What would you do in this murder case?

I remember two cases of child abuse in which a man abused his girlfriend or wife's children. In both cases the woman was very much condemned for standing by and letting it happen.

@Black Humor: You're forgetting the fact that there are such things as safe houses for abuse victims and their children, which means some of them do get out. I'm not saying that that isn't hard for the abuse victim to pull off, or that those who don't should have blame placed on them, but its kinda irritating that you say they wouldn't get help in this situation, and that all evidence backs you up when you haven't given any evidence.

All the (admittedly sparse) evidence we have seen in this topic backs me up.

Piece number 1, this guy didn't go for help despite it being crazily obvious that he ought've, therefore it must be difficult to actually go for help.

Piece number 2, his daughter didn't go for help either, when she could've.

Piece number 3, it is very very difficult for other abuse victims to leave (public knowledge) and many need outside help to do so (public knowledge again).

It might not be enough to stand to other people's evidence, but nobody else has given any evidence; all they've done is made the assertion that other people would do something about it. Give me proof that many other people will go to the police in a similar situation and I'll accept it.

That is all well and good, but why should this scarred and broken man be burdened with raising two kids when he's most likely not psychologically strong enough to?

Oh.. my. I think therapy can help the woman out — I hope she realizes how much hurt she's inflicted on her poor daughter. I ask, why does she do it in the first place? How did it come to be this way— with the husband refusing to intervene?

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.

If only something were done earlier..

edited 14th Feb '11 5:07:52 PM by QQQQQ

QQQQ: Man, I wish I could be as forgiving as you. But in any case, whether or not this woman could benefit from therapy, she should be punished to deter potential child abusers.

The only proper punishment for filth like this is to be drawn ahd quartered. It must be held in public and televised, so that the punishment for these crimes will be well known.

Remember that anyone can do such cruel things. The average person.. you.. or even me, given a capable mindset. I think helping this woman readjust is the most beneficial thing to do. I do not believe in punishment— even though I know many think she deserves it.

edited 14th Feb '11 5:11:14 PM by QQQQQ

It's not only that we think she deserves it, it's also that we can't avoid it if we are to have an efficient government. If you put laws in place, and spell out consequences for breaking them, then if someone breaks a law, you have to enforce the consequences. It's about preserving order, retaining faith in the government and the court systems, and detering future criminals.

edited 14th Feb '11 5:12:52 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

Even though the publicizing would offer a closure to the case for many, and deter those who realize the hurt — there are also those who will continue to hurt others, in spite of knowing about this punishment which lies in store.

One important reason why this is — to connect with the topic of bullies (Why do bullies persist, even though we spread the word that bullying is bad and ought to be stopped?) — people often have a hard time looking at themselves, outside themselves. We find it very easy not to see our own faults. I suspect there have been very few people who have done serious wrong who have not rationalized away what they've done, shifting the blame to those they have injured. We are capable of the greatest good and the greatest evil, and the problem is that we often can't distinguish between them when it suits our purpose.

I hope that people learn to be more brave, speak up against cruelty when they see it — and stop it before a tragedy happens.

edited 14th Feb '11 5:23:44 PM by QQQQQ

Thread hop: I vote life imprisonment. It's cheaper than the death penalty, and dropping the budget on the latter option risks creating precedent for others to be at greater risk of unfair execution. This woman doesn't deserve anything from me, least of all my outrage.

edited 14th Feb '11 5:21:43 PM by Iaculus

It's not ideal, but out of 100 potential abusers, if only 1 says "Holy shit, beating up my kid will put me in a bad position", then I consider it worth it. In addition, horrible cases like this getting publicized will hopefully at least temporarily raise awareness and call for better services for abused children, better law enforcement, etc. Of course, you should have other things, such as counseling, therapy, and trying to treat the causes rather than the symptoms of abuse (parenting licenses!), etc., but simply removing the punishment of abusers is being too idealistic in my opinion. It may seem old-fashioned and conservative, but so far the best we've got is "You do something wrong, you face the music."

If everyone were brave enough (and far-thinking enough) to nip these things in the bud at the "peanut butter sandwiches instead of Thanksgiving dinner" stage, then maybe these measures wouldn't be necessary, but that's just not happening.

Yes but it costs quite a bit of money to imprison people for life. Execution is faster, cheaper, and much better at solving the problem.

edited 14th Feb '11 6:36:48 PM by TomWave

@Tom: Actually, life imprisonment is cheaper than execution, because of all the legal hoops you have to jump through to kill someone. (Not that that's in any way a bad thing, I much prefer that they double and triple check before they execute anyone.)

Marginally faster.

Not cheaper.

Doesn't solve the problem.

The problems here are manifold. One of the most obvious is why the hell didn't social services or the school push harder? All I got from the initial description of proceedings was that the woman put them off by the cunning process of lying.

If someone pulls a child out of school because they report that they suspect the child is being abused, you follow up on that properly. You don't get fobbed off by lies and talk from the one accused of being an abuser. You sit down with the child and talk to them about it, at minimum.

That is just one potential systemic fault that is part of the real problem, which has nothing to do with whether a killer is themselves killed or not.

The Death Penalty is good for making the victims feel much better and some elements of society a little better.

I don't consider it worth the cost.

EDIT: Wow, mega ninja.

edited 14th Feb '11 6:47:32 PM by mmysqueeant

It's not ideal, but out of 100 potential abusers, if only 1 says "Holy shit, beating up my kid will put me in a bad position", then I consider it worth it.

It would be nice if this can happen. At the same time, I think the media tend to exploit the issue because it allows them to display and discuss the so-called harmful things from a lofty position of moral superiority. But the people who commit violent crime are not ordinary people who are transformed into vicious thugs by the wrong diet of films or TV, or vice verse where the issue being publicized would likely change someone's mindset in the snap of a finger. If anything, it would likely reinforce beliefs. "Bad people deserve to die," or "Must be more careful to hide my abuse."

Rather, it is a fact that violent crime is invariably committed by people with a long record of anti-social behaviour, or by the unexpected blossoming of a psychopath who is described afterwards as having been '...such a nice, quiet boy,' but whose entire life, it is later realized, has been leading him inexorably to the terrible moment, and who would have found the final ostensible reason for his action if not in one thing then in another. In both instances immensely complicated social, economic and psychological forces are involved in the individual's criminal behaviour.

edited 14th Feb '11 7:13:03 PM by QQQQQ

Not really, you addressed something that OTOH's post didn't seem to as strongly address... that the death penalty isn't a substitute for actual prevention.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought sociopaths were incurable at the present? I completely agree that to do something as horrendous as this woman did requires some deep-seated psychological problems, but what is therapy honestly going to do besides making the justice system look soft and ineffectual? The possibility of curing sociopathy as well as the possibility of being mistaken lead me to say "No death penalty." But in the meantime, stick them in solitary, for God's sake, don't let society (even mental doctors) be exposed to these menaces while we're still unable to predict or treat them.

edited 14th Feb '11 7:37:25 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

but what is therapy honestly going to do besides making the justice system look soft and ineffectual?

Therapy, in effective use, can supplement the justice system; help reform the harmful pathologies of these unfortunate people for the better. Instead of just sticking them in a cage to decompose.

Do you know what happens to people after they've been subjected to solitary?

edited 14th Feb '11 8:19:14 PM by QQQQQ

This woman doesn't deserve to walk free. I'm sorry, because I'm normally a very tenderhearted person. But no matter how many tears she sheds, she should live out the rest of her (hopefully unhappy) life in prison.

^^:The answer is they go nuts. Exactly what way depends on the specific person, but no matter who you are, you cannot spend a significant amount of time without human contact without going totally friggin' bonkers.

And I agree that there's no real point in punishment for the sake of punishment; rather we should put her in jail so someone so obviously violent and manipulative is out of the hair of the rest of society.

And of course it's also a deterrent to other people who might commit that crime. Important not to go overboard with this one though; knowing that she was caught and punished is more important to potential criminals than exactly what her punishment was.

edited 14th Feb '11 8:28:13 PM by BlackHumor

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought sociopaths were incurable at the present?

Pretty much, yeah. Its one of a multiple number of personality disorders where treatment won't do anything. Hell, last thing I heard is that it just makes them better at being sociopaths.

I thought sociopathy wasn't a mental illness, just a description of a distasteful personality.

Much like Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Just short-hand for "asshole".

EDIT: Well, not short-hand. Medical jargon for it.

edited 14th Feb '11 8:47:36 PM by mmysqueeant

You can define it as a disorder because it negatively impacts the life of the diagnosed and those around them, but there's nothing you can really do with the diagnosis other than assign a label, so you're mostly right. Not that people don't try to treat them anyways, but... *shrugs*

edited 14th Feb '11 8:59:28 PM by Dec

Well, I thought that for those medically diagnosed as sociopaths (a lot fewer than those that are just called sociopaths by the general populace/media) there's actually an "empathy gene" missing. This is an oversimplification, but it's basically like they're unable to think "This would hurt someone else, I shouldn't do it." All they can visualize/care about is their own pleasure or pain. I'm not sure if this woman is a sociopath, but that's the definition I remember hearing.