View Full Version : Woman Kills 8 Babies, Gets 15 Year Sentence
A woman kills 8 infants and gets a fifteen-year sentence. By my calculations this works out to 1.875 years per dead baby. Doesn't seem like justice, does it? Here's the article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5037158.stm) She should have either gotten life in prison or life in a mental institution. Splitting the difference with infanticide doesn't work out.
Speaking as a lemur who spends most of his nights comforting, feeding and caring for a baby, I find this whole affair super-duper revolting and disturbing. Thought I'd share.
You're welcome!
Ser Clegane
06-01-2006, 19:09
I find this whole affair super-duper revolting and disturbing.
What is especially odd is the fact that the role of her ex-husband seems to have been somewhat neglected (he claims to have never noticed that she was pregant)
Big King Sanctaphrax
06-01-2006, 19:11
Hilschenz had originally been charged with murder but the court reduced this to manslaughter before her trial began because it did not feel there was enough proof that she had tried to conceal her crimes.
I didn't think trying to conceal your crimes was a pre-requisite for being charged with murder? Perhaps in Germany.
Kralizec
06-01-2006, 19:13
Prosecutor Anette Bargenda said she planned to study the verdict in detail to see whether the court was right to decide against a murder conviction, the Associated Press news agency reported.
Sounds like the prosecutor might appeal for a higher sentence. I hope so.
Kralizec
06-01-2006, 19:24
How did Ser Cerglane's post end up before mine and BKS'? It wasn't there before, and according to the backroom index Ser was the last to post :inquisitive:
Divinus Arma
06-01-2006, 19:30
Somehow, because they are infants, their lives mean less to the world.
Note the following: In the backyard of my parents' house are the dead bodies of eight women ranging between the ages of 17 and 23. I can't remember if I killed them and buried them or not.
(obviously not true and just trying to make a point. Don't get any ideas from this you sillys.:inquisitive: )
Why is it that the evil is less if they are children killed by the mother? She should be burnt alive in a public square for all to see.
Devastatin Dave
06-01-2006, 19:34
Talk about a lack of foresight. She should have had their brains sucked out just before they popped out, called it "choice", and could have become a patron saint of abortionists and liberals world wide. Man, people really should think ahead.
A.Saturnus
06-01-2006, 19:38
Note the following: In the backyard of my parents' house are the dead bodies of eight women ranging between the ages of 17 and 23. I can't remember if I killed them and buried them or not.
We have the principle in Germany that if no one can prove that you killed that eight women then you go free. Figure that.
The court was of the opinion that killing by neglect isn't the same as murder.
Spetulhu
06-01-2006, 19:52
Talk about a lack of foresight. She should have had their brains sucked out just before they popped out, called it "choice", and could have become a patron saint of abortionists and liberals world wide. Man, people really should think ahead.
Sorry, it's not legal in Germany. They allow abortion in the first trimester only. And first you have to see a counselor who will try to make you change your mind about it.
Kralizec
06-01-2006, 20:15
You people are being to hard on the judge. If the court comes to the conclusion that the act can't possibly be labeled as "murder" following the letter of the law, all the judge can do is give her the maximum sentence for manslaughter. Wich is exactly what was done.
Devastatin Dave
06-01-2006, 20:22
Sorry, it's not legal in Germany. They allow abortion in the first trimester only. And first you have to see a counselor who will try to make you change your mind about it.
Really? That's absolutely barbaric!!! A woman has the right to chose to have her "mass of cells" chopped and diced and served with greens right up to the point where the "mass of cell" ass is slapped by the doc. The Germans need to get out the stone age. (this is sarcasm, its good that Germany has a responsible abortion policy.)
How did Ser Cerglane's post end up before mine and BKS'? It wasn't there before, and according to the backroom index Ser was the last to post :inquisitive:
Possibly related to the thread-starter bug?
Anyway, this would hardly have been murder, since there's that other kind of killing we call infanticide, which does carry a reduced sentence.
However... I'm gonna write a song about this.
We have the principle in Germany that if no one can prove that you killed that eight women then you go free. Figure that.
Also called in dubio pro reo.
Besides the court decided as if all the babies were born alive even though police could prove that only in one case. Another court may decide that the other 8 babies were not killed by her because noone can prove they were born alive and then...
...
voila
...
she is only charged for killing one baby...
I´m in favor of the "in dubio pro reo"-principle but I think she should be charged for hiding dead babies alone, whether they were born dead or not I don´t care, but if my grandma died a natural death, I also wouldn´t bury her in the garden...
And on top of that, drinking until you have a blackout or even close to that before a baby is born should get a harsh punishment because you´re seriously putting the unborn baby into danger...
In the end I´d say even though it seems obvious, we can´t prove she killed the babies(sad as it is), but for the other stuff in 8 cases each I´d put her in prison for a very long time(alcohol abuse resulted in a dead baby).
Anyway, the laws should be refined but I´ll stop thinking about it here because I fear it won´t help much anyway.:no:
Kralizec
06-01-2006, 21:06
You could argue that since she drank a lot when knowing she's about to have a baby (assuming she wasn't drunk 24/7), she accepted the possibility that the child would die after or prior the birth, making it murder.
Crazed Rabbit
06-02-2006, 00:15
I'd say causing the negligent deaths-at the very least-of eight, as in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, of her own children over a period of ten years would seem to me not to be just 'negligence'.
And 15 years is the maximum sentence?:no:
Crazed Rabbit
You could argue that since she drank a lot when knowing she's about to have a baby (assuming she wasn't drunk 24/7), she accepted the possibility that the child would die after or prior the birth, making it murder.
Yeah, that was my point.
The sad part all she had to do was walk into a church put the baby down and walk out. Or if a church was too far out of range put the child on a doorstep knock and run away. Either way they could have been adopted and became someone else's joy.
BHCWarman88
06-02-2006, 03:20
She should have Got a Death pentaly.. if not that,at least Life in Prison,period.. Such a Shame Someone has to Kill Babies,really is..
I'd say causing the negligent deaths-at the very least-of eight, as in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, of her own children over a period of ten years would seem to me not to be just 'negligence'.
Actually it would be just negligence. Plus there is always the fact that some people just shoouldn't have kids.
And 15 years is the maximum sentence?:no:
Crazed Rabbit
You know something else, here I could kill a man and only spend about 5 years in jail. More than enough time to get a jail house degree for free. Granted I'd be on probation for like 15-20 years but hey who's counting. :2thumbsup:
BHCWarman88
06-02-2006, 05:22
Lmao,this World is becoming Wacky..my God,She should have not had Kids anyhow..
Seamus Fermanagh
06-02-2006, 06:14
Lmao,this World is becoming Wacky..my God,She should have not had Kids anyhow..
Driving a vehicle -- license required.
Flying a plane -- license required, along with tutored instruction.
Plumber -- license required, some continuing education required.
Selling Insurance -- license required, career-long continuing education required.
Doctoring -- license required, significant education, continuing education, periodic recertification required.
Bringing into physical existence another human life -- no restrictions.
doc_bean
06-02-2006, 12:03
Lmao,this World is becoming Wacky..my God,She should have not had Kids anyhow..
The world barely changes, it's what you see of it that does. I read somewhere that the Romans threw unwanted babies away like garbage, infanticide has certainly been a popular method of birth control in a lot of cultures, or for a lot of people in cultures where it isn't accepted.
x-dANGEr
06-02-2006, 12:26
The sad part all she had to do was walk into a church put the baby down and walk out. Or if a church was too far out of range put the child on a doorstep knock and run away. Either way they could have been adopted and became someone else's joy.
Yes..
The world barely changes, it's what you see of it that does. I read somewhere that the Romans threw unwanted babies away like garbage, infanticide has certainly been a popular method of birth control in a lot of cultures, or for a lot of people in cultures where it isn't accepted.Also, the nomad arabs (Before Islam) used to bury their daughters alive, just to get rid of the shame-chance (Because if one's daughter is raped, he'd be ashamed for ever, and as you know, there were many tribes, who'd raid each other and rape each other's women.. Chaotic).
But really, I don't think she intended to kill them.. A woman can barely pull of killing one of her babies, what about 8?!
Kralizec
06-02-2006, 12:44
Depends. The defining difference between manslaughter and murder is intent, wich is usually hard to prove and especially in this case. The woman doesn't seem to be bothered about 8 dead babies, though.
English assassin
06-02-2006, 14:06
Hilschenz's lawyer said his client would appeal against the verdict .
"We don't know how long the children lived, my client can't remember burying or hiding the children, which brings up the question of whether someone else did it,"
This sort of muppet gets lawyers a bad name. Hmm, one day I have a kid, the next day I don't, the kids bodies all turn up in my flower pots, :idea2: maybe someone else did it.
Eight freaking times.
If he's saying it was the husband, fair enough, but make the case. This "someone else" cobblers adds insult to injury.
The world barely changes, it's what you see of it that does. I read somewhere that the Romans threw unwanted babies away like garbage, infanticide has certainly been a popular method of birth control in a lot of cultures, or for a lot of people in cultures where it isn't accepted.
Or they'd sell them. I mean why just kill them when you can make a profit.
Man this topic just keeps making me think of dead baby jokes. :balloon2:
Or they'd sell them. I mean why just kill them when you can make a profit.
Man this topic just keeps making me think of dead baby jokes. :balloon2:
I hope you can keep your sick humour for yourself...:rtwno:
BHCWarman88
06-02-2006, 18:51
keep your sick humor for yourself,no one wants to hear it..
doc_bean
06-02-2006, 19:30
Wow, I'm glad I didn't post that joke I was going to then...
discovery1
06-02-2006, 22:16
She said she already had three children, and her husband did not want any more babies.
WHAT! That is a terrible rational. She could have been sterilized immediately after the third child, or he could have been at any time. Or any one of dozens of birth control methods.
Her husband, relatives and neighbours all said they had been unaware of her pregnancies.
Sounds rather fishy. I find it very hard to believe that the HUSBAND didn't notice she was pregnant.
Wow, I'm glad I didn't post that joke I was going to then...
PM it to me, please.
Telegraph story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/28/wbabies24.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/28/ixworld.html)
Hmm. If she felt pressured into doing such a thing by her husband, he should definetely be looked into. Maybe he beat her?
I hope you can keep your sick humour for yourself...:rtwno:
keep your sick humor for yourself,no one wants to hear it..
All I'm hearing is "We really want ot hear your sick jokes."
BHCWarman88
06-03-2006, 00:05
No,we don't. I can Make Sick Jokes of My Own,Far Worser Then yours,but No One Wants to Hear My,and Nethier yours..
_Martyr_
06-03-2006, 00:42
This clearly should have been a life sentence! :dizzy2:
Very sad.
BHCWarman88
06-03-2006, 03:16
To Me, she should have be on Death Row for Killing Kids,just Sad..
Except that there was not enough evidence to convict on murder. And that Germany doesn't have the death penalty (except for maybe treason in time of war). This could only be murder if the procecution could prove intent to kill. An accident where someone (even a newborn) ends up dead is at most manslaughter at the least criminal negeligence causing death (or the German equivalent there of). So cork it. She's been tried and convicted, will be sent to the slammer for at least 5 years (or when ever she can apply for parole). She shuold also get her head straigh so that this won't happen again.
BHCWarman88
06-03-2006, 05:26
she needs more time in Jail,like Life,not get out in 5 years and get her "head back in shape"..
doc_bean
06-03-2006, 11:57
The real shame is that after those five years, she can have kids all over again...:help:
_Martyr_
06-03-2006, 14:32
I doubt it, she'll be pushing at least 50 by the time she gets out....
Strike For The South
06-03-2006, 16:11
:2thumbsup: This wouldntve happend in Texas! Needle :skull: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
she needs more time in Jail,like Life,not get out in 5 years and get her "head back in shape"..
Well life would only be 10 more years than she did get. IE a life sentence is around 25 years, I say using Canada's justice system as a measuring stick. Also she needs equal parts punishment and rehabilitation.
The real shame is that after those five years, she can have kids all over again...
Well maybe Germany has that you gotta admit guilt to get parloe thing.
This wouldntve happend in Texas! Needle
Hmm, excessive, stupid, unsessiary, and not dealing with the underlying problem. Typically Texan.
BHCWarman88
06-03-2006, 18:39
She could always kidnap kids from a school or something.. and 25 years is not a Life Sentace,No Way. a Life Sentace is where you spend your whole Life in ail,not just 10 years or 25 Years Lars. she needss No Rehab,she's Sick,period. Keep her in Jail. If I killed someone,boy,I get throwed in jail for Life,but she kills 8 kids and doesn't? Meh........
doc_bean
06-03-2006, 19:14
and 25 years is not a Life Sentace,No Way. a Life Sentace is where you spend your whole Life in ail,not just 10 years or 25 Years Lars.
life is 20-25 years, a death sentence is for the rest of your life in jail, that's how it is in most of Europe AFAIK. Most of those countries don't actually use the death sentence anymore either, so life is the maximum you'll ever get. There are some exceptions (serial killers who've been in the media a little too much), they just keep 'em locked up for the sake of society, I'm not sure by what law/sentence that is.
She could always kidnap kids from a school or something.. and 25 years is not a Life Sentace,No Way. a Life Sentace is where you spend your whole Life in ail,not just 10 years or 25 Years Lars
No, a life sentence does have a # of years attached to it. In fact the life sentences of all nations do (the only variable being length, I haven't heard of one being less than 20 years though). You see the kind of life sentence where the only way you leave prison is feet first with a tow tag is a special kind of life sentence. Which is implied in it's wording. Problem is I don't know the wording from country to country. But I do know that a life sentence is not life, but more than 20 years. I recal reading somewhere that a life sentence most places in the Yankee lands is about 50 years.
she needss No Rehab,she's Sick,period. Keep her in Jail. If I killed someone,boy,I get throwed in jail for Life,but she kills 8 kids and doesn't? Meh........
Actually putting her in the klink for 15 years and using that time to fix what's broke in her head would be a much better use of the states resources than keeping her locked up for the rest of her life.
A.Saturnus
06-03-2006, 20:13
Life sentence would mean she could get out after 15 years (and likely would). There is a form of life sentence that does not have this option (which is the highest penalty a German court can give - yes, even in times of war), but even then release before death is still possible. It is not possible in Germany to "lock someone up and throw away the key".
Strike For The South
06-03-2006, 21:12
Hmm, excessive, stupid, unsessiary, and not dealing with the underlying problem. Typically Texan.
Oh you :kiss:
No, a life sentence does have a # of years attached to it. In fact the life sentences of all nations do (the only variable being length, I haven't heard of one being less than 20 years though).
Maximum sentence in Norway is 17 years.
If I killed someone,boy,I get throwed in jail for Life..
Heh.
Life sentence would mean she could get out after 15 years (and likely would). There is a form of life sentence that does not have this option (which is the highest penalty a German court can give - yes, even in times of war), but even then release before death is still possible. It is not possible in Germany to "lock someone up and throw away the key".
Thank you, I was waiting for someone with some knowledge of the German legal system to weight in.
Anyway I still hold the opinion that justice was served in this case.
Maximum sentence in Norway is 17 years.
And now I've heard of one. :2thumbsup: So that means that no one can be given a term of inprisonment of more than 17 years?
BHCWarman88
06-03-2006, 23:54
IMO I think Justice Was not Serve..
no one can be thorwn in Jail for more then 17 Years in Norway?? lol,that's not a good Legal System I may say
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 18:44
IMO I think Justice Was not Serve..
no one can be thorwn in Jail for more then 17 Years in Norway?? lol,that's not a good Legal System I may say
One of the lowest crime rates in the wrold afaik.
AntiochusIII
06-04-2006, 19:31
BHCWarman, what is your concept of justice?
And what is the purpose of that justice?
What end does it serve?
And now I've heard of one. :2thumbsup: So that means that no one can be given a term of inprisonment of more than 17 years?
Yep. I remember in particular because the epitomous black metal psycho was pinned for murder, arson and a slew of other weapons charges and 17 years was the absolute limit that he could receive as a prison sentence.
BHCWarman88
06-04-2006, 23:45
BHCWarman, what is your concept of justice?
And what is the purpose of that justice?
What end does it serve?
Justice is Served When the Punishment Is Right,pending on the Crime that is Committed..
If you Killed 8 Kids,we not talking about Killing Adults,or even 1 kid, we talknig about the Murder of 8 Kids by a Woman. Doesn't Matter if she is Insane,Sane,or on the Border Line of Both, The Punishment to me,is Death Row. Killing Someone to you might Derserve a Life Sentace,but when someone goes and kills 8 Kids, The Sentace She got was un-Resonable and to me,she got away with Murder..somewhat..
A.Saturnus
06-05-2006, 20:44
Yep. I remember in particular because the epitomous black metal psycho was pinned for murder, arson and a slew of other weapons charges and 17 years was the absolute limit that he could receive as a prison sentence.
Vikernes?
AntiochusIII
06-05-2006, 22:57
Justice is Served When the Punishment Is Right,pending on the Crime that is Committed..
If you Killed 8 Kids,we not talking about Killing Adults,or even 1 kid, we talknig about the Murder of 8 Kids by a Woman. Doesn't Matter if she is Insane,Sane,or on the Border Line of Both, The Punishment to me,is Death Row. Killing Someone to you might Derserve a Life Sentace,but when someone goes and kills 8 Kids, The Sentace She got was un-Resonable and to me,she got away with Murder..somewhat..So to you, justice is punishment.
How much punishment, to be exact, when compare with the culturally-defined seriousness of the crime?
Why, and bear with me on this one, is 8 kids, her offsprings, more significant than another murdered victim, so that one would be given death and the other confinement? Is humanity qualitative? What is reasonable? Where is the line and the guideline of justice?
And for that, what is the purpose of justice?
Kralizec
06-06-2006, 18:00
life is 20-25 years, a death sentence is for the rest of your life in jail, that's how it is in most of Europe AFAIK. Most of those countries don't actually use the death sentence anymore either, so life is the maximum you'll ever get. There are some exceptions (serial killers who've been in the media a little too much), they just keep 'em locked up for the sake of society, I'm not sure by what law/sentence that is.
I don't kow about the rest of Europe, but a life sentence in the Netherlands is just that: a life sentence. Of course we also have the persistent myth that it's only 20 years :wall:
Vikernes?
Yeah. I didn't think anyone would know, short of the few Norwegians we have around here.
BHCWarman88
06-07-2006, 16:51
So to you, justice is punishment.
How much punishment, to be exact, when compare with the culturally-defined seriousness of the crime?
Why, and bear with me on this one, is 8 kids, her offsprings, more significant than another murdered victim, so that one would be given death and the other confinement? Is humanity qualitative? What is reasonable? Where is the line and the guideline of justice?
And for that, what is the purpose of justice?
Killing a Old Man in his Death Bed,who Already Live his Life is one Thing. Killing 8 kids,who did not,is differen't. I don't know where you point of Justice is at, but me? it's that you wanna Kill Kids,you should be Autcoamlly stuck on Death Row,period..
^Right there is the crux of the issue. Intent, you've made the jupiter sized assumption that she mean't to kill those 8 babies. 1 they proved that she did kill, by her own stupidity. That is called Manslaughter. The other 7 well, no one was there but her and she was tanked. Thus there is no reliable witness, save any omisentient invisible beings in the sky you choose to believe in. For all we know she would have left in a basket on the church doorstep if they'd lived. But the kids ended up dead. 1 through her own lack of foresight, the other 7 who knows how. The fact remains that just cause 7 kids ended up dead on her watch doesn't mean she mean't to kill them, or even did kill them. That's what you have courts for, and that whole nasty innocent until proven guilty thing (except in France). What you speak of isn't justice but revenge.
BHCWarman88
06-07-2006, 19:48
No dude,it's Justice. Why would you give her a Easy Punishment for the Death of 8 babies? I like you to tell me Why?
No dude,it's Justice. Why would you give her a Easy Punishment for the Death of 8 babies? I like you to tell me Why?
There is a saying over here: "Dying is easy, it's living that's hard."
Why grant the bastards the easy way out? While I am for harsh justice, I believe it is deliciously evil to lock up all the criminals in some pit, somewhere and throw away the keys. Of course, I am one of those who think Dracon was on the right track.
Oh, and maximum punishment in my country is 40 years, reserved for only the most vile of cases ... on average for murder it is 5-8 years.
A.Saturnus
06-07-2006, 20:11
Yeah. I didn't think anyone would know, short of the few Norwegians we have around here.
C'mon, every serious black metal fan knows that.
BHCWarman88
06-07-2006, 20:14
Why? Why let someone who took Someone's Life, or in this Case,babies's lives, live in jail till she dies? why should we have to pay for her to live,eh??
No dude,it's Justice. Why would you give her a Easy Punishment for the Death of 8 babies? I like you to tell me Why?
Because the court didn't think that they could convict her on murder. Not enough proof of intent to kill. Would rather she had been tried on murder and been found innocent because there was too much doubt about her intentions? The courts (rightly IMO) charged with 8 counts of manslaughter to ensure she got convicted and sent to jail. And 15 years isn't a light sentence. It's fairly stiff. She needs mental help, not help into her grave. 5 or so years in jail is the perfect place for her to get help. Look at this objectively for a second. Yes she allowed 8 of her kids to die. But she's not evil or malicious. She's pathetic and sad.
A.Saturnus
06-07-2006, 20:37
Why? Why let someone who took Someone's Life, or in this Case,babies's lives, live in jail till she dies? why should we have to pay for her to live,eh??
Because killing someone is bad. We try to avoid it whenever possible.
Byzantine Prince
06-07-2006, 20:51
Because killing someone is fun. We try it whenever possible.
I agree. :balloon2:
BHCWarman88
06-07-2006, 23:20
She needs mental help, not help into her grave.And 15 years isn't a light sentence. It's fairly stiff. She needs mental help, not help into her grave. 5 or so years in jail is the perfect place for her to get help.
I got a kick out of that. first off, 5 years in jail like you said in Bull,and we know it. I get to that in a minute. Second,15 years is NOT a Stiff Sentace. Try 50 Years in Prison, or 40,like I see with some people,now THAT is a stiff Sentance,not some Peny 15 years. 15 years could be consder as a Long time. oh ok dude,15 years,let her get out when she 50,and have her contiue her Mental Help? Meh,No.and Yes,she needs to be help into her grave for doing this,not Help. There are Certain Time for Mental Help in Jail,and Sometimes there are not..
AntiochusIII
06-08-2006, 00:22
Now, BHC, what I've been asking all along is what, exactly, is your measurement--your general calculation--on your preferred sentence of the crime? What is your rationale behind it, explicitly?
C'mon, every serious black metal fan knows that.
I'm in the Backroom. What serious black metal fans?
A.Saturnus
06-08-2006, 21:55
I enjoy Immortal.
I prefer Marduk.
Byzantine Mercenary
06-09-2006, 16:45
Why? Why let someone who took Someone's Life, or in this Case,babies's lives, live in jail till she dies? why should we have to pay for her to live,eh??
Thou shalt not kill.
oh yeah and love your neighbour as yourself and the teaching that what ever is done for the least of people is actually done for jesus.
That is why.
now, this woman was negligent unnesisaraly those children could have had good lives as adoptees, im all for monitering her, and persuading her to just get herself steralised, her crime is vile and should be treated seriously
I got a kick out of that. first off, 5 years in jail like you said in Bull,and we know it. I get to that in a minute. Second,15 years is NOT a Stiff Sentace. Try 50 Years in Prison, or 40,like I see with some people,now THAT is a stiff Sentance,not some Peny 15 years. 15 years could be consder as a Long time. oh ok dude,15 years,let her get out when she 50,and have her contiue her Mental Help? Meh,No.and Yes,she needs to be help into her grave for doing this,not Help. There are Certain Time for Mental Help in Jail,and Sometimes there are not..
Because two wrongs don't make a right. The state killing her is just as wrong as her causing her kids to die. It would be vengence not justice.
Big King Sanctaphrax
06-09-2006, 18:12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3078216.stm
I thought I'd post this as it seemed somewhat similar to the case being discussed-a man in Scotland has been given what seems like a strangely lenient sentence for raping a baby, and everyone is up in arms.
I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but you could argue that, seeing as this is a baby and won't be able to remember the rape, it's not actually that bad. Certainly not as life-damaging as raping an older child or an adult might be.
Kralizec
06-09-2006, 18:22
Then, you can also argue that murder isn't all that bad, since they can't remember it afterwards. Or that if you cause someone irrepairable brain damage, it's okay, since the victim will lack the required brain functions to feel bad about it. It's absurd.
Plus while I'm not a psychologist, but I'd be surprised to hear from one that this won't effect the baby's psychological development.
I accept the point of the judge that there's little chance of him reoffending (as I can't personally evaluate it), but even so, his crime was vile, he should have known it (apparently he did) and he went through with it anyway. That alone warrants a real punishment. 5 years for raping a baby is just a slap on the wrist.
I prefer Marduk.
That's the first time I've ever seen someone say that.
doc_bean
06-09-2006, 20:05
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3078216.stm
I thought I'd post this as it seemed somewhat similar to the case being discussed-a man in Scotland has been given what seems like a strangely lenient sentence for raping a baby, and everyone is up in arms.
I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but you could argue that, seeing as this is a baby and won't be able to remember the rape, it's not actually that bad. Certainly not as life-damaging as raping an older child or an adult might be.
Babies have died from internal injuries from being raped though, they were probably younger, and well, smaller, but it can do some serious physical damage. I'll better leave out some more graphic descriptions I guess.
I think over here they just get the standard pedo rape charges, which aren't much. How much did he get anyway ? The article doesn't seem to mention that...
Marcellus
06-09-2006, 20:27
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3078216.stm
A similar story. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/5057164.stm)
A man who raped a 12-week-old baby has had his minimum jail term changed from six to eight years by appeal judges.
The five-year term originally imposed on Alan Webster's accomplice, Tanya French, will remain, the court said.
Webster, 40, was sentenced to life in January but was eligible to apply for parole after six years. French, 19, was jailed for five years.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith QC said it was possible Webster, from Hertfordshire, would never be released.
The stupid thing about that sentence was that it was reduced by about 30% simply because he pleaded guilty, despite the fact that there was unquestionable proof of what he did - he photographed his crime - meaning that there was no way he could have been found not guilty.
He was saving the courts precious time and money.
Byzantine Prince
06-10-2006, 07:28
I don't like Immortal that much, too low budget for mine ears. I like the over-produced, super-polished Cradle of Filth.
A.Saturnus
06-10-2006, 18:58
Plus while I'm not a psychologist, but I'd be surprised to hear from one that this won't effect the baby's psychological development.
All experiences up to two years are subject to infancy amnesia. Stimuli can be conditioned to be aversive, but they have to be associated to basal unconditioned aversive stimuli to do that. It depends how the rape actually harmed the baby. If it wasn't actually specifically physically aversive, then the behavior may not be any different than other behavior from the perspective of the baby, as it has no means to recognize sexuality at all (though I'm not 100% sure of that - considered that the child was more than a year old, it could already have formed a primitive concept of sexuality). If it was physically harmed, then it's very likely that it will affect the development of the child (but not necessarily its sexual development).
I don't like Immortal that much, too low budget for mine ears. I like the over-produced, super-polished Cradle of Filth.
I hold the exact opposite position. Cradel of filth should be left in the filth. They are crap.
Avicenna
06-10-2006, 20:11
I got a kick out of that. first off, 5 years in jail like you said in Bull,and we know it. I get to that in a minute. Second,15 years is NOT a Stiff Sentace. Try 50 Years in Prison, or 40,like I see with some people,now THAT is a stiff Sentance,not some Peny 15 years. 15 years could be consder as a Long time. oh ok dude,15 years,let her get out when she 50,and have her contiue her Mental Help? Meh,No.and Yes,she needs to be help into her grave for doing this,not Help. There are Certain Time for Mental Help in Jail,and Sometimes there are not..
BHC, you're a teen, aren't you? So a fifteen year sentence is about as long as your life. Imagine living your whole life in jail, you get no freedom whatsoever. For your whole life up till now. You'll probably get raped as well, which adds on to the fear factor of prison. Then, put yourself in that woman's shoes, if the sentence goes out like you want: fifty years. So, she'll be a really old women getting raped. You know, I think just the life that's being sentenced now is enough to teach the lesson. By the time she's out, she won't be able to make any more babies to kill, so that's no problem. She'll also be too old and unfit to kill anyone else.
I don't like Immortal that much, too low budget for mine ears. I like the over-produced, super-polished Cradle of Filth.
We're talking about black metal.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-11-2006, 00:55
She should have Got a Death pentaly.. if not that,at least Life in Prison,period.. Such a Shame Someone has to Kill Babies,really is..
We don't have the death penalty. But I agree with the life sentence.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.