View Full Version : Do you think this is fair punishment *Possibly Distressing*
Theophania
10-09-2010, 20:36
I came across this story, and after reading it, I am not sure how I feel about the outcome.... Just wanted to see what everyone else thought? I thought this sentence was a little light, a young boy lost his life afterall... It is incredibly sad and I could not imagine what i would do if this was my child :(
Link (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/7959665/father-terrified-to-be-with-own-kids)
And people say there's nothing wrong with smoking marijuana *sigh*.
Unfortunately just about all the sentences handed down by the courts these days are way too lenient - not just those involving child abuses
ComeBackKid
10-09-2010, 21:37
I disagree with the sentence entirely. He should have been sentenced to a lot longer. He took the life of a child - no two ways about it. And as for being terrified of being around his own kids - he should not be allowed anywhere near his kids ever again.
ComeBackKid
10-09-2010, 21:37
And people say there's nothing wrong with smoking marijuana *sigh*.
:iagree:
:no::no::no::no::no:
How on earth could you leave your child with someone like that?! There is more to this story when you think about it. 3 years not enough.
Lemonhead
10-09-2010, 22:20
Nup, chuck him in there for murder.
If you drink and drive and kill someone you are charged with murder. If you use drugs and then cause the death of someone through being incapable to properly care for them then you should suffer the same.
Poor little boy.
If that was my child? DP would be in jail right now and that man would never have been alive to face trial and I say that very seriously.
I think it's adequate, as from the (brief) article it appears that the death was not caused by the shaking, but by rough (but perhaps not unreasonble) play (the swinging by the legs).
I don't think a longer jail term would achieve anything anyway.
The type of people who abuse children aren't deterred by jail sentences. It doesn't help anybody, and just fractures another family by sending a dad to jail.
I would have liked to read the judgment but couldn't find it. I assume he pleaded guilty anyway.:confused:
ComeBackKid
10-09-2010, 22:30
Just re-read the story. Can only shake my head. Seriously, what is wrong with people. And a charge of unlawful assault resulting in death? Are you kidding?! Even the charge is a joke. Unlawful assault.
He killed a child cos he couldnt control his temper cos the child wouldnt sleep. Unlawful assault? Come off it.
Lemonhead
10-09-2010, 22:31
I think it's adequate, as from the (brief) article it appears that the death was not caused by the shaking, but by rough (but perhaps not unreasonble) play (the swinging by the legs).
I don't think a longer jail term would achieve anything anyway.
The type of people who abuse children aren't deterred by jail sentences. It doesn't help anybody, and just fractures another family by sending a dad to jail.
I would have liked to read the judgment but couldn't find it. I assume he pleaded guilty anyway.:confused:
But he was totally careless...he was under the influence and this most likely impaired his ability. Doesn't that count for something? He may not have meant to do it, I get that but maybe if he wasn't high he would have been able to aim the little boy on the mattress instead of missing and getting the floor :(.
Just*Ace
10-09-2010, 22:34
So sad :( definitly should be treated as murder
ComeBackKid
10-09-2010, 22:34
Rough 'play'??
What about covering the boy's mouth?? Repeatedly.
He obviously just lost his cool because the child wouldnt sleep.
Even if it wasnt deliberate, i think a manslaughter charge should apply. IMO, the term unlawful assault is insulting.
And a jail term wouldnt tear the family apart - that "man"s actions in killing a child would. And he shouldnt be allowed near his kids anyway. He clearly isnt capable of looking after kids or being responsible (ie smoking marijuana while looking after kids). Please.
It's really hard to comment as there's just not enough information in the article.
I just don't think being intoxicated is that damning in itself.
I have looked after my child after I have had several drinks, and too many to drive. I'm sure a lot of other people have as well.
I'm not excusing him.
I think he physically abused the child. that was wrong. I just don't think he could have reasonably foreseen that his actions could lead to the death of the child.
I think that reading a very brief news article is not enough information to pass judgement
Rough 'play'??
What about covering the boy's mouth?? Repeatedly.
He obviously just lost his cool because the child wouldnt sleep.
Even if it wasnt deliberate, i think a manslaughter charge should apply. IMO, the term unlawful assault is insulting.
And a jail term wouldnt tear the family apart - that "man"s actions in killing a child would. And he shouldnt be allowed near his kids anyway. He clearly isnt capable of looking after kids or being responsible (ie smoking marijuana while looking after kids). Please.
My interpretation of the article was that he covered the mouth. Then he swung the child around (which caused the fatal injury). Then he covered the mouth again (panic? or just more abuse? either way, unless he suffocated the child by putting the hand over the mouth, then the hand didn't have anything to do with the death.
I'm not saying it's not wrong. I just can't see how it could amount to manslaughter. And if it's assault, then the sentence is probably consistent. I'll have to re-read the article as I closed it, but I think it was an assault charge.
Lemonhead
10-09-2010, 22:40
Pfft I'll pass judgement alright.
He smoked weed while looking after kids.
He was then impaired and caused the death of a child in his care.
I shall be a judgey judger this time, I wouldn't ever drink to the point of being at the point where I could make a mistake like this when I am meant to be looking after my kids. If you wanna drink/smoke to the point of intoxication then whatever but do it in your own time and not when you are responsible for someone elses welfare.
EDIT: I just saw on a news flash that there was a big kerfuffle at the court house when this uncle was sentenced for 3 years. Obviously the family is very upset with the lack of justice.
ComeBackKid
10-09-2010, 22:45
Pfft I'll pass judgement alright.
He smoked weed while looking after kids.
He was then impaired and caused the death of a child in his care.
I shall be a judgey judger this time, I wouldn't ever drink to the point of being at the point where I could make a mistake like this when I am meant to be looking after my kids. If you wanna drink/smoke to the point of intoxication then whatever but do it in your own time and not when you are responsible for someone elses welfare.
:iagree:
I am saying my opinion cos that is what the OP asked for. Of course i dont know the whole case etc. I think the covering the mouth - while not the cause of death - demonstrates the mentality of the killer. And perhaps it was a lower charge cos he pleaded guilty (pure speculation). Manslaughter is murder without intent. I can accept he didnt intend to kill the child - but he did kill the child, which i personally believe is manslaughter.
Pfft I'll pass judgement alright.
Ive read far to many court judgments etc throughout my 4 years studying law that i understand there is always more to the story...
It was probably a good thing he was only charged with what he was charged with because honestly if he was charged with manslaughter he in all likelyhood would be found not guilty as the facts dont appear to satisfy the mandatory elements of manslaughter. Better he serves 3 years then no time at all...
Deterrence for these types of crimes dont work because the defendants dont set out to hurt or cause harm, without this intent there is no foresight and therefore they cant be deterred, i hope that made sense
The primary concern of the court is rehabilitation and whilst retribution is important rehabilitation should be at the forefront
I get why this is upsetting i really do but i dont think we can sit here and condemn this person to an eternity to hell when we dont know the facts...in al likelihood this man will be serving out a life sentence for this regardless of whether he is in jail or not...imagine living with that,,,,trust me it would be far far worse then jail...
Lemonhead
10-09-2010, 23:22
Ive read far to many court judgments etc throughout my 4 years studying law that i understand there is always more to the story...
It was probably a good thing he was only charged with what he was charged with because honestly if he was charged with manslaughter he in all likelyhood would be found not guilty as the facts dont appear to satisfy the mandatory elements of manslaughter. Better he serves 3 years then no time at all...
Deterrence for these types of crimes dont work because the defendants dont set out to hurt or cause harm, without this intent there is no foresight and therefore they cant be deterred, i hope that made sense
The primary concern of the court is rehabilitation and whilst retribution is important rehabilitation should be at the forefront
I get why this is upsetting i really do but i dont think we can sit here and condemn this person to an eternity to hell when we dont know the facts...in al likelihood this man will be serving out a life sentence for this regardless of whether he is in jail or not...imagine living with that,,,,trust me it would be far far worse then jail...
I cant comment from a legal standpoint, I know nothing about it but the question was do you think this is fair punishment and TBH no, 3 years is not fair. 3 years goes like *that*. More jail time and some sort of drug rehabilitation so he doesn't do this again would seem better.
Theophania
11-09-2010, 07:26
Its interesting to see the replies... WHilst I can understand the legal perspective, I am more thinking in my mummy shoes at the moment :D... If that was my baby I would be devistated and I can tell you 3 years wouldn't be enough to subdue my rage....
I suppose though that he does have to live a life sentence in his own mind.....
I wonder if the parents of the child knew that he smoked weed??? Would they have left their child there regardless? And then does that make them neglegent also???
Hmmm I dunno something about this story has just got me thinking I suppose.... Such a tragic accident that should never have happened.
Harlequin
11-09-2010, 15:40
I suppose though that he does have to live a life sentence in his own mind.....
*gets out a tiny violin for him*
That doesn't make a difference to me. I'm glad he has to live a life sentence in his own mind.
Is there anyone to even corroborate his story that he was just playing with the kid? Whose to say he didn't just flip out and shake the hell out of the boy?
A little boy is dead and the guy gets 3 years imprisonment. I just don't get it.
Mischief
11-09-2010, 17:30
Hope someone treats him the same way.... :(
ComeBackKid
11-09-2010, 19:20
*gets out a tiny violin for him*
That doesn't make a difference to me. I'm glad he has to live a life sentence in his own mind.
Is there anyone to even corroborate his story that he was just playing with the kid? Whose to say he didn't just flip out and shake the hell out of the boy?
A little boy is dead and the guy gets 3 years imprisonment. I just don't get it.
:iagree:
:yelclap::yes::yelclap::yes:
Pussyfoot
12-09-2010, 12:11
Hope someone treats him the same way....
Once his record is discovered, they probably will.
Read about a man recently who kicked his child so hard he lacerated his liver got a SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
The Judiciary are in FairyLand.
I dont care what any drug smoker or shooter does to them selfs, but if you smoke drugs when you are looking after a chid then you are responsible if something goes wrong.
Its not an accident when you choose to ge of your nut, its not an accident if you then repeattedly put your hand ovr a childs mouth that IS MURDER, if he did that not on drugs that would be murder why does that fact that he was of his face make it any less of a crime.
If a guy is high on Extacy and rapes a women he is stil a discusting rapist, If a someone is high on smack and they shoot someone they ar stil a murderer,
WHY is it ok to be high on pot and kill a child, WHY, I dont see the logic at all, he CHOOSE to get HIGH, in his high state he choose to kill the kid.
Oh and i hope that he goes into NORMAL prison not protective custody and that althe prisoners know that he is child murdering scum and that the other prisoners give him a real punishment that fits the crime
his charge wasnt murder simply because he was high on drugs, it would have been the same charge regardless of whether he was high or not. Its the same with culpable driving, if you are drag racing and have an accident and kill someone who are just as liable as if you were high and had a car accident and killed someone.
These crimes are always the hardest because there is no intent. You cant charge someone with murder or manslaughter if there is no mens rea, a jury would simply not be able to find that person guilty despite the tragic outcome.
People make mistakes all the time, i know i have, sometimes these mistakes have tragic outcomes and it really is tragic but i can assure you that there is no ammount of jail time that would ever ever be enough to compensate for the loss of a life, never ever.
This man has to live with this for the rest of his life and whilst you can all sit there on a high horse and judge this person without even knowing what sort of character he is, he has a family, he has children, they are all suffering because of this.
I only hope that you dont ever find yourself in a position were one of your loved onces make a stupid mistake and hurts someone when they did not mean to
also it amazes me about the misconceptions people have of jail
Pussyfoot
12-09-2010, 14:31
Actus reus in conjunction with mens rea = criminal liability. You can't have one without the other.
It has nothing to do with intent per se but of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilty act, the presence of which leads to the presumption that the accused bore the disposition of a guilty mind.
And yes, you can charge in the absence of mens rea (guilty mind). The subsquent evidence must be able to make this charge stick though. This is why we have due process.
Please don't deride people, BigBird, just because you happen to harbour a different view. If you feel we have misconceptions about gaol, then tell us what you think they are. If you feel we are on our "high horses" then at least have the gumption to tell us why. That's what forums are for, to air opinions, not to have a dig at the people who give us those opinions.
At the end of the day, the facts are is that an adult person taking drugs (and a considerable amount of it) had a child in his custody for whose welfare he was responsible. Also, established as fact is that Anderson not only gave various versions of his account to Police regarding what happened but also admitted he held his hand over the toddler's mouth for five seconds and then walking away even when hearing him having trouble breathing.
My view is that a person taking any drugs while taking care of child abrogates his responsibility and should be made to face the consequences for any acts he performs that adversely affect that child. And if that means a gaol sentence and "a life sentence of remorse" then so be it.
Cave ab homine unius libri. ;)
MummaBear03
12-09-2010, 14:53
A child is dead because of the actions of a grown up who was responsible for the care of that child. No, 3 years is not enough. I don't care how people want to paint it, whether it was intentional or not, the child is still dead because this man was on drugs at the time.
I think that if someone is drag racing, an illegal activity, and someone dies from that, it's still murder. If someone is driving according to the conditions and following the road rules and an accident occurs which leaves a person dead, that is not murder. I see it all the time down this street, people drag racing when kids are roaming around all the time, many cats and dogs have been killed outside of my house, it's only a matter of time before it's a child and that will be murder in my eyes because people are engaging in an illegal and dangerous activity that puts everyone's life at risk.
Actus reus in conjunction with mens rea = criminal liability. You can't have one without the other.
It has nothing to do with intent per se but of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilty act, the presence of which leads to the presumption that the accused bore the disposition of a guilty mind.
JUmmm okay just because there is a presumption it can be rebutted and obviously has in this case....Do you think that if there was even a glimmer if hope that this man could be found guilty for manslaughter then the prosecution would not have pursued that charge :confused:
The judge can only sentence somebody in relation to the crime which they have been charged with.
Perhaps a reread of the relevant provisions in the crimes act is in order :cool:
And yes, you can charge in the absence of mens rea (guilty mind). The subsquent evidence must be able to make this charge stick though. This is why we have due process.
um are you saying that murder and manslaughter are strict liability offenses :confused: and you can charge people with whatever you want but they case will be tested in court
Im not sure what crime you propose this man be charged with but if your sure he could of been found guilty of murder or manslaughter even with the absence of mens rea you should probably let the prosecution know hey, so they know for next time
Please don't deride people, BigBird, just because you happen to harbour a different view.
Im sorry who have i derided?? I have certainly not ridiculed anyone for having a different opinion merely expressing my own
If you feel we have misconceptions about gaol, then tell us what you think they are. If you feel we are on our "high horses" then at least have the gumption to tell us why. That's what forums are for, to air opinions, not to have a dig at the people who give us those opinions.
I will elaborate if thats what you want. This isnt America and it certainly isnt the movies, jail is not how people perceive it to be. He will not 'get whats coming to him' so to speak if he goes into jail. In fact, unless he shares with his cell mates why he is in jail then no one will know. Secondly, he was only sentenced to 3 years in jail which means he is most likely going to be sent to a medium to low security prison where he will (subject to good behavior) be eligible to share a housing unit with 4 other prisoners, they get a weekly allowance for their food shopping, have a t.v playstation, cd players even a computer (no internet). Most people in these low security prisons are at the tail end of their sentence and will certainly not jeopardize there parole prospects to simply teach this guy a lesson
And we are all sitting up on our high horse, every one who responded in this thread because we simply do not know all the facts of the case and yet here we are passing judgement on this man. yes its easy for us to judge people when we dont know them, when they are not a person but merely a parasite of our society. This man made a mistake, a serious mistake for which he acknowledged when he pleaded guilty. We dont know this mans state of mind, he may not want to live because of the mistake he made, he may want to spend the rest of his life in jail. We dont know what he is thinking but he is a human being and he is someones son, he is someones father and he is someones friend
At the end of the day, the facts are is that an adult person taking drugs (and a considerable amount of it) had a child in his custody for whose welfare he was responsible. Also, established as fact is that Anderson not only gave various versions of his account to Police regarding what happened but also admitted he held his hand over the toddler's mouth for five seconds and then walking away even when hearing him having trouble breathing.
My view is that a person taking any drugs while taking care of child abrogates his responsibility and should be made to face the consequences for any acts he performs that adversely affect that child. And if that means a gaol sentence and "a life sentence of remorse" then so be it.
Cave ab homine unius libri. ;)
And as i understand it he did get a conviction and a jail sentence and i wasnt disputing that he shouldnt have got a custodial sentence so im really confused as to why you disagree with my POV :confused::confused:
SimplyMum
13-09-2010, 08:44
Quite frankly, I think the neglience started with the marijuana. Before having that- he was an able body and could determine the responsibility left on his shoulders. After that- his actions 'could' be explained by the effects of drugs. IMO, no wonder people don't fully comprehend the serious effects of drugs (esp marijuana) have on the mind and body when the legal system is so blase in sentencing. Perhaps if the legal system got serious about these matters than society would too.
the girls mum
13-09-2010, 12:10
I read this the other day and felt SICK!
That poor poor poor poor little boy!
OK so the guy who was looking after him SAID he was playing 'tickle monster' and SAID he was doing it in a fun way blah blah blah - who knows what the little boy thought was going on and how scared he was!!!!!! I think it is horrific and I feel devasted for that poor little boy.
3 years - its a f*cking joke!
Pussyfoot
13-09-2010, 13:20
JUmmm okay just because there is a presumption it can be rebutted and obviously has in this case....Do you think that if there was even a glimmer if hope that this man could be found guilty for manslaughter then the prosecution would not have pursued that charge :confused:
Okay, I assumed that you were in the legal system when you started quoting legal terminology and process. My apologies.
Charge deals are made prior to Court appearances. The subsequent charges would have been drawn and then presented to the Judge based on a negotiated process between Police, the accused and his legal advisor.
The judge can only sentence somebody in relation to the crime which they have been charged with.
Well yes, that goes without saying.
Perhaps a reread of the relevant provisions in the crimes act is in order :cool:
I think you mean the Sentencing Act. :) Judges sentence based on many factors. They are not wholly bound by the charge sheet.
um are you saying that murder and manslaughter are strict liability offenses :confused: and you can charge people with whatever you want but they case will be tested in court
No, I'm not saying that. Nor did I write it.
Im not sure what crime you propose this man be charged with but if your sure he could of been found guilty of murder or manslaughter even with the absence of mens rea you should probably let the prosecution know hey, so they know for next time
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I wasn't questioning the charges. Perhaps if you equate yourself with what mens rea and criminal liability actually is then we can have a decent debate about it, which I will happily oblige. :)
Im sorry who have i derided?? I have certainly not ridiculed anyone for having a different opinion merely expressing my own
Well reading your post it certainly appears that way.
I will elaborate if thats what you want. This isnt America and it certainly isnt the movies, jail is not how people perceive it to be. He will not 'get whats coming to him' so to speak if he goes into jail.
And you say this based on the correctional institutions you've been to? It's not hard to find anecdotal evidence of what happens to offenders inside WA gaols, particularly those whose convictions involve children. Would like to be him right now. :D
In fact, unless he shares with his cell mates why he is in jail then no one will know.
Alas, the reality is that they don't need a fellow inmate to tell them what he's done. They find out regardless whether it's via staff, the system, the media or the public. We're not talking about a cloistered convent here :)
Secondly, he was only sentenced to 3 years in jail which means he is most likely going to be sent to a medium to low security prison where he will (subject to good behavior) be eligible to share a housing unit with 4 other prisoners, they get a weekly allowance for their food shopping, have a t.v playstation, cd players even a computer (no internet).
He's a prisoner in the state of Western Australia and I'm not privy to what his sentencing conditions are or, more importantly, where he has been sent so I can't comment. I do know, however, that in Queensland and NSW, this is not the norm for offences involving children or the gravity of the offence for which he has been convicted.
Most people in these low security prisons are at the tail end of their sentence and will certainly not jeopardize there parole prospects to simply teach this guy a lesson.
It's dangerous to generalise particularly with a system it would seem you have little experience with. You assume that all prisoners want to leave the system, you assume that all play goody to get parole and are impervious to incentives. Also, some prisoners serve out their entire sentences in a low security prison. It just depends on how they are classified when they are sentenced.
And we are all sitting up on our high horse, every one who responded in this thread because we simply do not know all the facts of the case and yet here we are passing judgement on this man. yes its easy for us to judge people when we dont know them, when they are not a person but merely a parasite of our society.
Posters were commenting on the facts before them which are recorded in judgment. And the facts have already been outlined for you. I would expect that as community members who wish to keep our children safe then it is our responsibility to make judgement calls. We earn that right by participating in that community and keeping within the law ourselves.
This man made a mistake, a serious mistake for which he acknowledged when he pleaded guilty.
He committed a very serious crime which ended the life of a human being. His initial plea was innocence, actually and he did not acknowledge he had committed any crime until the evidence mounted against him. He was forced to change his pleas when it became clear how the child died. (This case has been ongoing and documented since 2009).
We dont know this mans state of mind, he may not want to live because of the mistake he made, he may want to spend the rest of his life in jail. We dont know what he is thinking but he is a human being and he is someones son, he is someones father and he is someones friend
This man has been out on bail prior to and for the duration of his trial. If he wanted to neck himself he could've. Yet Anderson is still alive. Meanwhile, he killed someone else's son, brother, nephew and friend and I don't think you get that.
Charge deals are made prior to Court appearances. The subsequent charges would have been drawn and then presented to the Judge based on a negotiated process between Police, the accused and his legal advisor.
I am familiar with pre trial court processes. I know that it would have been a negotiated process between the police and the defendant, but I know without a doubt in my mind that if the prosecution thought they had even a glimmer of hope of convicting him for a higher charge then they would...
So since i am have not read the presentment I can only assume that the evidence against him did not mount to manslaughter or murder. This is just an assumption but I think a reasonable one.
I think you mean the Sentencing Act :) ]Judges sentence based on many factors. They are not wholly bound by the charge sheet.
No i meant the crimes act, i think you will find that murder and manslaughter ARE NOT strict liability offenses and thus require more then the actus reus for a guilty verdict
No, I'm not saying that. Nor did I write it.
Well then WHAT are you saying? :confused::confused:
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I wasn't questioning the charges. Perhaps if you equate yourself with what[I] mens rea and criminal liability actually is then we can have a decent debate about it, which I will happily oblige. :)
I am well acquainted with mens rea and criminal liability, they dont hand out law degrees to everyone :rolleyes:
[
FONT=Century Gothic]And you say this based on the correctional institutions you've been to? It's not hard to find anecdotal evidence of what happens to offenders inside WA gaols, particularly those whose convictions involve children. Would like to be him right now. :D[/FONT]
Actually, yes. I do say this based on correctional institutes I have been to. I have never personally been charged with a criminal offense but as life would have it I have a family member serving a prison sentence at the moment.
Alas, the reality is that they don't need a fellow inmate to tell them what he's done. They find out regardless whether it's via staff, the system, the media or the public. We're not talking about a cloistered convent here :)
Well that may be but i dont think its a given. And i think its despicable that people would view that sort of behavior as justice. An eye for an eye only leads to more blindness
It's dangerous to generalise particularly with a system it would seem you have little experience with. You assume that all prisoners want to leave the system, you assume that all play goody to get parole and are impervious to incentives. Also, some prisoners serve out their entire sentences in a low security prison. It just depends on how they are classified when they are sentenced.
As above, I have plenty of experience with the legal system in both from both personal and educational capacities
Some prisoners do serve out there entire sentence in a low security prison but they are usually sentenced to less then 3 years.
In addition, they will not place this man in a division where he is at risk, he will most likely be in a division of vulnerable prisoners
Posters were commenting on the facts before them which are recorded in judgment. And the facts have already been outlined for you. I would expect that as community members who wish to keep our children safe then it is our responsibility to make judgement calls. We earn that right by participating in that community and keeping within the law ourselves.
I dont think any of the posters read the judgement
The point that I was trying to make is that we are all by no means perfect. People make mistakes, its human nature. Im sure there are members on here who have looked after children after a few to many wines im not saying they will behave in the same way that this man behaved but they could make a mistake too.
Would peoples views be different if he wasnt high
He committed a very serious crime which ended the life of a human being. His initial plea was innocence, actually and he did not acknowledge he had committed any crime until the evidence mounted against him. He was forced to change his pleas when it became clear how the child died. (This case has been ongoing and documented since 2009).
By pleading guilty he did and has acknowledged his wrong doing, there could be several reasons why he pleaded not guilty initially
This man has been out on bail prior to and for the duration of his trial. If he wanted to neck himself he could've. Yet Anderson is still alive. Meanwhile, he killed someone else's son, brother, nephew and friend and I don't think you get that. [/QUOTE]
I do get that I really do, but i dont think anyone here gets that he is a person too who made a terrible judgment call by smoking drugs and looking after children, by handling the child the way he did, but i can still empathize with him. Again we can all sit her behind our computers in our warm houses acting like perfect people and judge this man but I am not going to act like i am not perfect and have never made mistakes. I can only imagine what it must feel like to be the person responsible for taking the life from a child when you had no intention to hurt them.
motherev2two
13-09-2010, 16:24
Not murder but manslaughter as his impaired careless actions caused a death. We can all make assumptions about what really happened but that will not change the end result.
Heaps of parents rough play and do stupid things when they panic even when not under the influence and we all make mistakes. I think we should look past the stereotype of druggie and not assume that because he smokes he was probably more violent then he claims many kids are abused but drug/alcohol free people everyday and many drug/alcohol using parents dont.
Lemonhead
13-09-2010, 16:40
I agree with whoever said he had adequate time to neck himself :thumbsup: unfortunately he didn't.
My mums ex BF was in maximum security for 9 years. He saw a lot of prisoners come and go...some dead, some beaten within an inch of their life that they would never be able to walk or even talk again. Most of these were child killers/abusers and molesters. There is a whole other set of laws in prison, and I thank god for it because obviously our justice system can't do its job.
ComeBackKid
13-09-2010, 17:08
I agree with whoever said he had adequate time to neck himself :thumbsup: unfortunately he didn't.
My mums ex BF was in maximum security for 9 years. He saw a lot of prisoners come and go...some dead, some beaten within an inch of their life that they would never be able to walk or even talk again. Most of these were child killers/abusers and molesters. There is a whole other set of laws in prison, and I thank god for it because obviously our justice system can't do its job.
:iagree::yelclap:
Love your posts in this thread, SF.
madreader
13-09-2010, 17:37
I disagree with the sentence entirely. He should have been sentenced to a lot longer. He took the life of a child - no two ways about it. And as for being terrified of being around his own kids - he should not be allowed anywhere near his kids ever again.
I totally agree with you.
Pussyfoot
13-09-2010, 18:15
BigBird, while I appreciate your response, it is patently obvious by your response that you haven't read or understood what I've written. So I guess I shall just leave it there and agree to disagree.. :)
There is a whole other set of laws in prison, and I thank god for it because obviously our justice system can't do its job. Yes, the world inside is a very different to the one we know outside and to a certain extent it's an indictment on society because it means that we've failed in our obligations to rehabilitate. Unfortunately, in my experience, what I've seen in the prison system is that a lot of vulnerable people get caught up in some pretty brutal assaults and/or get an education that they could never have gotten outside. While on the one hand, I understand the need for karma-in-action, on the other hand this system creates more evil than it does good: a Catch 22 situation perhaps?
My opinion of the judicial system, which is formed by my working experience, is that I've come across an extraordinary amount of do-gooders who've spent too much time focussing on the what the criminal needs as opposed to how justice is served and you get that when you spend too much time at uni and no time at all in the real world. So, in turn, you get people telling you what they THINK is how it is based on what they've studied in a text book. That's why the judicial system largely doesn't always work.
We can all make assumptions about what really happened but that will not change the end result.
The comments have been made based on what have been reported at Court. They aren't assumptions. I guess it's easy to focus on the person who committed the crime but what about the mother? What about her family? What about the dead child and his rights? Who thinks of them?
Heaps of parents rough play and do stupid things when they panic even when not under the influence and we all make mistakes.Stupid? Would you call holding your hand over a child's mouth so that he ceases to breathe, one of those 'stupid things'? Would you then use your drug use to claim impairment of judgement? I mean, come on. Blind Freddy can see what's going on here.
There's often that well used but misunderstood saying 'an eye for an eye' and take it literally. It's a parable and a metaphor. And one that is well served in cases such as this.
FONT=Century Gothic]BigBird, while I appreciate your response, it is patently obvious by your response that you haven't read or understood what I've written. So I guess I shall just leave it there and agree to disagree..[/FONT] :)
:shakehands: Happy to agree to disagree but i still dont see the point your post..What is it that you are trying to say, that justice was served or that it wasnt. Personally i dont think justice can ever be served in these cases, if this man got 10 years it still wouldnt have been enough.
Yes, the world inside is a very different to the one we know outside and to a certain extent it's an indictment on society because it means that we've failed in our obligations to rehabilitate. Unfortunately, in my experience, what I've seen in the prison system is that a lot of vulnerable people get caught up in some pretty brutal assaults and/or get an education that they could never have gotten outside. While on the one hand, I understand the need for karma-in-action, on the other hand this system creates more evil than it does good: a Catch 22 situation perhaps?
Have you been to jail? known anyone personally who has been to jail, because in all honesty it really isnt what you are painting it out to be...And this isnt coming from a textbook, this is coming from personal experience...Vulnerable prisoners are separated from the mainstream prisoners
My opinion of the judicial system, which is formed by my working experience, is that I've come across an extraordinary amount of do-gooders who've spent too much time focussing on the what the criminal needs as opposed to how justice is served and you get that when you spend too much time at uni and no time at all in the real world. So, in turn, you get people telling you what they THINK is how it is based on what they've studied in a text book. That's why the judicial system largely doesn't always work.
Well have you even been to uni and studied out of a text book? Because it is one thing to witness the law in operation and it is another thing entirely to understand the history and the theory behind the practices.
And you are implying that I have spent no time in the real world, let me assure you, that is not the case. Firstly as previously mentioned I have first hand personal experience with the law in operation. Secondly as part of a law degree you are required to do internships and clerkships in order to have a real chance of getting articles. I have also been privileged enough to be selected to do work experience a QC in melbourne as well as compete in mooting competitions in Canberra.
Did you study law? maybe where you did it things were different but i can tell you now that in melbourne a law degree is often not enough, first hand legal experience is also essential to gain employment. Enough ramblings, im sure you know all this
The comments have been made based on what have been reported at Court. They aren't assumptions. I guess it's easy to focus on the person who committed the crime but what about the mother? What about her family? What about the dead child and his rights? Who thinks of them?
I disagree, i think it is easy to empathise with the mother, the father and the family of the poor child. I dont think it is easy to empathise with the accused. You seem to have knowledge of the law so i am utterly surprised that you would take this stance. Get to know your clients personally, you will see that often they are victims of their own circumstances
Stupid? Would you call holding your hand over a child's mouth so that he ceases to breathe, one of those 'stupid things'? Would you then use your drug use to claim impairment of judgement? I mean, come on. Blind Freddy can see what's going on here.
Actually, it was reported that the fatal injury was not the hand on the mouth but the swinging of the boy who missed the mattress and landed on the floor
There's often that well used but misunderstood saying 'an eye for an eye' and take it literally. It's a parable and a metaphor. And one that is well served in cases such as this.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: sure okay
MummaBear03
13-09-2010, 19:15
A small child was killed at the hands of an adult. That is the fact. 3 years is not enough. What if it was your child? Would 3 years be enough.
A small child was killed at the hands of an adult. That is the fact. 3 years is not enough. What if it was your child? Would 3 years be enough.
30 years would not be enough 3000 years would never be enough....i dont know why people equate the worth of a life with the prison sentence, that simply not the purpose of prison sentences
He should be locked away for life and never allowed near ANY child again - whether he's stoned or not. This is disgusting, 3 years is a joke.
I think his sentence was good
from Reading it doesn't appear he had any malicous intent of course that doesn't excuse him but he has killed his son by accident
he's lost his family and has to live with it forever
I just think that he didn't do it to hurt him and yes he shouldn't have but I don't see this sentence as being unfair
to me it would be like throwing a mum away in jail because she left her 2 year old in the bath for a minute and they consequently drowned
I think the difference to this guy and other cases is that it appears that he did not have any intent on hurting his child
flame me all you want but if you did something utterley stupid like pushed your kid really really high on a swing and they fell and hit their head and consequently died would you feel you deserved to be charged as a murderer
maybe you feel it's not the same but that's the way I see this case
it would appear he didn't mean to hurt him
he shouldn't get off free but he shouldn't be put away forever
And people say there's nothing wrong with smoking marijuana *sigh*.
Unfortunately just about all the sentences handed down by the courts these days are way too lenient - not just those involving child abuses
I can safely say through my years of knowing stoners and previously smoking pot
I have never ever ever ever met someone who is stoned just stoned be in any way aggressive
it's not that type of drug
MummaBear03
13-09-2010, 22:13
I can safely say through my years of knowing stoners and previously smoking pot
I have never ever ever ever met someone who is stoned just stoned be in any way aggressive
it's not that type of drug
I have.
And no I don't do this:
i dont know why people equate the worth of a life with the prison sentence, that simply not the purpose of prison sentences
I just see it as an insult that he gets a measly 3 years for causing the death of a child through the poor choices he made. I see that in many cases. People get longer for welfare fraud than for harming other people and causing death.
Tweak, I know lots of people who smoke cannabis too (I used to and stopped a few months before we started trying for a bub). In my opinion based on scientific evidence and statistics, I don't believe smoking weed sends people "crazy". People who are pre-disposed to mental illness obviously have a higher chance of losing the plot when they are under the influence of cannabis and it sounds like this guy completely flipped out - so when it comes to pot, I agree with you.
I do believe this should be a murder charge though. He put his hand over this kid's mouth, not once - but twice during the 2nd time the child was upset. He became extremely violent with him. This wasn't a case of "leaving a child unattended in a bath" or anything like it. Yes, this poor child's death was accidental, that is clear. And yes, this guy obviously does feel extreme remorse and guilt and is too frightened to be anywhere near his own kids and I take all of that into account, part of me feels very, very sorry for him. However, that doesn't excuse any of it. Three years in my opinion just isn't good enough. This little boy lost his life because of this man.
motherev2two
14-09-2010, 20:01
Pussyfoot, I was not saying what he did was ok I said heaps of people do stupid things they normally would not do when affected by drugs or alcohol.
Seriously when ever you mention illicit drugs people will make assumptions about the person and will assume the worst of their character that was my point. Regardless of this case people will make up their minds apon hearing drug affected and child dying.
AGAIN I know he was rough and killed him and his actions were stupid but being a non drinker I have seen MANY parents both women and men do stupid things nearly killing injuring their children so we are all capable of mistakes.
MummaBear03 If it was my child they would not have been in the situation as my kids will never be in the care of anyone who was likly to be drinking or taking drugs or was likely to not be sober during the care, apart from daycare they are only in my care or my husbands. If someone killed my child and despite my best efforts to protect them from harm they 3 years would not be enough.
I also thought it was him missing the mattress that killed him hence my rough play comment.
Tweak, I know lots of people who smoke cannabis too (I used to and stopped a few months before we started trying for a bub). In my opinion based on scientific evidence and statistics, I don't believe smoking weed sends people "crazy". People who are pre-disposed to mental illness obviously have a higher chance of losing the plot when they are under the influence of cannabis and it sounds like this guy completely flipped out - so when it comes to pot, I agree with you.
I do believe this should be a murder charge though. He put his hand over this kid's mouth, not once - but twice during the 2nd time the child was upset. He became extremely violent with him. This wasn't a case of "leaving a child unattended in a bath" or anything like it. Yes, this poor child's death was accidental, that is clear. And yes, this guy obviously does feel extreme remorse and guilt and is too frightened to be anywhere near his own kids and I take all of that into account, part of me feels very, very sorry for him. However, that doesn't excuse any of it. Three years in my opinion just isn't good enough. This little boy lost his life because of this man.
(my bolding)
It can't be murder if it was accidental. You need to have the requisite intent for it to amount to murder.
It could be manslaughter, but I assume they didn't have sufficient evidence.
Unless the hand over the mouth suffocated the child, it's not relevant outside of a charge of assault, or maybe evidence of his overall behaviour.
I'm not naive. It could well be that this guy threw the child at the ground or caused the (fatal) injury intentionally (rather than by his excuse of spinning the child around during a game). But if he has a plausible excuse and there are no other witnesses, then how do we know? And how would you convince a jury?
And would you want the system to be such that people are convicted on flimsy evidence? Lots of criminals get away with it, because the system is set up as not to convict innocent people.
I don't know how you fix it though, while still protecting people's civil rights.
Lemonhead
14-09-2010, 20:54
I also thought it was him missing the mattress that killed him hence my rough play comment.
Yeah it was.
The article said he missed the mattress and then the boy was gasping.
Yeah it was.
The article said he missed the mattress and then the boy was gasping.
yes, what I got from the article is that he died from the head injury.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.