What would you do in this murder case?

See, my upbringing and my general beliefs balk at the thought of the death penalty, so I can't say I would advocate it in any case. That said, people like this don't deserve to live. I would want to say death penalty, but I can't quite do it. Life imprisonment - preferably in the worst conditions the law would let you get away with keeping them in - yes.

^ That seems much crueler than quick death to me.

edited 12th Feb '11 1:52:51 PM by Arha

Yes, I'm aware of that, and I had a feeling that would get picked up on. I know it's quite an illogical stance... it's not that I don't agree the woman should die, it's just that if I was deciding what to do I couldn't quite bring myself to sentence someone to death... Rest assured I am fully aware of the hypocrisy of that.

If the death penalty were issued for only the most heinous crimes, then there would have to be guidelines as to what counts, and nobody would be happy with said guidelines, because there would always be people who've been wronged by just short enough that the person who killed their friend or raped their child or stole their car or what have you would get prison time, instead of hanging. They would want their particular murderer or rapist or burglar to die. It wouldn't be justice, otherwise.

I'd vote for life in prison. Then again, unless it involves killing loads of people or something explicitly against the State (killing members of Congress counts), then I'm reluctant to sentence someone to hang.

^^ Slippery slope much? Just setting it as multiple murder or murder with unusual cruelty would be an acceptable flag to plant for most who are okay with the death penalty.

Not to mention, most jurisdictions already have pretty specific criteria.

edited 12th Feb '11 2:27:45 PM by Pykrete

Clearly, you've never talked to someone who's had their car stolen.

I did just yesterday actually. He was pretty chill about the whole thing. Police came, took notes and license plate, took off. I'll ask him when I get back to campus tomorrow night if the investigation has gone anywhere.

I hate it when people who have had their car stolen or stuff like that (as in, property damage) say that the criminal deserves to die. (Yes, I've heard people say that in a serious tone.)

If the same person (i.e. the person who's now telling us car thiefs should die) had destroyed the car by driving drunk and crashing with another car, they probably would think the death penalty too harsh for them, even though they wrecked 2 cars and caused more personal damage than the person who broke in to their car and took it.

How could anyone think that a burglar is on the same level as a rapist or a murderer? Even if you did have your car stolen, you'd have to pretty unreasonable to expect them to kill the person. Our car got stolen once, and completely wrecked, but I'm fairly certain my parents would never have expected the criminals to get the same sentence as someone who had murdered someone (as it was, I don't think they ever caught them).

Threadhop: @OP: does it have to be death penalty or freedom? I'd prefer to give this women an eternity in prison. If that's impossible I'll take the death penalty.

Well, I've only heard people express such sentiments immediately (or soon, anyway) after the event; a few days later, they'll usually no longer hold such views (but some do).

Which is another proof that you should never decide sentences by whatever your gut tells you immediately after you hear what's happened. You should wait several weeks before you start making judgements. But well, having a trial pretty much guarantees at least that.

Random note time. I've heard this is actually the reasoning behind the eye for an eye punishment methods. It's actually a way of stopping disproportionate retribution. Before, it might have been 'both your eyes plus maybe your hand for an eye because I'm really pissed' and eye for an eye was implemented to stop such things.

An eye for an eye was ridiculously liberal in ancient Sumeria.

**reads article**

That's...that's just horrible! Complete Monsters do exist in Real Life! DX My recommended course of action would be deportation to some inhospitable place. I would suggest Australia but that seems too kind. Antarctica might be a better place but I fear for the safety of the penguins. My final suggestion would be the Moon but that would mean she would become the Moon's first permanent resident and she should not be allowed such an honor.

Wow, I can't believe people are saying "Throw the husband in jail! He didn't stop her!"

Imagine if the genders were reversed. I doubt people would be yelling for the wife to be thrown in jail because the husband was beating her older daughter and she did nothing.

In fact, he was also the victim of abuse. And had a heart condition.

pt. 2 of this story.

edited 12th Feb '11 4:13:22 PM by CommandoDude

If the genders were reversed, the mother would still be going to jail and people would be demanding just that. People don't take well to witnesses just watching, especially if the crime takes place over a long time like this one.

I...had quit after the first page. Now I feel even worse after seeing the second.

^^^ No, I'd definitely feel the same way. He had responsibility and he failed. I don't think he deserves as severe of a sentence as she does but he's definitely to blame for some of what happened. Failure to act cost this girl her life and unless he was severely and incredibly abused there's no way of dodging that.

edited 12th Feb '11 4:16:05 PM by Arha

Bullshit. I don't believe that for a second.

edited 12th Feb '11 4:16:48 PM by CommandoDude

Best Of: I'm not entirely convinced of that TBH.

edited 12th Feb '11 4:16:01 PM by Pykrete

Come on, with a case this severe, and where the abusive member of the family didn't abuse everyone else, you think people would exuse the other parent (not even restrained by abuse) not taking action to save the child?

I mean, really?

As someone who knows full well how sexist the court system is. Yes.

Besides which, the man was abused and stated he was afraid of her. Women are all the time made to be convinced that going to the police would only make the situation worse by abusive boyfriends, abusers constantly manipulate the abusee. Regardless of gender.

If the husband were so capable of helping her. Why was she incapable of helping herself?

You say "Well he didn't go to the police"

Then why didn't the victim go to the police? She was just as capable.

Same damn reason.

edited 12th Feb '11 4:25:24 PM by CommandoDude

OK, fair points.

I dunno how it is in the US, but I don't think the parent who didn't help (whichever gender) would get away without either jail or being committed to some kind of a psychiatric ward for a couple of years.

At least here I suppose the parent who didn't help would be committed to an insane asylum for a long time - regardless of gender.

Not sure, though; I'm well aware of many ways in which men are persecuted and I discuss it often with my friends and family.

I'm just surprised it would be so bad in the justice system, since that's one place that's supposed to be truly neutral. But yeah, I know it isn't when the father/husband/male spouse is abused. I still wouldn't think that women get away with this kind of stuff, even if their only crime is inaction (which is not a "small" crime.)

edited 12th Feb '11 4:39:23 PM by BestOf

Wow, I can't believe people are saying "Throw the husband in jail! He didn't stop her!"

A good attorney might be able to prove that his inaction was the actus rea, though I'm not sure if there's enough evidence to suggest mens rea on his part (because negligence does qualify as mens rea. I'd need more facts to be sure about that.

In regards to the husband's situation, there was a case a while ago in England in which an elderly gentleman, his wife (I think) and his son (all of whom had serious medical conditions) took in the man's seriously anorexic sister, who eventually died, which lead to charges being brought against the rest of the family. The thing is, they'd tried to help her and then gave up, which suggested that mens rea was present and allowed them to be tried for murder, because it demonstrated that they were capable of making a token effort to save her life. If they hadn't tried to help her they wouldn't have been liable.

Maybe a bit off-topic, and I don't think it can really compare to the frightfulness of these proceedings, but that new information made me think of that case. I'll try to find the neutral citation if anyone wants to look it up.