What's your view? Justice or murder?

[Manwell Pablo]

12 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

There is no relief in eternal oblivion. It's not a great laugh being dead. You cease to exist. That's not relief. I mean there is no worldly comparison so it's difficult to explain but unless you believe in an afterlife there is no feeling of 'ahhhhh I'm not suffering anymore'. The man is dead. ONLY if you're religious do you think there is some sort of respite in death.

 

And again, you're assuming he was suffering anyway. That's not necessarily true.

 

I think it's safe to say he deeply regretted what he did, breaking down in tears and confessing everything you did and making no attempt to get away with it even though you certainly know doing so is going to lead to a prison sentence of well over a decade is not the actions of someone who has no remorse. (Not to excuse anything he did before anyone starts with that)

 

I find it odd your even arguing this case tbh I remember a debate about the death penalty in which I stated whilst I didn't believe it but there were people out there who deserved to die for what they've done (I'd not even class this bloke as nesc one of them) and you were quite adamant that was not right. 

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, FIF said:

I think many studies have shown that we ARE predisposed to violence and I think that's quite evident on a day to day basis. 

 

quick search shows hundreds of articles saying so:

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201610/humans-are-genetically-predisposed-kill-each-other

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/28/natural-born-killers-humans-predisposed-to-study-suggests

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-evolution-violence-instinct-to-kill-murder-each-other-a7335491.html

 

Not sure how anyone could argue against parenting classes either. Or are you generally against education? 

 

It's completely absurd strawman leaps like that that remind me why I've got you blocked in the first place. 

 

Yes, I think the idea of having a compulsory parent class before letting people breed is both a ridiculous fantasy idea and not the reason the odd individual murders a child so clearly I hate all learning. 

 

Have a word with yourself you plonker. 

[Rogstanley]

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's not going to do any harm, no, but it's also completely unenforceable for a start and moreover - implying that this guy was just a bit frustrated and that otherwise he was a normal joe IS likely to do harm. 

 

There's clearly something wrong with someone beyond just "the stresses of life" for them to snap and murder their own offspring. 

You could potentially enforce it by saying attendance at classes is a condition to receive maternity/paternity pay and child benefit, something like that.

 

Unfortunately a lot of people are prone to lose their temper, and when a newborn is the subject it takes very little violence to do serious damage.

 

Absolutely anything which might help people to cope under moments of extreme frustration can only be a good thing.

[Finnegan]

A lot of people aren't prone to lose their temper and strike an infant though, are they? 

 

Where is our prison full of millions of baby killers or our overflowing crematoriums processing a constant conveyor of murdered infants whose parents just snapped because they cried through Eastenders just one too many times after a hard day's work? 

 

You want to cap the child benefit of every individual in the country that doesn't attend an anger management course before having a child just because of the tiniest minority of extreme cases that were ultimately nothing to do with someone not being given a bit of CBT and ultimately to do with that person being extremely disturbed? 

 

Who is giving these classes? Paying for these classes? Who on earth would agree to go to them? 

[Innovindil]

If only we had told this poor bloke that beating a child to death is wrong and gave him a few breathing techniques to calm down. 

 

But if the "red mist" chooses you, wtf are some lessons going to do about it? Ah yeah I lost control to a point where beating my baby to death seemed like a good idea, but I remembered Janet's breathing sessions and I was fine again. 

 

Yeah... Okay then. 

[Rogstanley]

43 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

A lot of people aren't prone to lose their temper and strike an infant though, are they? 

 

Where is our prison full of millions of baby killers or our overflowing crematoriums processing a constant conveyor of murdered infants whose parents just snapped because they cried through Eastenders just one too many times after a hard day's work? 

 

You want to cap the child benefit of every individual in the country that doesn't attend an anger management course before having a child just because of the tiniest minority of extreme cases that were ultimately nothing to do with someone not being given a bit of CBT and ultimately to do with that person being extremely disturbed? 

 

Who is giving these classes? Paying for these classes? Who on earth would agree to go to them? 

You already get free prenatal classes which almost all first time parents go to, so it could just be another topic that was discussed at those, so it wouldn't cost a lot more.

 

There are thankfully not so many deaths but there are quite a lot of cases where babies are harmed. Up to 3,000 cases of shaken baby syndrome in the US each year apparently. That's 3,000 kids caused significant harm by frustrated parents, you can safely assume a large number of additional cases that thankfully don't cause any damage. Are all of those parents extremely disturbed? Probably not.

 

I hate to play the 'it's obvious you aren't a parent' card, but it really is obvious that you aren't a parent.

 

Labelling this guy as an extremely disturbed child killer isn't helpful. What would be helpful is getting parents to be properly prepared for the challenges they are going to face. If it stops just a few children from being harmed then it's worth it, imo.

[foxfanazer]

14 hours ago, The Doctor said:

It's not justice. Justice is him living knowing what he's done, living with that guilt. That's far worse than death.

Don’t think people like that are capable of emotions such as guilt or remorse. Got to be pure evil or very mentally disturbed to commit such a disgusting act

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

A lot of people aren't prone to lose their temper and strike an infant though, are they? 

 

Where is our prison full of millions of baby killers or our overflowing crematoriums processing a constant conveyor of murdered infants whose parents just snapped because they cried through Eastenders just one too many times after a hard day's work? 

 

You want to cap the child benefit of every individual in the country that doesn't attend an anger management course before having a child just because of the tiniest minority of extreme cases that were ultimately nothing to do with someone not being given a bit of CBT and ultimately to do with that person being extremely disturbed? 

 

Who is giving these classes? Paying for these classes? Who on earth would agree to go to them? 

Nearly 20 years ago I threw my newborn son onto the bed. Threw probably makes it sound a little more dramatic than it was, but it's probably the best description. People who meet me in real life, and a couple from here have, will see that I'm intelligent, reasonably well educated, articulate, and well brought up. But the sleep deprived mind after the arrival of your first baby does strange things, and sometimes makes us behave in ways that you would never normally consider.

 

I certainly am not condoning this person's actions, but I think it's too easy to dismiss his behaviour as that of a sociopath. 

 

Obviously I felt terribly guilty, and didn't ever do anything like it again, but who knows how lucky I was that day not to inflict any damage? 

 

Any coping mechanisms that can be taught to new parents I would think could never be detrimental, so why not? 

[Manwell Pablo]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

But anger/frustration management would.

 

You don't think he just came home and decided to kill his baby do you (or maybe he decided on the way home).

 

Babies can cry for hours without stopping and an experienced parent learns techniques to cope (when they can't solve the problem). New parents don't have these techniques. With older children it's far easier (plus the parents have more experience), with babies, it's not as simple as asking about the problem or using distraction techniques and some parents would never think that actually walking away and sorting your own head out might be a good solution. You don't choose the red mist, it chooses you.

 

p.s. Finnegan do you have children?

 

Nah mate, had wine before, had wine after, more wine involved after admittedly.

 

 

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

This is wrong. 

 

A sociopath / psychopath* is defined as someone without a conscience. They don't feel remorse, they don't feel guilt.

Not quite - both are forms of anti-social personality disorder (as far as I'm aware the difference is in the cause - nature vs nurture). Lack of remorse or guilt is one of the 7 traits listed in the DSM-V for it, but it's not a prerequisite for a diagnosis.

[Manwell Pablo]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

You could potentially enforce it by saying attendance at classes is a condition to receive maternity/paternity pay and child benefit, something like that.

 

Unfortunately a lot of people are prone to lose their temper, and when a newborn is the subject it takes very little violence to do serious damage.

 

Absolutely anything which might help people to cope under moments of extreme frustration can only be a good thing.

 

I mean I've been seething with my children on numerous occasions especially when they were babies but lets get a bit real here. You can teach people to cope but is it really going to stop someone capable of punching a baby to death, no, nor is the fact they are capable of doing something like that something you are going to pick up during a class. It's a total waste of state money. They make you angry but that is nowhere near a normal reaction and people should not need to be taught to stay calm and rational enough to not beat a baby to death its common sense. 

 

As angry as they make you you've got to be wired up wrong to actually commit an act of violence against something small and defenseless and even if you are you've surely got realise doing that is either going to land you in prison or make them scream even louder.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Finnegan]

22 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Nearly 20 years ago I threw my newborn son onto the bed. Threw probably makes it sound a little more dramatic than it was, but it's probably the best description. People who meet me in real life, and a couple from here have, will see that I'm intelligent, reasonably well educated, articulate, and well brought up. But the sleep deprived mind after the arrival of your first baby does strange things, and sometimes makes us behave in ways that you would never normally consider.

 

I certainly am not condoning this person's actions, but I think it's too easy to dismiss his behaviour as that of a sociopath. 

 

Obviously I felt terribly guilty, and didn't ever do anything like it again, but who knows how lucky I was that day not to inflict any damage? 

 

Any coping mechanisms that can be taught to new parents I would think could never be detrimental, so why not? 

 

I didn't suggest the man in question was a psychopath, I was responding to an early post from the Doctor. 

 

I did suggest that punching your infant to death was a drastically extreme reaction and that a fractional minority of people would respond to a situation in this capacity as is evidenced by the fact it is not a common occurrence. 

 

I also stated that having a compulsory anger management course for parents probably wouldn't have stopped the odd exceptional case like this occurring, frankly, and would be grossly overly simplistic to state such. 

 

14 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Not quite - both are forms of anti-social personality disorder (as far as I'm aware the difference is in the cause - nature vs nurture). Lack of remorse or guilt is one of the 7 traits listed in the DSM-V for it, but it's not a prerequisite for a diagnosis.

 

Forget the DSMV, there are actually twenty points identified on the Bob Hare list - each graded on a three tier scale. 

 

And you won't find anyone seriously identified by a trained professional as a psychopath based on his model that would be considered to have anything by way of a conscience. 

 

There's plenty of very accessible literature out there that's well worth a read. 

 

This is an alright start. 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sociopath-Next-Door-Ruthless-Versus/dp/0767915828

 

[Captain...]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

No idea, but we have a Child killer dead and another killer who'll have a longer sentence inside.

 

Everyones a winner.

We also have a prison system that is clearly failing in that someone who I would imagine would be under a secure watch can be easily murdered by another inmate.

 

Prisoners killing other prisoners is not a win, it is a broken system.

 

You want to bring back the death penalty for this guy then that is another discussion, but what happened should not be possible in a modern, secure, well run prison.

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

We also have a prison system that is clearly failing in that someone who I would imagine would be under a secure watch can be easily murdered by another inmate.

 

Prisoners killing other prisoners is not a win, it is a broken system.

 

You want to bring back the death penalty for this guy then that is another discussion, but what happened should not be possible in a modern, secure, well run prison.

 

Not sure it'd ever be really completely impossible to have one violent offender attack another violent offender in a building full of violent offenders. 

 

Unless they're all permanently in solitary confinement then surely there's only so much you can do? 

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

Not sure it'd ever be really completely impossible to have one violent offender attack another violent offender in a building full of violent offenders. 

 

Unless they're all permanently in solitary confinement then surely there's only so much you can do? 

 

I do agree but we all know if you're locked up for child abuse you are an immediate target that's why they keep the pedo's out of the main wings. Something similar may have been appropriate here. If you care about his well being that is which is the main debate at hand.

[leicsmac]

Whenever an argument comes up for the death penalty my argument remains the same.

 

As long as the burden of proof for a conviction for a capital crime is not 100% ironclad certain every single time it is put forward, those arguing in favour of it are accepting the possibility of state-sponsored murder of innocent people and dismissing it as mere collateral damage.

 

Absolute punishments require absolute proof.

[Captain...]

48 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Not sure it'd ever be really completely impossible to have one violent offender attack another violent offender in a building full of violent offenders. 

 

Unless they're all permanently in solitary confinement then surely there's only so much you can do? 

Of course it is difficult, but it should still be the aim to protect all prisoners and failing to protect someone who had been inside for just over a month is a failing, and not something to be classed as justice or a win.

 

 

[MPH]

16 hours ago, casablancas said:

I can't for the life of me get my head around it. I work as a mental health nurse and have worked with some violent violent people. But this turns my stomach and I have heard and seen a hell of a lot. 

 

 

I used to work in the Children's intensive care unit at the LRI and that was the hardest thing to cope with... we had one 3 month old with a broken leg and side of the skull was smashed in. Evidence suggested that she had been picked up by her leg and swung at the wall. Hardest thing i have ever done was be professional to that dad.

( he was later arrested and charged after we had to switch off the ventilator and she passed away - police waiting outside to come in and arrest him.. :-(  )

 

I'm not a violent person, but that pushed me to my limits...

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

You want to bring back the death penalty for this guy then that is another discussion, but what happened should not be possible in a modern, secure, well run prison.

I don't want to bring back the death penalty. Doesn't stop me being happy when filth like this get wiped off the planet though. 

[MPH]

58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Whenever an argument comes up for the death penalty my argument remains the same.

 

As long as the burden of proof for a conviction for a capital crime is not 100% ironclad certain every single time it is put forward, those arguing in favour of it are accepting the possibility of state-sponsored murder of innocent people and dismissing it as mere collateral damage.

 

Absolute punishments require absolute proof.

 

 

So you'd be for it if there was 100% proof  of the offender doing the offense?

[Manwell Pablo]

6 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

So you'd be for it if there was 100% proof  of the offender doing the offense?

 

No such thing as 100% proof  

 

(@ story above literally opened mouthed reading that!)

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

So you'd be for it if there was 100% proof  of the offender doing the offense?

Yep.

 

But as Pabs says, that's not possible, so it's rather moot. Witness testimony can be faked, scientific and video evidence can be falsified. 

 

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the best we're likely going to get, and IMO that's not good enough when an absolute punishment is considered.

[Finnegan]

12 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

I used to work in the Children's intensive care unit at the LRI and that was the hardest thing to cope with... we had one 3 month old with a broken leg and side of the skull was smashed in. Evidence suggested that she had been picked up by her leg and swung at the wall. Hardest thing i have ever done was be professional to that dad.

( he was later arrested and charged after we had to switch off the ventilator and she passed away - police waiting outside to come in and arrest him.. :-(  )

 

I'm not a violent person, but that pushed me to my limits...

 

That's ****ing vile. Don't think I'd have been able to hold my shit together to be fair to you. 

 

I'm also not at all violent but I don't think I could be very professional either. 

[Captain...]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep.

 

But as Pabs says, that's not possible, so it's rather moot. Witness testimony can be faked, scientific and video evidence can be falsified. 

 

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the best we're likely going to get, and IMO that's not good enough when an absolute punishment is considered.

What about Anders Brevik? No doubt he did it, he openly admitted it and showed no remorse. He even detailed how he went about conditioning his mind to do it.

 

In that case you have absolute proof, would you accept the death penalty for him?

[MPH]

41 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

No such thing as 100% proof  

 

 

 

 

So video footage, a confession and that persons finger prints on the weapon as well as theiir blood all over the murder would NOT be considered 100% proof?