The reason I don't own a gun

I say part him out...

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who could use a heart, lung, kidney, etc.

IMO, if you're going to have a death penalty, might was well harvest the organs and literally turn them into something "good".

 

And this is why heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

You know, usually when there's something like this, there's drugs or alcohol involved, some kind of stupor, possibly a chemical imbalance problem that doesn't justify or even explain this type of behavior -SOMETHING that prevents it from just being evil.

Absent of anything else, this is just pure evil. How horrible.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point his lawyer (assuming he gets one) finds a psych to say this guy has some sort of disorder - maybe multiple personalities where the one on trial didn't "do" the crime.

But yeah, he needs help. or a nice cell mate named Bruno.

 

And this differs from killing children by dropping bombs on them, or burning them to death with napalm how?

Kill one child and you're a maniac. Kill a hundred and you're a war hero. Kill ten thousand and you're a "great" leader.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Feb 9 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]387580[/snapback]</div>

:huh: :blink: ?????????????????????????????? :blink: :huh:



Wow hang him, better yet put him in a sweater and a depends and take him to the playground in the same conditions..... :angry:

There was just as horrible a case here in a near by city. :blink:
WARNING ITS GRAPHIC: Read at own risk!
http://www.skcentral.com/news.php?readmore=646

 

I don't even know what to say about something like that. As the father of a 15 month old toddler, I just can't imagine wanting to hurt your child, no matter how they behave. The story literally makes me sick to my stomach and want to cry. The part about the tiny footprints really got to me. I can't imagine the fear and pain that child must have been going through. It pains me to know that human beings are capable of acts like this.

Killing hundreds or thousands in a war is terrible, but it is much more impersonal (especially to the leader who orders it and isn't there to carry out the order) than killing your own child. That takes a special kind of monster in my opinion.

I need to go home now to hug and kiss my little girl.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Feb 9 2007, 02:20 PM) [snapback]387604[/snapback]</div>

Not sure if this was a reply to my post, but if so, my point was misinterpreted. People have blackouts from mind-altering substances in which they may do things they would never normally do, and not remember afterward. I do not believe such deserve to be absolved of their transgressions; they are responsible for their actions. And as a later poster pointed out, to violate the trust a child has in a parent in this way is particualrly abhorrent. To do this in what appears to be a clear-headed manner is simply monstrous.

And if I misinterpreted your post, then never mind

 

Colour me vindictive too, but I'm all for dressing the sicko in diapers and a tshirt and chaining him to the teeter totter overnight. Mind you, I'm also a fan of taking drivers who hit cyclists and tying them down on the bike path. Thump thump.

 

I would favor LWOP for this person, with loss of any conjugal rights while imprisoned (or forced sterilization, to prevent him from having any other children).

There are some good stats on infanticide at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm

Most of the child homicides are children killed by a parent or a step-parent. Blacks are more than twice as likely to kill their children (in terms of children killed per 100,000 population). There aren't statistics on that page to compare single parent family verses two parent families, and I suspect that's why the stat gets skewed so badly; blacks are much more likely to have children out of wedlock than whites and not give them up for adoption (or abort them early in the pregnancy). The single parent family also is usually steeped in poverty.

While men are most often the child killers when you look at all child homicides including those by acquaintances who are not the child's parents, the split between father and mother being the killer is very small ... 1 percentage point. And the younger the child the more likely it is to be killed. Many of the children killed are babies, under one year old.

It makes my head spin that someone could kill a baby, or a child. The good news is that the incident rate is running level or going down.

So here's my take on it: like the killer in this news story, children are often killed out of frustration and the disproportionate punishment measures that stem from that frustration. Is there a way to prevent that frustration and protect the children?

This has been going on for a long time, but it would be interesting to see if it has increased in recent times. In an interesting note, I am descended from a child killer, the first (European) woman executed in north America, Alice Bishop, who was convicted in 1648 and hanged. The trial record is:

 

You see, killing kids is perfectly fine. It's having an abortion that's a sin!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Feb 9 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]387556[/snapback]</div>

See? You're coming around to my "three strikes and you're" dead prison reform policy.

Only for some, one strike would be enough.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 9 2007, 02:49 PM) [snapback]387723[/snapback]</div>

On this point we differ: The argument intended to exonerate the soldier or commander is that he did not want the innocents to be killed, but he was forced into the action that resulted in their deaths. Typically, he claims he had to drop bombs on them because there were "enemies" there and the only way to kill the "enemies" was to drop the bombs. Thus he maintains that his intent was not to kill the innocents.

I disagree with this moral logic. My view is that if he knows that his action will result in the deaths of innocents, then he is guilty of those deaths.

I believe there is a now utterly-disregarded clause somewhere in one of the Geneva conventions which prohibits the use of any weapon which cannot distinguish between a combatant and a non-combatant. It is often cited in the anti-nuclear movement. I never invoked it in my defense at any of my trials, because my view was that all war is unjustifiable, and therefore, laws permitting even limited war were improper. But in the argument over intent as a justification, I think it is relevant to note that at one time, weapons such as bombs were considered barbaric, and were made illegal. The argument from intent only arose when nations decided to use weapons previously considered unthinkable.

But even using the argument of intent, isn't it considered murder if a person shoots a gun into a house he sincerely believes to be uninhabited, and kills a person who is inside? How about a driver who purely by accident kills a pedestrian? Isn't that manslaughter, unless the pedestrian can be shown to have acted recklessly, e.g. by jumping out into traffic?

Whatever happens to the fellow who killed his child, I will shed no tears over him. But my moral philosophy is that if you know an action will kill innocents, and you take that action anyway, then you are responsible for those deaths.

 

In ancient history, my father did a similar thing to me. As a small child I wouldn't go to sleep so he locked me out of the house and went to bed. I spent a terrified night (it wasn't freezing, but cold) in the dark outside. It has taken decades of psychotherapy to come to terms with my abandonment and parental dislike issues ( I blame my mother just as much as him for not 'rescuing' me). Naturally, someone this cruel was also 'into' capitol punishment of the worst type. My point? Which is worse? Child dying, or living with the scars and a childhood of further abuse?