison time sounded pretty harsh, considering.

I tend to see that your way.

For shuize: Thanks for the edification on legal detail.

DR

 

[Architect]

Yes, and before car seats were available, people had wrecks in which kids were killed and they didn't go to jail for it. So, where is the crime that warrants imprisonment?

DR

With respect, you've deliberately misconstrued what he writes.

At one time, the importance of child seats was not properly realised. Hence an accident at that time did not give rise to claims of culpuable recklessness. However once it did become known, the whole situation changed. It is also an issue which is widely promoted by safety bodies on both sides of the Atlantic, so parents cannot readily claim ignorance.

Now his second point was that one might cause serious injury because of a brief lapse, or single error. In the case of the starved baby, however, the parents had weeks to consider and reflect on their action before things reached the point of no return. Yet they failed to do so. That is a different order of magnitude.