posted on July 1, 2002 06:32:59 PM new
I doubt that the death of these children was premeditated. Do you think that she got her hair curled to look cute in jail for the rest of her life? Do you think that she expected to find her children dead in the car when she returned? It's a case of gross ignorance and horrific negligence. Leaving the children in a heated car for three hours is outrageous cruelty even though she expected them to survive.
posted on July 1, 2002 06:49:52 PM new
>>>This is just outrageous! I think if people treat their own children this way, how do they treat their dogs? YUCK!!!!!<<<
my dog is in the car often,
always parked so we can see it,
with AC running, evian watter, snacks,
blanket, toys and radio on
but that's mostly on coller days,
in winter he has heat on,
and in summer (living in FL)
we take him every where in his bag
(restaurants, airplane, mall etc...)
he just goes to sleep
(he's a 9 pound bichon)
in some states it is against the law
to even leave your dog in a running car
so I cant believe this woman left her kids in a car with NO AC,
maybe all that hair curling and bleaching ruined her brain...
posted on July 1, 2002 09:17:32 PM new"Borillar! Your post almost sounded like you'd approve of the death penalty for her."
Sorry, KD, but you've not comprehended what I wrote.
"As far as those that I've ever talked to about this widespread problem of parents getting their kids killed this way . . ."
I still say that such people are a danger to more children. Instead, they ought to be given the option of life imprisonment or sterlization without the ability to adopt or to be around children (sort of like a sex offender). That's my choice, as I don't believe in the concept of Punishment, however tempting retribution may seem from time to time.
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jul 1, 2002 09:38 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2002 11:10:36 PM new
I know that you were, KD. There was simply no way to retort that showed that I can interpret a Smilie.
BTW: I found this: "Although all these tracts (the Seanchus Mór and the Law of Hostage Sureties and the "Book of Acaill" ) go commonly under the generic name of the Brehon Laws, they are not really codes of law at all, or at least not essentially so. They are rather the digests or compilations of generations of learned lawyers." on the The Brehon Laws and I don't get your reference. I read most of the page of explanation there, but I do not see the relevance. Could you please elaborate on your point?
posted on July 1, 2002 11:49:01 PM new
No doubt Bush will get this and him and Thompson will concoct some imbecilic scheme to marry off stupid breedign females to some schmuck, with the blessing of the church and government.
No doubt her public defender will show up for court (at least in this public case)
and plead some off the wall nonsense. maybe with the way our leaders act we should be flying the Jolly Roger instead.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the party that happens to be in favor for the moment and to the (choose your own insulting remark)Unamerican symbol (like an elephant or a horses ass) for which it stands one great place to have a good time for all (who can afford it)
The fact of the matter is is that our founding fathers could not have fore seen a public so filled with ignorance that they would remove references to a god in general.
Me I don't know I really dont like the organized clowns but Im willing to keep an open mind, I did die legally they did bring me back and I know they say I was out all the while but I was not. didnt see any angels
or anything like that but did feel different afterwards.
[quote]There seems to have been no hard and fast line drawn between civil and criminal offences in the Brehon law. They were both sued for in the same way before a Brehon, who heard the case argued, and either acquitted or else found guilty and assessed the fine. In the case of a crime committed by an individual all the sept were liable. If the offence were one against the person, and the criminal happened to die, then the liability of the sept was wiped out, for, according to the maxim, "the crime dies with the criminal ". If, however, the offence had been one causing damage to property or causing material loss, then the sept remained still liable for it, even after the death of the criminal. This regulation resulted in every member of the sept having a direct interest in suppressing crime.
There was always a fine inflicted for manslaughter, even unpremeditated, which was called an eric. If the manslaughter was premeditated, or what we would call murder, the eric was doubled, and it was distributed to the relatives of the slain in the proportion to which they were entitled to inherit his property.[/quote]
[quote]The foundation of the Brehon law rested to a large extent on the power of custom, or customary law, the popular acceptability of the law as being founded on 'tradition'. With no central governing authority, no organised institutions of crime prevention, the most powerful deterrent was the threat of sanctions, and the consequent loss of status within the community. In principle, an individual's rights and status existed only within the boundaries of his or her tuath, in accordance with the laws of 'derbhfhine' (four generations of descent from a common ancestor). Loss of face within your own tuath was considered by all to be a disgraceful state of affairs; to allow such a situation to continue was even worse, and so the victim would seek to obtain a settlement of compensation from the transgressor as soon as possible, to restore order and balance within the tuath.
I found the idea of the focus of the laws not being punishment, but restoration of order interesting.
[quote]Remedies under the Brehon Laws
The universal remedy for wrong done by one person to another was the payment of compensation. The compensation was based on the Honour Price of the victim or the victim's kin and the nature and seriousness of the wrong. If you were not able to pay the due compensation, then the debt could be levied against your kinsmen, (with resulting obligations by you to your kinsmen). If the due compensation was not paid in respect of a serious wrong, the culprit could be killed or taken into bondage. Culprits evading their obligations could become outlaws, losing their human rights. (However, an outlaw could regain his rights by atoning for the wrong by paying the due compensation). Evasions of their obligations by kings could give rise to other kings combining together to wage war on and punish the culprit. To avoid the loss of face associated with being involved in proceedings, a commoner was often appointed as the king's representative in proceedings, i.e., a person who would be sued in place of the king.
There were apparently no prisons in ancient Ireland, although there is reference to perpetrators being held in chains and hostage-taking was a common practice to enforce political loyalty[/quote]
The marraige stuff was fairly unusual for the times also.
And back on topic, should a person lose their reproductive rights when they have been convicted of crimes that led to harm or death of children?
For me, the answer would be yes. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on July 2, 2002 06:15:46 AM new
What you are speaking of with the Irish has been very common all over the earth. It is basically tribal law. It may go by custom but it can be modified by a judge upon the basis of circumstances or merit of the offender. It is indeed more flexible than our law which can increase the satisfaction of those under it - BUT it is also liable to being unfairly administered if the one using it does not literally have the wisdom of Solamon. It also has the down side that if the parties to a suit are not happy they may seek redress by fued or personal combat. I have always yearned for the duel myself because there are so many beyond the reach of justice in a dispassionate system. But although I am an fair marksman my zeal for justice would have probably pitted me against a slimeball who also happened to be a natural pistolero.
posted on July 2, 2002 01:01:08 PM new
I now see your point. Thank you.
The Irish were invaed by the Vikings, most notably the Danish, who brought with them their very utopian legal system called DaneLaw. The Brehold Laws are a compliation of previous cases tried in DaneLaw and handed down through the centuries.
In DaneLaw, the family of a murdered person was given wereguild, or money and/or property as compensation, the local warlord establishing the amount as being fair and the affair ended.
This gave rise to two problems, as any system will: 1) if you had enough money to pay wereguild, you could go around killing pretty much whomever displeased you. Usually, that meant the local nobility -- who also just happened to be the ones dispensing the Danelaws and setting the "fair" amount. 2) It was common practice that to sent the impoverished to Debtor's Prison where many died. Or, the other alternative - also in DaneLaw, was the serfdom or form of slavery that the English called "Indentured Servatude". Of note, DaneLaw is heavily incorporated into English law and therfore, American law as well.
The first problem gave rise to the modern judicary and the second problem gave rise to prisions, punishment for crimes, and the ideals of reeducating the peson not to reoffend.
--------------------------------------------
As far as the idea that community pressure could be brought to bear upon an individual to prevent them from committing crimes, one only has to look at any of the feudal systems that prevailed in Europe and in Asia to see how well they worked. Crime is still much lower there than in America and taking away guns altogether works just fine - for them!
However, in America, we are a more mobile society, almost nomadic for some. That leaves little chance of social stigma as a method of deterrance. Rather, I find that basing a court sentance upon whether or not the person is a threat to society is a reason for incarceration.
In another recent thread, we talked breifly about Dodd, who, if the system was capable fo doing just what I reccomend, Dodd would still be alive incarcerated and young boys left intact and alive. A person who is mentally ill is not always mentally ill just because they want to be, or that the environment turned them into mentally ill persons. Rather, most of those who commit crimes or use criminal behavior are mentally ill and quite often, have a chemical imbalance in their brains that could be helped with the right medication(s) if they are available.
Therefore, if criminal intent or criminal behavior is caused by this imbalance, then should the person have to loose their lives as well? Or many years behiond bars without any treatment for the condition? Aren't we "punishing"; brutalizing people for the "crime" of a chemical imbalance in their brains that they have no control over? What kind of justice is that?
I am not saying htat all crimes and criminals have that problem. Rather, all criminals or those who commit crimes need to be evaluated and given medications and outpatient therapy once they are stabilized and reincarcerated for refusing to continue their treatments to make them functional in society. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to do this than to warehouse criminals and the stigma of being a felon/parolee means that they have little chance to have a normal life.
posted on July 2, 2002 03:53:48 PM new
Thanks for the informative posts everyone.
Borillar, doesn't it seem like there are a lot of 'mentally ill' people that commit horrendous murders? The true mentally ill have no better chance of getting off of a case than a person that claims mental illness as a defense.....it's become fuzzy as to who's really ill.
At what point are we responsible for our own actions, when, if it boiled down to it, we could ALL be termed as mental to some degree? This woman who let her babies die in the car can have a defense of drugs, bad husband, young age, neglecting parents, etc., and people believe that these are viable, acceptable excuses. There is no excuse, no matter what her mental condition, for a crime like this imo.
I think sterilization is soo logical, but some people think it's barbaric. If we are producing children that don't have a fairly acceptable functioning brain, then maybe we should try a thing called quality, not quantity. Something sure isn't working.
<quote>
"I think sterilization is soo logical, but some people think it's barbaric. If we are producing children that don't have a fairly acceptable functioning brain, then maybe we should try a thing called quality, not quantity. Something sure isn't working."
<end quote>
Reducing the population of the criminally ill by sterilization reminds me of the Natzi effort to eliminate those who were insane, handicapped, or mentally retarded.
It's just morally wrong to consider such a solution.
With the exception of sociopaths, most murderers are mentally ill in my opinion.
posted on July 2, 2002 05:42:06 PM new
I know what you mean Helen. It would seem like a last resort. But if you're a man and kill a child for sexual gratification, or are a woman and kill your own babies, your rights should fly out the window. If sterilization works to prevent men from sexually natured crimes, then there shouldn't be a question. If women were sterilized, then they couldn't have anymore children to kill. The problem with comparing this to naziism, is that nothing ever gets done because of people's rights. Sterilization could solve a lot of these crimes imo.
posted on July 2, 2002 08:02:48 PM new
Sorry Helen, I'm not joking. When I see the rights of the perpetrator weighing more than the rights of the victim, it amounts to nothing more than a get-out-of-jail-early card. Do they get rehabilitation? Maybe a group therapy thing where they act remorseful to get paroled early. When they're released they re-commit because so far, nothing has helped these people.
As far as this woman goes, I don't think she should be allowed to have anymore kids. She blew her chance, BUT there's no way to stop her because sterilization comes off as being more barbaric than killing your kids. That doesn't make sense to me Helen.
We don't want to match one barbaric act with another. Just because you consider her action barbaric is no excuse for reacting with another barbaric act. Are you assuming that because this tragedy occurred that she will have more children and kill them also or is your idea focused on retribution?
Many cases such as this one could be prevented by appropriate education. For example, if a safety class was required as part of the school curriculum, a lot of incidents such as this one might be prevented. As I said before, this is a case of gross ignorance similar to Gravid's story of the woman planning to clean tools with a bucket of gasoline.
posted on July 2, 2002 10:07:19 PM new
That's true Helen. My thoughts are more of a reaction to what she did to her children and if I think it out, you're right.
When I talk about sterilization, I'm thinking of women like Andrea Yates and chronic sex offenders and as more of a 'last resort' to stop this crap. I would think if I was hurting children, I would want to have this done if it would save lives, including my own.
posted on July 2, 2002 11:55:05 PM new
Actually, Helen, the Nazis got the sterilization idea from the State of Indiana, who used forced castration in the 1870's as a method of reducing the number of mentally ill and the retarded and the criminally minded.
KD, the question is, Can a Civilized society truly think that it's doing Justice by punishing or killing those who literally have no control over their thoughts and actions vis-a-vie' a chemical imbalance? Normal people fall down, get hit on the head, and suddenly become violent criminals. Do we kill them for having the misfortune of getting that crack in the head?
KD, in our society we would much rather torture people unnecessarily or kill them as punishment instead of treating them. Incarcerating people costs much more money than to treat them as outpatients, yet we'd rather have that satisfaction that we torture the mentally ill instead of helping them.
Should mentally ill people who commit crimes simply be released back onto the street? No! We need to make sure that they do not reoffend. If they are mentally ill, then let's treat them if we can. For those who get treated and are able to pull their lives together, isn't it better that we release them and monitor them for compliance, rather than torturing them unnecessarily at a huge cost?
Yes, some crimes just cry out for retribution! But we have to decide whether or not that we are above such things or else we are every bit as bad as the violent, criminal people that we despise. You can't have it both ways at the same time.
Are most people who commit crimes mentally ill? No. Many are, but not most. If we could cut down by say, 40% the number incarcerated and not being cured, isn't that both humane and cost effective? I have not worked with the mentally ill adults, nor with the criminally intent. However, I have known a few in my time and I have to say that most criminals are pathetic; many being mentally ill, or victims of the system that brutalizes and penalizes some people for not fitting into the square holes that we try to force them into.
Question: if a person is a diabetic and doesn't know it and that makes him crazy enough to go rob a bank in desperation and only later finds out after going to trial that he's a diabetic, should we rather not treat the illness and take into account that illness and that part that it may have played? What about mental illness?
