What would you do in this murder case?

^^^ What are you arguing, that if genderflipped the woman wouldn't go to jail, or that the guy shouldn't go to jail? Because I agree that if it was genderflipped the negligent woman would probably get a heavily reduced sentence compared to what the guy is probably going to get here.

Why should the guy go to jail? It's astounding at society's sexism against men, get abused, go to jail because you aren't a woman! After all, abuse is only really bad if it's against women -eyeroll-

Both arguments are imo mutually inclusive.

Yeah, a woman in this situation would obviously not go to jail and based on that this guy obviously should not go to jail either.

Like Commando Dude said, if he's responsible for her death the victim is also responsible for her own death, and that's just silly.

If the guy knew and wilfully helped her conceil it, then he's guilty of accessory, and I'd have no qualms about convicting him of that.

If the guy knew and didn't do something, he's guilty of child neglect, and I'd have no qualms about convicting him of that.

Of course, if the wife conceiled what she was doing, threatened him, they were estranged so he didn't see it happen, etc., obviously that's a very strong mitigating or possibly fully excusing factor.

I'd treat a wife who let her husband kill her kids the same way.

Excuse me, but why is he not culpable for not reporting the situation? Honest question here because I might be missing something. The victim was unable to report the abuse after being removed from school and shut up in her room, but the story doesn't seem to indicate the guy was. And as I said before, I do feel that I think that if the genders were reversed I would feel the same way about being at least partially culpable.

Perhaps he wasn't allowed to drive?

Maybe the wife threatened him?

The wife did threaten him; in fact she abused him to the point that he couldn't use the bathroom without asking her.

Seriously, read the article before you comment.

EDIT:

He told detectives he did not seek help for Jeanette because he was ailing from complications of a heart attack and was afraid of his wife. Though he’s “a big guy” and she’s “a little guy,” she had hit him in the past and controlled their home to the point he had to ask her to use the bathroom because she kept the door locked from the outside and carried the only key, he told detectives.

edited 12th Feb '11 5:18:30 PM by BlackHumor

For a crime to have been committed, two factors must be present: a guilty act and a guilty mind. However, these things (especially the latter) are often much more difficult to determine than they usually look. This case is a good example; it's going to be up to the prosecution to prove that the husband had the mens rea for this messy event and that his inaction qualifies as the actus rea.

That is actually mentioned in a separate article, which I went and found. I don't know if I believe him or not.

Even if it's true, I still don't think that completely absolves him. For example, I wouldn't think him fit to continue raising their other children.

edited 12th Feb '11 5:23:34 PM by Arha

It's really hard to tell how many of the husband's statements were true. I think that will come out best when he goes to trial in May.

Uh, again, if he was a woman, everyone would think him fit to continue raising his other children. It's only because he's a guy he's expected to "man up" and do something about it.

The way the mind works when you're abused does not change depending on gender, you know. Most abused women could put up a decent fight against their abusers if they tried.

I really don't think the fact that he could physically have gone for help makes him guilty of anything; he was psychologically restrained just like plenty of abused women are. If you say he's responsible for not going for help, you're essentially saying every abused woman in the world is responsible for her own abuse.

EDIT: Now, if he was lying, that would change things, but I don't see any reason he would be. Honestly, I think accusing him of lying is kind of reprehensible; he has a totally plausible story that's circumstantially correct from the things we know to be true AND in at least one case (that his wife killed their daughter) she admitted it was true after being confronted with the information.

Saying he's unreliable without any kind of evidence I think is a little like claiming a rape victim made it up.

edited 12th Feb '11 5:31:55 PM by BlackHumor

"The victim was unable to report the abuse after being removed from school and shut up in her room"

She could've said something before. It's clear that she was experiencing abuse prior as the school suspected it beforehand.

Even then, she probably could have walked out the front door I imagine, I doubt the door to her room was locked. Even less so on the window.

"If you say he's responsible for not going for help, you're essentially saying every abused woman in the world is responsible for her own abuse."

Feminists are spinning in their graves.

edited 12th Feb '11 5:29:28 PM by CommandoDude

Kill her.

Uh, again, if he was a woman, everyone would think him fit to continue raising his other children. It's only because he's a guy he's expected to "man up" and do something about it.

I wouldn't. And I've already stated that I don't necessarily believe him.

Also, please don't make such wild statements as I think all abused people are at fault for their abuse. I haven't said that.

Also also, if you read the article, you can see that she was too injured to leave. And I'm pretty sure she was also locked up in her room.

Edit: I'm claiming he might be lying because he has very obvious reasons to lie and I see no evidence in the article that really claims the situation for him is as he claims. The one child's testimony verifies that he didn't abuse the girl personally, but nothing indicates he was restrained from doing so except his own claims.

edited 12th Feb '11 5:35:31 PM by Arha

1. We're not saying that you're saying that women are responsible for their own abuse, we're saying that if you believe that this guy is responsible, you either must believe that women are responsible for their own abuse or else hold the nonsensical Double Standard that abused men are magically immune from the psychological forces women are. We're saying that what you're saying implies that women are responsible for their own abuse, but of course you can and probably do not believe that, which isn't consistent with your stated position that this man is responsible for not going to the police.
2. And as the article also says, the abuse started before she was locked in her room. If she didn't go when her own life was at stake and she's not responsible, that he didn't go when her life was at stake doesn't mean he's responsible.

EDIT: But what proof do you have that he did lie? He's been proven to be reliable before, and after all if he wanted to lie that he was totally not responsible he could have lied that she locked him in too and be instantly resolved of all responsibility whatsoever.

And again, any rape victim has incentives to lie; in fact any alleged victim of any crime at all has incentives to lie. What proof do you have that they're not lying?

edited 12th Feb '11 5:41:10 PM by BlackHumor

1. We're not saying that you're saying that women are responsible for their own abuse, we're saying that if you believe that this guy is responsible, you either must believe that women are responsible for their own abuse or else hold the nonsensical Double Standard that abused men are magically immune from the psychological forces women are. We're saying that what you're saying implies that women are responsible for their own abuse, but of course you can and probably do not believe that, which isn't consistent with your stated position that this man is responsible for not going to the police.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. If he was a woman in the same situation and allowed this to happen to her children I would not think her capable of raising children responsibly. And that's if he's telling the truth. Since he has very good reason to lie, I suspect he may not be being honest. And in that case, his responsibility skyrockets.

2. And as the article also says, the abuse started before she was locked in her room. If she didn't go when her own life was at stake and she's not responsible, that he didn't go when her life was at stake doesn't mean he's responsible.

The article also states that the abuse started with her getting peanut butter sandwiches instead of thanksgiving dinner. Kind of depressing, but not horrifying abuse. Before she was removed from school, her abuse probably wasn't that bad. By the time it got to the point where she obviously really did need help, she couldn't go for it anymore. This guy was not in that position.

So that is why I feel he is at the very least unfit to care for the remaining children and possibly worse depending on the accuracy of his testimony.

How has he proven to be reliable? And the incentive for him to lie is quite strong in this case. Not lying and accepting the responsibility equals a murder charge.

edited 12th Feb '11 5:46:02 PM by Arha

The wife did threaten him; in fact she abused him to the point that he couldn't use the bathroom without asking her.

If his account is true, and he was also being abused, then he is another victim in this situation and should not be charged.

If his account is false, and not only was he doing nothing to help the girl but he is also willing to lie to get away from being charged, then he deserves the same (plus maybe a bit more for lying under oath, let the lawyers argue that out).

Anyways, I don't see what the gender of the defendants has to do with this.

I say we activate my Dooms Day Device and wipe all humans off the face of the planet. That should solve it, right?

@Arha: But if he was a woman in the same situation you would then be holding a Double Standard between her  ^*

The point is that if you believe both that abuse victims are not responsible for their own abuse, and also that this guy  ^*

Also, he's been proven to be reliable in his account of the murder besides his involvement. He said that she did it, the 5-year-old confirmed it. He said she did this and this and this, she confirmed it when she confessed.

ALSO also, she pulled her daughter ought of school because the school suspected she was being abused. If it gets bad enough other people start to suspect it's certainly bad enough to go to the police yourself.

Yes. That will solve a great many other problems as well.

Solitary for life, if it's an option in that state.

@Arha: But if he was a woman in the same situation you would then be holding a Double Standard between her and all other women.

How so? A human being who has been proven unable to defend their children from being brutally tortured does not seem like proper parenting material to me.

The point is that if you believe both that abuse victims are not responsible for their own abuse, and also that this guy is responsible for the abuse of his daughter, your beliefs are not consistent and one of them must be wrong.

No, someone is not responsible for abuse that happens to them. However, assuming that this man is telling the absolute truth, he has still shown himself to be an unfit parent... by being unable to defend his children from being brutally tortured.

Also, he's been proven to be reliable in his account of the murder besides his involvement. He said that she did it, the 5-year-old confirmed it. He said she did this and this and this, she confirmed it when she confessed.

And? He's proven reliable when he's talking about things that make him less culpable. That's not inconsistent with him possibly lying to reduce his apparent guilt.

ALSO also, she pulled her daughter ought of school because the school suspected she was being abused. If it gets bad enough other people start to suspect it's certainly bad enough to go to the police yourself.

Well, the thing is, schools don't necessarily just look for bruises and other physical signs of abuse. A lot of what they look for is odd behavior. The abuse may not have been that bad at the time. In fact, her being pulled out of school may have meant the woman could get away with far more than she could before.

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.

(sigh) And just where that "If you think the guy is to blame, you must think that all the other women are to blame for their own abuse" thing came from, anyway? I don't remember anyone saying that husband is to blame for ''being abused himself". Only for allowing the daughter to be murdered. And I apply the same standard to women who allow their children to be abused by their husbands and do nothing. Honestly, never understood why they are rarely prosecuted for that. Indeed we have a problem with the course system, but it is the problem with the system, not with forum population.

edited 12th Feb '11 9:30:13 PM by Beholderess

The point is that you are literally creating blame on the father for the situation because he did not go to the police.

The exact same thing happens when women are abused by spouses/boyfriends.

They are psychologically manipulated into believing that going to the police, or doing anything to end the abuse against them will make things worse.

That is textbook abuse 101.

If you say that the husband shares fault for not going to the police. You are literally saying abuse victims are at fault for their own abuse because they fail to seek help.

edited 12th Feb '11 9:44:28 PM by CommandoDude