Mom microwaves child; Another kills child over broken TV

[derelict]

How can you be charged for both murder and manslaughter? someone explain.

In the case of the second story. I think it was manslaughter for "unintentionally" hurting the boy to the point of death. But murder for not taking the kid to hospital when she knew he was in pain. Or the other way round. I am unsure.

This is just about right - basically, its lawyer rhetoric that allows the prosecution to place more charges on said 'defendant'. To be honest, they should have just gave the jury a bunch of boards with nails in them and told them to go to town on her. The only reason people do shit like this is because they can feign insanity to get out of any repercussions. I'd guarantee you the first time someone gets beaten to death in the courtroom on national tv for brutalizing their own child to death, it'll stick. Or hell, even if it doesn't stick, at least the phrase 'justice served' can be applied without a sense of fallacy.

 

[Of-the-Lion]

Kang Ya, a 29-year-old from Sacramento, has been taken into custody for what police are saying were fatal burns administered to her 6-week-old daughter, via microwave. Happy nightmaring.

Happy nightmaring indeed, this is exactly why I don't watch the news and try to lock myself out of any news from any media. Crap like these stories, and this: http://bit.ly/lsMOE8 make me wish there was a way that people had to register and pass some form of test to have children, sort of like how you need a pass to have a child in china. don't flame me on this, I'm not commenting on whether China's one-child system or its consequences are yay or naye, merely commenting on how the registration to have a child clearly in some manner is possible to do, and should be done o'er here, because quite frankly some people do not have the right to have children

The problem is, who determines the qualifications for being a parent? How possibly corrupt would anyone in that position become?

I would think that anyone who lists "microwave the little brat" as a form of discipline should not be qualified for parenthood

 

[kickassfrog]

How can you be charged for both murder and manslaughter? someone explain.

In the case of the second story. I think it was manslaughter for "unintentionally" hurting the boy to the point of death. But murder for not taking the kid to hospital when she knew he was in pain. Or the other way round. I am unsure.

This is just about right - basically, its lawyer rhetoric that allows the prosecution to place more charges on said 'defendant'. To be honest, they should have just gave the jury a bunch of boards with nails in them and told them to go to town on her. The only reason people do shit like this is because they can feign insanity to get out of any repercussions. I'd guarantee you the first time someone gets beaten to death in the courtroom on national tv for brutalizing their own child to death, it'll stick. Or hell, even if it doesn't stick, at least the phrase 'justice served' can be applied without a sense of fallacy.

They have to give these people new identities, simply because prison inmates- yes CRIMINALS- attempt to kill them IN PRISON. When the scum of society look down on you as scum, you really should not be allowed to live.

EDIT: Simply tell people who they are and where they live, then just do a really shoddy investigation when they inevitably get attacked. Which they will.

 

[derelict]

They have to give these people new identities, simply because prison inmates- yes CRIMINALS- attempt to kill them IN PRISON. When the scum of society look down on you as scum, you really should not be allowed to live.

EDIT: Simply tell people who they are and where they live, then just do a really shoddy investigation when they inevitably get attacked. Which they will.

I am SO all for them being killed in prison by inmates. Not like the legal system would give them proper punishment anyway, that'd be spectacular. Then they can make a news post about it so some abnormally depraved little shits don't think that prison is a good place for 3 square meals a day and some peace and quiet.

 

[Stuntcrab]

I've been a escapist for a year... not once have I seen so many different posts about babies being killed

Cinder block on the head
broke the TV
Microwave'd

I'm starting to fear for the human race. What the hell did babies do to you?

 

[Goldjit]

How can you be charged for both murder and manslaughter? someone explain.

In the case of the second story. I think it was manslaughter for "unintentionally" hurting the boy to the point of death. But murder for not taking the kid to hospital when she knew he was in pain. Or the other way round. I am unsure.

Nevertheless, she knew she did something wrong and sadly it ended in the worse possible way. Punish her by example!

As for the first case, I'm interested in knowing why she did it. Is it wrong that I hate that they are questioning her mental condition? I hear that far too much.

So you think a person that microwaves their kid doesn't have questionable mental health? Remind me never to leave my kids around you.

As for the dual charges, it's more comment then you think. Just in this case the terms used are quite different rather then the term and a degree. They provide multiple charges because a person cannot be tried for the same crime multiple times, and if they cannot provide evidence of the specifics needed for the harsher charge they still can for the lesser charge, and the person still gets punished. It would be a shame for the prosecution to pursue a murder and have the defense draw doubt on that meeting the qualifications for murder (without even bothering to deny the crime), letting her off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

No, I think I hear it too much to believe that in this day and age where we are consently in contect with others and continuely making sure everything is 'ok' that we are either failing with our current system or we just are not paying close enough attention. I mean to judge her health after giving birth 6 weeks before? Someone royally screwed up or she's faking it (if she gos down that road).

 

[Pandaman1911]

Which is more sad, the fact that this shit happens, or that this shit happens and there's not a goddamn thing any of us can do to stop it?

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

On the plus side, in the UK a week ago or so, some guy got arrested for nearly killing his baby with methadone. So it ain't just the mothers!

Depressing statistics... if you're going to murder somebody, and you're not the kind of psychopath who will randomly kill strangers and leave them on the side of the road: the numbers say that if you are a male, it'll probably be a woman you love. And if you're a female, it'll probably be your infant child.

And on that happy note, enjoy the rest of your Thursday, folks!

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Why is the world like this?

Because a lot of people are either incapable of empathy, or just don't see the need for it. We live in a world where you no longer have to depend on other people for survival. This is why people who have power over other people without being accountable for them can act like a--holes or worse. With parents there SHOULD be a natural instinct that kicks in to protect one's young. Unfortunately there are always going to be people for whom the normal instincts don't apply.

There's also the whole tribal instinct to regard anybody outside of one's particular circle or group as "sub-human" - a particularly nasty relic of the days when an invader from another tribe could spell disaster for you and yours, now manifesting itself in racism and violence - but that's a whole other issue.

If that sounds bad, remember that the alternatives are to chemically stop yourself from being human, or to recreate a society where people HAVE to rely upon each other or they'd die. Compared to those, the lack of empathy thing seems like a small price to pay, doesn't it?

 

[manaman]

How can you be charged for both murder and manslaughter? someone explain.

In the case of the second story. I think it was manslaughter for "unintentionally" hurting the boy to the point of death. But murder for not taking the kid to hospital when she knew he was in pain. Or the other way round. I am unsure.

Nevertheless, she knew she did something wrong and sadly it ended in the worse possible way. Punish her by example!

As for the first case, I'm interested in knowing why she did it. Is it wrong that I hate that they are questioning her mental condition? I hear that far too much.

So you think a person that microwaves their kid doesn't have questionable mental health? Remind me never to leave my kids around you.

As for the dual charges, it's more comment then you think. Just in this case the terms used are quite different rather then the term and a degree. They provide multiple charges because a person cannot be tried for the same crime multiple times, and if they cannot provide evidence of the specifics needed for the harsher charge they still can for the lesser charge, and the person still gets punished. It would be a shame for the prosecution to pursue a murder and have the defense draw doubt on that meeting the qualifications for murder (without even bothering to deny the crime), letting her off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

No, I think I hear it too much to believe that in this day and age where we are consently in contect with others and continuely making sure everything is 'ok' that we are either failing with our current system or we just are not paying close enough attention. I mean to judge her health after giving birth 6 weeks before? Someone royally screwed up or she's faking it (if she gos down that road).

No offense but that's a bit niave. We couldn't, and shouldn't be expected to judge her mental health before she did anything to warrent it. Now after the fact its easy to point fingers and talk about who missed all the obvious indicators.

What I was saying is that the mental health of anyone that would kill a baby in the microwave doesn't need questioning. There is defiantly something off in that person's head. That should easily be a given, or at the very least the idea that something was wrong with her at the time should be there.

Usually when they call question to a person mental health in articles they mean their ability to either understand what they did or their capacity maybe impaired to the point where they cannot stand trial. Which is a different standard. You can be batshit looney, but still comprehend what you did and have the capacity to stand trial.

 

[manaman]

Y'know, I'm starting to think maybe we should regulate who gets to breed. If you don't test as completely sane, you get your womb confiscated or something like that.

In that vein, I suggest we take the Starship Troopers route: if you want to conceive, you get a license to prove that you can at least probably qualified to raise a child.

Cold? Yeah. Oppressive? Possibly. But will it cut down on the number of tragedies like these two? Definitely.

Wide open to abuse by the social elite, up to and including the eugenics version of genocide? Totally.

 

[RaNDM G]

How can a woman be stupid enough to put her kid in a microwave?

 

[Blind Sight]

Kang Ya, a 29-year-old from Sacramento, has been taken into custody for what police are saying were fatal burns administered to her 6-week-old daughter, via microwave. Happy nightmaring.

Happy nightmaring indeed, this is exactly why I don't watch the news and try to lock myself out of any news from any media. Crap like these stories, and this: http://bit.ly/lsMOE8 make me wish there was a way that people had to register and pass some form of test to have children, sort of like how you need a pass to have a child in china. don't flame me on this, I'm not commenting on whether China's one-child system or its consequences are yay or naye, merely commenting on how the registration to have a child clearly in some manner is possible to do, and should be done o'er here, because quite frankly some people do not have the right to have children

The problem is, who determines the qualifications for being a parent? How possibly corrupt would anyone in that position become?

I would think that anyone who lists "microwave the little brat" as a form of discipline should not be qualified for parenthood

Well no shit Sherlock haha, but how do you 'test' for that with a government registration system before they actually have kids?

 

[Torrasque]

People like this makes me lose faith in humanity.

You still had some?
Damn, I had lost mine years ago.

 

[Littlee300]

Sorry, I can't help but screaming, "WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?"

Laughing at us.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
I guessing these things go something like
minor punishment
minor punishment
minor punishment
extremely final solution severe punishment.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Y'know, I'm starting to think maybe we should regulate who gets to breed. If you don't test as completely sane, you get your womb confiscated or something like that.

In that vein, I suggest we take the Starship Troopers route: if you want to conceive, you get a license to prove that you can at least probably qualified to raise a child.

Cold? Yeah. Oppressive? Possibly. But will it cut down on the number of tragedies like these two? Definitely.

Wide open to abuse by the social elite, up to and including the eugenics version of genocide? Totally.

How? Explain to me, both of those points. It's easy to screech random nonsense, but it's rather difficult to back it up. My guess is that you don't have any ground to stand on.

 

[manaman]

Y'know, I'm starting to think maybe we should regulate who gets to breed. If you don't test as completely sane, you get your womb confiscated or something like that.

In that vein, I suggest we take the Starship Troopers route: if you want to conceive, you get a license to prove that you can at least probably qualified to raise a child.

Cold? Yeah. Oppressive? Possibly. But will it cut down on the number of tragedies like these two? Definitely.

Wide open to abuse by the social elite, up to and including the eugenics version of genocide? Totally.

How? Explain to me, both of those points. It's easy to screech random nonsense, but it's rather difficult to back it up. My guess is that you don't have any ground to stand on.

How can you not see how a system that tells people who and who cannot breed is not open to abuse by the social elite?

Who do you think they are going to give child permits to? Normal everyday people? Very unlikely.

How hard do you think it would be for one group to gain enough of a majority over another and start systematically denying child permits to a group that they don't agree with.

You can't say it isn't possible because people already do the same. There are majority groups in even the most developed countries that would deny even basic rights to those that have differing viewpoints if they had a clear enough majority.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

How can you not see how a system that tells people who and who cannot breed is not open to abuse by the social elite?

I see it being "abuse[d] by the social elite" no more than the present taxation institution.

Who do you think they are going to give child permits to? Normal everyday people? Very unlikely.

Actually, yeah, because "normal everyday people" compose the vast majority of the population. Wait, how is it that you think the permits/licenses are dispensed? Because it's not some sort of lottery. You essentially take a test and fill out some forms, and if you pass, you get one. How would that deny them to "normal everyday people"?

How hard do you think it would be for one group to gain enough of a majority over another and start systematically denying child permits to a group that they don't agree with.

...what? Could you give me some examples? Because this isn't something that would be magically exempt from the bill of rights/Constitution.

You can't say it isn't possible because people already do the same. There are majority groups in even the most developed countries that would deny even basic rights to those that have differing viewpoints if they had a clear enough majority.

Right, could you explain how that works? A fanatical "majority group" that doesn't actually have a majority? Besides, even if such a group existed, we already have safeguards against that. "Tyranny of the majority" comes to mind. You can thank Thomas Jefferson for that.