BABY KILLER GETS OFF

[kerryg]

I see that the guy who killed his seriously disabled daughter was let off, scott free. The jury didn't even find him guilty of manslaughter.

I know that there were a lot of factors in the situation and who knows what I would do in the same situation BUT.....to get off completely free???? WTF???? Has it suddenly become OK to kill our most defenceless citizens???...where does this lead us??? Please tell me I'm not alone in being alarmed by this.

[duckman]

Hmmmmmmmmmm, Very dangerous ground here.. Bear in mind we only get the media view of what happened.

I hear what your saying but .... theres a lot to this story.

And remember this is a public forum ... where potentially the family of this child could be reading ...

Just a thought. :rockon:

[Devil]

As was stated, it is NOT a precedent. Its obviously a very sad case as has been taken into account by the jurors. Im glad that the guy wasn't found guilty. What an anus of a situation to be in :(

If those fucking bottom feeding scum-sucking rats at TVNZ and TV3 get the name suppression quashed im going to.... gah *insert reaction here*. I dont know. I think thats the lowest of the low.

[jrandom]

Personally, I'm not even going to *comment* on this in any way, except to say that I rather think that jail probably would not have been a very constructive place for that man to end up in.

Judge not, lest ye be judged...

[Sniper]

Its a real pity, but Im not one to judge, all I know is that it shouldnt have been done in my book. Im just glad Im not the one who has to live with the thought of killing a defensless child for the rest of my life!

[That Guy]

Not being the parents I have no idea how awful that situation was and unless you are either the ma or pa involved I don't think an opinion is fair, as you just won't know what that situation was like. I'm glad the dad got let off.

[MOTOXXX]

Ah the large can of worms thread.
i wonder how many pages this will go on for haha :moon:

[MikeL]

Ah the large can of worms thread.
i wonder how many pages this will go on for haha :moon:

I don't see any point in keeping worms in cans.

The thread (I hope) will go on just as long as people have got relevant and well-considered opinions to express.

FWIW I agree with JR - what purpose is served by throwing the poor guy into prison?

There is the law, which is one thing. Then there is justice, which is another...

[Blakamin]

still, couldnt do it myself.....

[MikeL]

And who's going to be first to make a facetious remark linking thread + worms...?

[kerryg]

Ah the large can of worms thread.
i wonder how many pages this will go on for haha :moon:

It's an interesting and disturbing exercise. I must be right out in left field on this judging from the tone of the postings so far.

mmmmmm I have an elderly mother with Alzheimers.......she is a bit of an inconvenience......OK I know it's not exactly the same but there are some profoundly important moral issues involved, no matter how bad the baby's circumstances were.

I will watch for further postings with interest and not a small amount of dread.

[scroter]

Personally, I'm not even going to *comment* on this in any way, except to say that I rather think that jail probably would not have been a very constructive place for that man to end up in.

Judge not, lest ye be judged...

although i understand he did admit to smothering the child till it stopped breathing(corse thats what the news said so it must be true). i still agree that putting him in jail would not be beneficial

[MOTOXXX]

I don't see any point in keeping worms in cans.

The thread (I hope) will go on just as long as people have got relevant and well-considered opinions to express.



fair comment. good call.

[Motu]

And who's going to be first to make a facetious remark linking thread + worms...?

You'd need a bronze dragon and some firestone for that M'keL

I'd have to go with the jury call on this one - 12 people came to a desision with all the facts...which we haven't got.Any punishment they could give him wouldn't go near the punishment he has given himself over this act.It was hard for him then,he's going to live with it for a long time.This was no murder of hate or anger,just dispare...no truck for this guy,but I bet he's given it some thought.

[StoneChucker]

A TV3 poll found that 80% of viewers agree with the verdict!

Oh, just another small topic to contemplate, how about that Seabed and Foreshore bill? Most Maori groups are really upset now that "they haven't been heard on this matter", which I think means, they didn't get their way!!! How can it be wrong for the seabed and foreshore to be in crown name, for ALL New Zealanders? Would it have been better, if it were given to one group, and other groups were restriced access to it? I can tell you, from going on holiday to Whangamata, it's not nice to know that I CAN'T visit certain areas, for fear of my safety.

[Drunken Monkey]

I see that the guy who killed his seriously disabled daughter was let off, scott free. The jury didn't even find him guilty of manslaughter.

I know that there were a lot of factors in the situation and who knows what I would do in the same situation BUT.....to get off completely free???? WTF???? Has it suddenly become OK to kill our most defenceless citizens???...where does this lead us??? Please tell me I'm not alone in being alarmed by this.

It was a high stress situation, I think he suffered enough. It takes an incredibly strong will to dedicate oneself to looking after what is, in effect, a vegetable - the child's brain stopped developing after 13 weeks. Help for families in this predicament isn't (fully) funded by the state, and neither should it be.
Yes, it was a sad situation. People are polarized in their convictions when it comes to euthenasia. Be thankful it wasn't you and let him and his family get on with their lives.

[KATWYN]

WTF???? Has it suddenly become OK to kill our most defenceless citizens???...where does this lead us??? .


Isn't abortion killing our most defensiveless? some people will do it cos having a happy healthy child will be an inconvenience to their lifestyle.

This man was broken spirited about his childs quality of life and what was ahead of her in her future-its a very sad thing, and I bet not a day will go by that he will not think of her.

You obviously have empathy and caring to feel you need to defend the defenseless, but theres shades of grey -

[Sniper]

A TV3 poll found that 80% of viewers agree with the verdict!

Oh, just another small topic to contemplate, how about that Seabed and Foreshore bill? Most Maori groups are really upset now that "they haven't been heard on this matter", which I think means, they didn't get their way!!! How can it be wrong for the seabed and foreshore to be in crown name, for ALL New Zealanders? Would it have been better, if it were given to one group, and other groups were restriced access to it? I can tell you, from going on holiday to Whangamata, it's not nice to know that I CAN'T visit certain areas, for fear of my safety.

Hell, I havent even got sky yet? :whocares:

[StoneChucker]

Hell, I havent even got sky yet?
Even so, you might be charged for using it soon :pinch:

[Ash Wells]

What has this thread got to do with motorcycling -for once some common sense prevailed,the jury who had heard all the facts needed only 40 odd minutes to acquit.So what do we know?the poor guy has a lifetime of suffering and self recrimination to live with.

[Sniper]

:whocares:
Even so, you might be charged for using it soon :pinch:

Yes thats true, hate that though, cant keep opinions though

[curious george]

I only know the story the media have told, but I'm glad the guy got off.
What point was there in sending him to jail?
Was it in the childs best interests to keep it alive for maybe 18 months, then let it die of natural causes after several operations and expensive therapy?
There is more to life than just breathing.

I'm just glad things like this don't happen very often, and it's not me going through all of this.

[riffer]

Indeed cg.

My $0.02. Justice was served. The police were right to charge him. The jury were right in their verdict.

Murder is the cold-blooded premeditated killing of another individual human (usually) for gain, or revenge.

Manslaughter is the accidental killing of another human while doing something that is either reckless, violent, or dangerous.

Firstly, it is hard to argue an individual with a mental age of a 13 week old fetus is human. After all, you can legally abort until 20 weeks of gestation in this country, and also legally abort after this time for reasons such as physical abnormality.

My wife and I personally have two separate sets of friends with children with profound mental abnormalities, and what these kids have, while profound, is no way as severe as this child. There are certain categories which define "human" and I feel personally that this child does not qualify due to the basic lack of a brain.

From seeing the hell that our friends have gone through with their children, I have a smattering of understanding of what this Nelson family have gone through. I ask you kerryg - do you have children?

Right from the start of this case my wife and I discussed this case, and we were both in agreement - the family was going to go through hell.

You should indeed judge not, for you will fall short if you are judged yourself.

I tried to think of what it would be like for Gini and I if Nicholas turns out to be profoundly disabled. Fortunately at our 20 week scan five weeks ago everything turned out okay so we guess he will be okay.

But its every parent's nightmare. I have nothing but relief that this family do not have to suffer the burden of a custodial sentence to add to their suffering.

[vifferman]

I don't see any point in keeping worms in cans.Isn't that canned spaghetti? :wacko:


FWIW I agree with JR - what purpose is served by throwing the poor guy into prison?So do I. I'm glad I wasn't on the jury, and I have no judgement to make. Nor do I think any of us have a right to make one. (Opinion is another thing).


There is the law, which is one thing. Then there is justice, which is another...It's amazing how few people seem to know there is a difference, or even recognise we have a legal system, which may or may not have anything to do with justice (depending on the case / circumstances)...

[Coyote]

If people shouldn't get away with killing defenceless children, should people get away with abortion? If they can get away with abortion, can you kill others? What makes killing an unborn child legal?

[kerryg]

I ask you kerryg - do you have children?




I sympathise with the dilemma of the family concerned and as I said at the outset I don't know what I would have done in the same situation (it's very hard to put myself in their shoes) and I am not so passing judgement on the individual concerned as on the implications of the court's decision. I raised the subject here mainly out of curiosity: did the jury's decision really reflect a general community attitude, or were they guilty of some sort of folie-a-douze (pardon my bad French)? It seems pretty plain from the postings here that there is a broad support for the jury's verdict (OK it falls well short of a proper survey but nonetheless I aminterested that there is so much unanimity).

I guess if I was totally truthful I would have to say that I find both the jury's verdict and the remarkable consensus here that it was correct pretty disturbing. Now, if you want it, you have been granted a mandate to kill your unwanted offspring if the circumstances are distressing enough. For me, that crosses a line. But plainly do not represent a majority view

To talk of it's not setting a precedent seems less than logical to me. I'm no lawyer, but how can it not? It does also make one wonder why that nurse (sorry but forget her name) who 'euthanased' her sick mother did/is doing jail time. Isn't there some inconsistency? Didn't she act out of compassion too? And I suppose her mother was able to speak for herself, which the baby couldn't.

Oh..and celtic, since you asked..I have four children. Does that qualify me, or disqualify me, or is it nothing to do at all with issue? You guess which answer is right.... if you have the judgement/maturity/wisdom/intelligence to do so.

Anyway that's really my last word on this one.

Now for the foreshore and seabed.......

[toads]

i am generally a prolife person, but I can't pass judgment, I have personally authorised for life support to be terminated on a loved one, until you have walked this particular path it pays not to pass judgment, I thank God for my 6 healthy children and hope I never get put in that families situation, the baby would have suffered a protracted drawn out death, probably through pnuemonia.
Media rarely present all the facts and the question that has to be asked is is this man likely to present an ongoing threat to society, and will he kill again, this is surely the reason anyone is sent to trial and convicted.

[jase]

Just glad he never went to jail.

[avgas]

yeh by the sounds of things he has built his own prison inside his head . Hope he gets bail from that in the next 40 years :no: poor guy.

Its like one of those sad snowball situations, that start off a small snowflake of a problem and end in a whole lot of mess

[avgas]

It does also make one wonder why that nurse (sorry but forget her name) who 'euthanased' her sick mother did/is doing jail time. Isn't there some inconsistency? Didn't she act out of compassion too? And I suppose her mother was able to speak for herself, which the baby couldn't.
Yeh that was another sad case - but that nurse was trying to attract as much attention as possible while doing it - which leaves me suspicious.
Was she doing the right thing? or trying to get famous?
Where this guy wasnt even seen outside of court
She didnt even apply for name suppression
Does anyone have any thoughts on this

[Ms Piggy]

I see that the guy who killed his seriously disabled daughter was let off, scott free. The jury didn't even find him guilty of manslaughter.

I wouldn't say he got off "scott free" he has to live with what happened for the rest of his life. From some of the comments I read from him - he is full of horror about his actions.

I must admit I was surprised though. I thought he would have got convicted, I'm not sure that's it's not a dangerous precedent to set.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

This is scary. We have abortion on demand and euthanasia knocking on the door.......I am 40 somthin so I guess my time is up because with the government current record things will happen so fast the law will order you dead when you are 50 because it can.
I will not judge this man but shit happens and when you kill it is for ever. If you are called to look after children or adults, for that matter, who have severe disabilities or need help 24/7 you have to do it. This country needs more support for the caregivers. We need to look after our own better. Life is sacred. I know .I have seen murder first hand and the hole it leaves is far worse than the situation it was suppose to fix...................

[mangell6]

Weren't there medical staff involved that allowed this situation to arrive to this inevitable conclusion?

With how much vigor did the "crown" present its case?

Cases like this one of the parents usually ends up topping themselves or they split and head into their own respective . . .

[curious george]

To try and answer KerryG's original question, yes.
It has been OK for quite some time now to kill our most defenceless citizens???...where does this lead us??? Please tell me I'm not alone in being alarmed by this.


The old, terminally ill, incurable and 'just-ready-tp-die' have been quietly bumped off for ages.
Starting back in the caveman days when the slow and feeble were probably just left behind to die like animals do, we as a society have taken pity on those less able and now put them in rest homes on morphine drips or palliative care where they can die in a more peaceful way.

It doesn't mean these people aren't loved, cared for or respected for anymore, just their time has run out, and we try to do the best for them.
Just what 'the best thing' is differs with beliefs etc, but I think most people would want the same thing done to them if roles were reversed.
Emotions are difficult things, and untill it is you personally involved, you wont know just how it feels.

I hold no grudges with those who choose abortion, raise a severly disabled child, deny resuscitation to an loved one, or deny consent for a surgical procedure. It's a tough call to make.
What this guy did would have been done by any doctor/midwife/whatever they were 100 years ago.
At this point in time, in the country we live in, some people just see another option, that's all.
Was it right or wrong? Sorry, I wasn't there, can't really answer that one

[Ghost Lemur]

Was very tempted to steer clear of this thread. But having seen how other issues/threads have been handled on these forums I thought I'd have a delecate look.

On the topic of setting a precidence(sp?). It does not. The way I've come to understand it is the jury used an option that has always been available to them, and that is to show leniency(sp?) - damn firefox needs a spellchecker - due to the curcumstances and details which only they were privy to.

As for the media wanting the name supression lifted, I am dead set against this. There is nothing I can think of to justify it's lifting. He's been aquitted, meaning in the eyes of the law he is innocent. To subject him and worse, his family to the not so subtle barrage that would ensue if lifted would cause unnecessary harm IMHO.

As for what he did. I ain't even touching that with somebody elses barge pole. It's pretty telling though when the Police say their happy with the verdict, and they only brought the charges because they "had to".

[WINJA]

I FEEL FOR THIS FAMILY BUT THIS VERDICT SETS A VERY DANGEROUS PRECIDENT (HOPE I SPELT IT RIGHT). WHATS NEXT SOMEONE KILLS THEIR BABY THATS JUST NOT QUITE AS BAD AS THAT ONE WHAT WOULD THE VERDICT BE ? THERE IS NO WRONG AND RIGHT TIME TO KILL A HUMAN NO MATTER HOW DISABLED :no:

[hondav2]

I thought this was a motorcycle web site , As far as Im concerned the jury had a hard job to do and there decision is final and that is it. Lets keep this site to motorcycle issues ONLY. Cheers Toddy

[Indiana_Jones]

I couldn't belive it. The prick amitted it? :spudwhat: I mean WTF? shitty leftie PC society, makes me sick :puke:

-Indy

[curious george]

I thought this was a motorcycle web site , As far as Im concerned the jury had a hard job to do and there decision is final and that is it. Lets keep this site to motorcycle issues ONLY. Cheers Toddy

Easy tiger.......
This is advertised as a motorbike site, but what's wrong with discussing other topics of interest?
IMHO it just adds to the flavour of the site.

[Ms Piggy]

What has this thread got to do with motorcycling -for once some common sense prevailed,the jury who had heard all the facts needed only 40 odd minutes to acquit.So what do we know?the poor guy has a lifetime of suffering and self recrimination to live with.
It's a site for people mate but, possibly this thread should've been posted under the "rave on' section b/c it's not about motorbikes. Ah well, it's all good discussion anyway, don't read it if ya don't like it mate. :)

[Milky]

This is scary. We have abortion on demand and euthanasia knocking on the door.......I am 40 somthin so I guess my time is up because with the government current record things will happen so fast the law will order you dead when you are 50 because it can.
I will not judge this man but shit happens and when you kill it is for ever. If you are called to look after children or adults, for that matter, who have severe disabilities or need help 24/7 you have to do it. This country needs more support for the caregivers. We need to look after our own better. Life is sacred. I know .I have seen murder first hand and the hole it leaves is far worse than the situation it was suppose to fix...................
I agree that we should care for those who need it. However, I had an Oma with alzheimers disease, and seeing the quality of life deteriorate so far that she couldnt function as a human but rather as a slightly oversized newborn baby. She had seen her own mother go the same way with alzheimers, and had stated many times while she was sane that she didnt want to go that way. We, as a family, explored the options for voluntary euthanasia both here and in Holland. The thing was, even though she had communicated her wishes years earlier, the doctors could not go through with the procedure because she was judged not to be sound of mind, and hence could not be relied on for her consent. Thankfully she passed peacefully and relatively soon - about 4 years after the initial diagnosis of the disease.

For me personally, seeing someone who I had known as a lively, vibrant person transform into what she did was harrowing. At times such as her 50th wedding anniversary, it was shocking just how far she had deteriorated. She walked up to Opa and said: "who might you be?"
"I am your husband. This is our 50th wedding anniversary"
"Nice to meet you..."
She would lock the door after going into the toilet - while she still had control of her bladder - and not be able to get out for ages, scratching/knocking on the door and calling out for people to open the door for her.

This can hardly be called life... surely...

Similarly I am pro choice on abortion. I dont believe that is ethical or morally right to bring a child into an environment where he/she cannot be supported or given the best possible oppurtunity at living life. In addition, the sheer reproductive capacity of humans is unlikely to mean that this foetus is the only chance for a child that the couple will get. If abortion is to be illegal, one could interpolate to make masturbation a minor offence - say a $150 fine - and protected sex a slightly more serious charge, deserving of a court hearing... "ooo you denied that egg a chance at becoming a foetus. You murderer by association, you!!!"

[KATWYN]

I thought this was a motorcycle web site , As far as Im concerned the jury had a hard job to do and there decision is final and that is it. Lets keep this site to motorcycle issues ONLY. Cheers Toddy

You didn't have to visit this topic, theres plenty of other threads on this site that clearly state motorcycle issues only. Some of us motorcyclists in here
actually have other intellectual interests in life as well as bikes you know.

[magnum]

i wouldnt say he "got off".my heart goes out to the family involved.

[MikeL]

Some of us motorcyclists in here
actually have other intellectual interests in life as well as bikes you know.

Quite right. We are a community (in cyberspace, at least), brought together by an interest in bikes, but not limited by that interest. The opportunity to share our opinions and beliefs on a range of other topics is valuable and, I'm sure, appreciated by most on this site.

[riffer]

I thought this was a motorcycle web site , As far as Im concerned the jury had a hard job to do and there decision is final and that is it. Lets keep this site to motorcycle issues ONLY. Cheers Toddy
Tell you what Toddy - read the top of the page. This is a site for New Zealand motorcyclists, and, like it or not, New Zealand motorcyclists eat, drink, sleep, fuck, die, and have opinions about what happens in all aspects of society, not just talking about motorcycles. Believe it or not, motorcycling is just one part in my life.

Kerryg - my comment about whether you were a parent - I asked that as I feel that only a parent can understand that fear about "will my child be okay". And yes, I feel you are qualified to comment. I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it.

This is obviously one of those subject which is highly contentious, and that is just how it should be. I would be very concerned if it wasn't.

Anyway, I've made my feelings clear; don't feel I really need to add more.

As you were...

[SPman]

BABY KILLER GETS OFF


Good!

[spudchucka]

I feel that the guy should have been convicted of manslaughter but a prison sentence would have been wrong. The court has the ability to sentence to home detention, supervision, community work and heaps of other options.

My reasons for saying this are twofold.

1: The guy took a life, rightly or wrongly, he did it and it should be acknowledged through conviction. The danger of setting a precident is slim in my opinion but who knows what fookwits might be out there that think otherwise.

2: The guy himself may live to regret the fact that he was not convicted. Sounds wierd but sometimes people need to be "punished" before they can let go of what they have done. The guy is probably a major suicide risk, he'll suffer mentally for years and may try sub-consciously to punish himself because he will believe that he has not been punished for what he has done.

[Skyryder]

The guy took a life and twelve New Zealanders believe he had the right to do it. So I ask at what point is it OK and when is not.

He should have been found guilty and the jury made a recommendation for leniency.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

It will be interesting tosee if the crown appeals.

[Jamezo]

It will be interesting tosee if the crown appeals.

what are the reasons for doing that? don't they want the legal precedent, or do they just want to see him punished? anything else?

[spudchucka]

what are the reasons for doing that? don't they want the legal precedent, or do they just want to see him punished? anything else?
I'm not offering reasons why they might appeal, just saying that it will be interesting to know whether they might consider it.

My opinion is that the guy should have been convicted but not harshly punished.

[Jamezo]

I'm not offering reasons why they might appeal, just saying that it will be interesting to know whether they might consider it.

My opinion is that the guy should have been convicted but not harshly punished.

so you aren't aware of any reasons why they would pursue an appeal? I'm stumped, I don't see what's to gain, anybody know why they would?

[Firefight]

. Lets keep this site to motorcycle issues ONLY. Cheers Toddy


If you don,t like it don,t go there, most here are happy to discuss non bike topics, one of the things that makes KB such a good site.

There is such a diverse(sp/) memebership that topics such as this can be well debated, however if its not for you thats fine, you stick to bike related topics, but don,t persume to tell us what we should and shouldn't discuss.

Firefight. :crazy:

[Ms Piggy]

The guy took a life and twelve New Zealanders believe he had the right to do it. So I ask at what point is it OK and when is not.

He should have been found guilty and the jury made a recommendation for leniency.

Skyryder
I don't believe the jury thought "he had the right to do so". Thats not what finding someone not guilty is about.

Not that I'm a law expert but, my understanding would be that the jury would be influenced by whatever the "legal" definition of murder is, or manslaughter for that matter, not to mention all the other circumstances in this particular case.

There are a lot of shades of grey within law from what I can see.

[denill]

I only know the story the media have told, but I'm glad the guy got off.
What point was there in sending him to jail?
Was it in the childs best interests to keep it alive for maybe 18 months, then let it die of natural causes after several operations and expensive therapy?
There is more to life than just breathing.

I'm just glad things like this don't happen very often, and it's not me going through all of this.

Yeah think about it. "There is more to life than just breathing". That is why doctors pull life support. It is a fine line and measured by degrees and the jury exercisd their duty.

It would be interesting to know how many of you would be happy to accept the life that poor baby was destined to live??

I certainly would have thanked my dad for having the guts (and compassion) that the Nelson guy had.

BillW

PS: And I guess it is a motorcycling subject. That poor little kid would NEVER have known the joy of riding one...........

[toads]

I agree that we should care for those who need it. However, I had an Oma with alzheimers disease, and seeing the quality of life deteriorate so far that she couldnt function as a human but rather as a slightly oversized newborn baby. She had seen her own mother go the same way with alzheimers, and had stated many times while she was sane that she didnt want to go that way. We, as a family, explored the options for voluntary euthanasia both here and in Holland. The thing was, even though she had communicated her wishes years earlier, the doctors could not go through with the procedure because she was judged not to be sound of mind, and hence could not be relied on for her consent. Thankfully she passed peacefully and relatively soon - about 4 years after the initial diagnosis of the disease.

For me personally, seeing someone who I had known as a lively, vibrant person transform into what she did was harrowing. At times such as her 50th wedding anniversary, it was shocking just how far she had deteriorated. She walked up to Opa and said: "who might you be?"
"I am your husband. This is our 50th wedding anniversary"
"Nice to meet you..."
She would lock the door after going into the toilet - while she still had control of her bladder - and not be able to get out for ages, scratching/knocking on the door and calling out for people to open the door for her.

This can hardly be called life... surely...

Similarly I am pro choice on abortion. I dont believe that is ethical or morally right to bring a child into an environment where he/she cannot be supported or given the best possible oppurtunity at living life. In addition, the sheer reproductive capacity of humans is unlikely to mean that this foetus is the only chance for a child that the couple will get. If abortion is to be illegal, one could interpolate to make masturbation a minor offence - say a $150 fine - and protected sex a slightly more serious charge, deserving of a court hearing... "ooo you denied that egg a chance at becoming a foetus. You murderer by association, you!!!"

i agree with your views regarding alzheimers, a disease that is incurable, and that voluntary euthansia in some cases is probably justified, however,that cannot be compared in anyway to the termination of life in the case of abortion, abortion can take the life of a foetus that would otherwise have a good prognosis for a healthy life, and it has no choice in the matter. I understand what you are saying, but the utopia you imagine that would exist with every child being a "wanted child" would not stop mankinds propensity for greed, hatred,and all other vices, whether we like it or not, once the value of life is denigrated to the meaningless catergory for whatever reason, we are on a slippery slope, the law must uphold the value of life regardless, it fails in the area of abortion miserably. I know many women who have had abortions and suffered greatly because of their descion, just as this man will. Spudchucker is right this guy should have recieved some ( appropriate) sentence so he can forgive himself and move on.

[Jackrat]

I hav'nt followed this even on radio because I've been flat out at work,but from what I have heard I agree with SC that he should of been convicted of something,an maybe given a suspended sentence.
What ever,twelve people did not say it's ok to kill somebody and he certainly has not gotten away with anything.He'll be paying for this the rest of his life.

[sAsLEX]

My opinion is that the guy should have been convicted but not harshly punished.

I agree with this, he should of been found guilty as he has admitted to the crime, that is pretty black and white in my opinion. But the judge should of taken into account the situation in his sentancing, the guy had suffered enough and prison would hardly be appropriate.

[spudchucka]

so you aren't aware of any reasons why they would pursue an appeal? I'm stumped, I don't see what's to gain, anybody know why they would?
What are you looking for?? The reason they would appeal is obvious...........he killed a baby and got away with it.

That alone is wrong. When you take away all the emotional bagage that goes along with a case like this what are you left with? A man killed a baby!

The jury was obviously unable to detach themselves from the emotional trauma associated with the case.

The crown will have to assess whether there is anything to be gained or lost by appealing or not appealing the decision.

[FROSTY]

Personally, I'm not even going to *comment* on this in any way, except to say that I rather think that jail probably would not have been a very constructive place for that man to end up in.

Judge not, lest ye be judged...
Im totally in agreement here dude--Walk a mile in my shoes is all I can say

[Paul in NZ]

The only thing we will ever all agrre on is that this is a horrible situation for everyone involved.

I doubt any real good will come from it in any shape or form. We could be like some societies, recognise that this is pretty dangerous ground and collectively (and politely) ignore it and move on. But, we won't...

This is however, a really great example of how our society does still have enough flexibility to deal with situations that cannot be defined easliy in law. The mans defence team convinced honourable 12 citizens that there was not a case to answer. (would you liked to have sat on THAT jury?) These people heard the whole story and came to a conclusion. We should be cautiously supportive of them and no, this does NOT create a situation where it's fine for us to start killing children. To suggest that is irresponsible in the extreme.

Sadly, the people with the same old agendas now want to exploit the situation for all it's worth which is it's self a bloody terrible thing to do. They are a danger to us all. We have people dragging in mercy killings of the elderly and abortions for goodness sake! These are not the same at all.

We have someone that did something illegal in an extreme situation and the system accomodated him. Bravo for the system and the 12 people with the balls to MAKE a decision!!

Have faith people. This is still a great country.

Paul N

ps. If you want to get mad. Write a letter to those sick c**nts in the media that want to expose the poor bastards name... Let them know how much we applaud the wonderful actions of the 5th estate as we the public demand to know this.... And just how much we are looking forward to the in depth coverage of his eventual suicide.. Oh the humanity..... Gotta be a news award in this story someplace, especially if the guy tops the rest of the family too in a gruesome fashion and thats the most important thing... right? TV news have become filthy scum hardly worthy of the effort to make the electricity to watch.

[MikeL]

I agree that the verdict was wrong in law. But as I noted earlier, there is law, and there is justice. Did the jury, I wonder, fear that the judge would not agree with their idea of justice?

[Indiana_Jones]

I love what Political Correctness has done to the western world, we're all a bunch of girls now. :brick:

-Indy

[Paul in NZ]

I love what Political Correctness has done to the western world, we're all a bunch of girls now. :brick:

-Indy

I think there are 12 people that are not a bunch of girls. They could have taken the easy way out but they came up with a decision.

[jazbug5]

..And are you suggesting that there's something wrong with girls, then..?
Perhaps if they were, that's why they were so *enlightened*....
Meh. I agree with most of what's been said here by such chaps as Paul and Frosty. I feel nothing but pity for the family and contempt for the media.
I just hope they are able to achieve some sort of peace of mind again in the not too distant future.

[Draco]

We have people dragging in mercy killings of the elderly and abortions for goodness sake! These are not the same at all.

We have someone that did something illegal in an extreme situation and the system accomodated him. Bravo for the system and the 12 people with the balls to MAKE a decision!!

Well said Paul! We can all have opinions but the only people who truely know what they would have done in this situation are the 12 juriors who had to make the call after hearing ALL the facts. Thank god we still have compassion in our courts where the law does not. As many have already said on this thread, you must first walk a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him. I'm also glad he is not in jail because what does that serve????? I think more energy and attention should be spent on examining our so-called wonderful health system that let him, his baby and his family down, and focus on how we can prevent it happening again in the future. Funny old species we are, we never seem to learn from the past.

[mangell6]

Tell you what Toddy - read the top of the page. This is a site for New Zealand motorcyclists, and, like it or not, New Zealand motorcyclists eat, drink, sleep, fuck, die, and have opinions about what happens in all aspects of society, not just talking about motorcycles. Believe it or not, motorcycling is just one part in my life.

Can the ADMINS move this thread to the appropriate place please.

I think that " Kiwi Biker forums > Off topic > Rave On " a more appropriate place for this topic based on its definition of "Talk about any non-motorbike stuff here."

Mike :crazy:

[Gixxer 4 ever]

I agree that we should care for those who need it. However, I had an Oma with alzheimers disease, and seeing the quality of life deteriorate so far that she couldnt function as a human but rather as a slightly oversized newborn baby. She had seen her own mother go the same way with alzheimers, and had stated many times while she was sane that she didnt want to go that way. We, as a family, explored the options for voluntary euthanasia both here and in Holland. The thing was, even though she had communicated her wishes years earlier, the doctors could not go through with the procedure because she was judged not to be sound of mind, and hence could not be relied on for her consent. Thankfully she passed peacefully and relatively soon - about 4 years after the initial diagnosis of the disease.!!!"
So you did not have to kill. Life ended as it should. No unnecessary guilt.


For me personally, seeing someone who I had known as a lively, vibrant person transform into what she did was harrowing. At times such as her 50th wedding anniversary, it was shocking just how far she had deteriorated. She walked up to Opa and said: "who might you be?"


"I am your husband. This is our 50th wedding anniversary".!!!"
I rest my case. She walked so at what point do you kill. I would have hoped it was when all body function has stopped not when the brain had lost its ability to recognise.




This can hardly be called life... surely..."
Yes it is and for you and I to look after our family in this condition gives us the ability to appreciate our lives and understand how bad it could be. We sat with my wife's father till he died at home from cancer and it was hard but it made the family closer and stopped all the petty shit that was going on. A tuff lessen that we all needed. Our kids are much better people for it


"ooo you denied that egg a chance at becoming a foetus. You murderer by association, you!!!" At least you have a sense of hummer. We will agree to disagree.

[Indiana_Jones]

It is sad that we can't help people end their lives, but if it were allowed it would make a huge loop-hole in a already pussy justice system where the crook has more rights then the victim. But that's just my view on the matter

-Indy

[Stinger]

I agree that the verdict was wrong in law. But as I noted earlier, there is law, and there is justice. Did the jury, I wonder, fear that the judge would not agree with their idea of justice?

Yeah, I think that you might have hit the nail on the head. I wonder if the scenario would have been different if they'd been told about spudchuka's solution. i.e, if you vote guilty he will get something like home detention or whatever.


Reminds me of a court room scenario
"So Mr Smith, have you stopped beating your wife"
"But I..."
"Just yes or no thankyou"

[spudchucka]

Yeah, I think that you might have hit the nail on the head. I wonder if the scenario would have been different if they'd been told about spudchuka's solution. i.e, if you vote guilty he will get something like home detention or whatever.


Reminds me of a court room scenario
"So Mr Smith, have you stopped beating your wife"
"But I..."
"Just yes or no thankyou"
The jury should not concern themselves with potential penalties because that can cloud their assessment of the facts. Their job is to decide guilt or innocence, not reccomend sentences. It is up to the judge to determine the sentence and they are guided by the Sentencing Act 2002, there are some interesting guidelines if anyone can be bothered reading it.

[Stinger]

The jury should not concern themselves with potential penalties because that can cloud their assessment of the facts. Their job is to decide guilt or innocence, not reccomend sentences. It is up to the judge to determine the sentence and they are guided by the Sentencing Act 2002, there are some interesting guidelines if anyone can be bothered reading it.

It is very hard however not think about the consequences of your actions, whether they be right or wrong.

Are the jurors told what the maximum penalties for a particular crime are ? Because I know that we are told about copyright maximum penalties, and driving maximum penalties.

[Skyryder]

I don't believe the jury thought "he had the right to do so". Thats not what finding someone not guilty is about.


Yes I could not agee more. Not guilty is about two issues:

1 not prooven

2 innocent of charges laid.

The jury for whatever reason bought in a 'Not Guilty' verdict. This on a confession.

In his summing up this morning he asked the jury to acquit the man. He asked them to consider that there was not enough evidence that the man had killed his baby apart from his own admission.


Unless you believe that this admission was coerced, and I am not aware of any evidence that suggests this then along with the confession I can only conclude that due to the circumstances of the child mental condition the jury belived that the parent had this right. I can draw no other conclusion from a not guilty verdict.

If there is another I would like to hear it.

Skyryder

[marty]

If you don,t like it don,t go there, most here are happy to discuss non bike topics, one of the things that makes KB such a good site.

There is such a diverse(sp/) memebership that topics such as this can be well debated, however if its not for you thats fine, you stick to bike related topics, but don,t persume to tell us what we should and shouldn't discuss.

Firefight. :crazy:
yeah - for a motorcycling forum, the biggest thread is one about religion! what's that all about?

get back to bikes you guys. geeze.

[Ms Piggy]

Yes I could not agee more. Not guilty is about two issues:

1 not prooven

2 innocent of charges laid.

The jury for whatever reason bought in a 'Not Guilty' verdict. This on a confession.

In his summing up this morning he asked the jury to acquit the man. He asked them to consider that there was not enough evidence that the man had killed his baby apart from his own admission.


Unless you believe that this admission was coerced, and I am not aware of any evidence that suggests this then along with the confession I can only conclude that due to the circumstances of the child mental condition the jury belived that the parent had this right. I can draw no other conclusion from a not guilty verdict.

If there is another I would like to hear it.

Skyryder
Ok I unders tand what you're saying but, just b/c the jury found him nor guilty (which I admit surprised me), as I said before, I don't believe it meant the jury thought "he had the right to do so". Which was your intial statement.

[Milky]

Sadly, the people with the same old agendas now want to exploit the situation for all it's worth which is it's self a bloody terrible thing to do. They are a danger to us all. We have people dragging in mercy killings of the elderly and abortions for goodness sake! These are not the same at all.

We have someone that did something illegal in an extreme situation and the system accomodated him. Bravo for the system and the 12 people with the balls to MAKE a decision!!

Have faith people. This is still a great country.

Paul N

ps. If you want to get mad. Write a letter to those sick c**nts in the media that want to expose the poor bastards name... Let them know how much we applaud the wonderful actions of the 5th estate as we the public demand to know this.... And just how much we are looking forward to the in depth coverage of his eventual suicide.. Oh the humanity..... Gotta be a news award in this story someplace, especially if the guy tops the rest of the family too in a gruesome fashion and thats the most important thing... right? TV news have become filthy scum hardly worthy of the effort to make the electricity to watch.I dont think anyone said that abortion/euthanasia/this situation were the same. I was never under that impression, but IMO they are in a similar sphere.
I agree with you on the rest though. Especially the post script.

[Milky]

So you did not have to kill. Life ended as it should. No unnecessary guilt...
...I rest my case. She walked so at what point do you kill. I would have hoped it was when all body function has stopped not when the brain had lost its ability to recognise.
My point is not so much the time at which you say life can be ended. If someone expressly indicates that they want to commit suicide at a certain age/sttate, they why not let them carry out that act? Suicide in itself is not illegal. In most cases avoidable or regrettable, but not illegal.
Note that I would not support euthanasia if the person was not in pain or suffering from a highly debilitating illness, and there werent safeguards to ensure the system was not abused by heirs, spouses etc. Multiple medical opinions must be required. A human life is not THAT precious that turning off life support is illegal, but there is a grey area which needs to be clearly dealt with in law for euthanasia to be viable in society. I agree that it is hard to pass judgement on such a matter, but hopefully discussions like this will clear up what people think, their perceptions of the pro and anti groups' stances and so on. Having it out in the open will only help in the long run.

I guess it comes down to how far you allow people to exercise their free will and right of self determination.


At least you have a sense of hummer. We will agree to disagree.
Fair enough. Good to see you can recognise it ;)

[AMPS]

Yes I could not agee more. Not guilty is about two issues:

1 not prooven

2 innocent of charges laid.

The jury for whatever reason bought in a 'Not Guilty' verdict. This on a confession.

In his summing up this morning he asked the jury to acquit the man. He asked them to consider that there was not enough evidence that the man had killed his baby apart from his own admission.


Unless you believe that this admission was coerced, and I am not aware of any evidence that suggests this then along with the confession I can only conclude that due to the circumstances of the child mental condition the jury belived that the parent had this right. I can draw no other conclusion from a not guilty verdict.

If there is another I would like to hear it.

Skyryder

An admission without corroboration may not be enough. The pathologist said that he could not a establish cause of death, ergo, how did the father know he killed the baby?
The verdict was correct.
Lou

[James Deuce]

The jury should not concern themselves with potential penalties because that can cloud their assessment of the facts. Their job is to decide guilt or innocence, not reccomend sentences. It is up to the judge to determine the sentence and they are guided by the Sentencing Act 2002, there are some interesting guidelines if anyone can be bothered reading it.

Everybody who voted for yes for the tougher sentencing for "criminals" referendum has themselves to thank for the dilemma the judge found himself in with this case.

There is no option to convict and then discharge the sentence, which I believe would have been the correct solution. There would be nothing gained from jailing this man, but he should face repercussions for the rest of his life, above those dished out by himself.

Giving birth to child is a responsibility irrespective of the condition of that child.

You do not have the right to kill your child if it doesn't measure up to your standards.

"Justice" wasn't served in any way. The judicial system failed to take responsibility for the sentence. The judge needs to resign. The jury does NOT have a responsibility to review anything other than the facts of the case. Did he kill his child. Yes he admitted it. Guilty of murder.

It is a precedent setting case. Severly disabled children are now at risk as a result of the inability of this judge and jury to do their job.

http://www.anencephaly.net/

There are very rare instances where the brain develops enough to support post-utero life, and these children generally die of pneumonia at some time between 0-20. As other people have noted the medical system deals with this issue by generally marking the child's file with NFR - Not For Resuscitation.

[James Deuce]

An admission without corroboration may not be enough. The pathologist said that he could not a establish cause of death, ergo, how did the father know he killed the baby?
The verdict was correct.
Lou

The pathologist misled the jury. Simple. The medical profession, the judicial system, and dare I say it the Police have all tried to "help" avoid a murder verdict - with reason as a jail sentence was definitely not appropriate, but now the only option.

[Hitcher]

Giving birth to child is a responsibility irrespective of the condition of that child..
Agreed. But nothing to do with this case.

You do not have the right to kill your child if it doesn't measure up to your standards..
Agreed. But also nothing to do with this case.

"Justice" wasn't served in any way. The judicial system failed to take responsibility for the sentence. The judge needs to resign. The jury does NOT have a responsibility to review anything other than the facts of the case. Did he kill his child. Yes he admitted it. Guilty of murder..
The jury deliberated under the facts of the case as put. This was not a murder trial per se. It was more about the state of mind of the father at the time that the child was killed.

It is a precedent setting case. Severly disabled children are now at risk as a result of the inability of this judge and jury to do their job.
I disagree. This is not what this particular case was about. It was about the state of mind of the father at the time the child was killed. It was argued that he was not in a fit state to judge the lawfulness or otherwise of the act he undertook. In other words he was not guilty due to insanity. The case was determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. It is in no way precedent setting.

[James Deuce]

Agreed. But nothing to do with this case.

Agreed. But also nothing to do with this case.

The jury deliberated under the facts of the case as put. This was not a murder trial per se. It was more about the state of mind of the father at the time that the child was killed.

I disagree. This is not what this particular case was about. It was about the state of mind of the father at the time the child was killed. It was argued that he was not in a fit state to judge the lawfulness or otherwise of the act he undertook. In other words he was not guilty due to insanity. The case was determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. It is in no way precedent setting.

Interesting perspective.

They will all be quoted as I presented them in future cases, not in the fair and right way that you state as being correct procedure.

[Hitcher]

They will all be quoted as I presented them in future cases, not in the fair and right way that you state as being correct procedure.
Fair enough!

[Paul in NZ]

It's possible to theorise and to take the high moral ground on either side of this issue. Ignoring ones ability to do the 'right' thing (ie the naturally just) to satisfy some moot technical legal or moral point or avoiding setting precedent is the easy way out. It's like not giving bread to a starving person because "they would all want some then..."

There simply is no way to 'judge' this case and no right answer! In fact I doubt that any law devised by humans and capable of being written down would be suitable for any future 'like' cases (god forbid).

My fervent hope is that the police, the pathologist, the judicary and the jury, having heard all the evidence, then acted independantly like the wonderfully unpredictable creatures we are and extended some compassion. If you think thats wrong then I'd suggest you need to go out more because you are loosing your humanity.

Being human is, at times, above the law.... And rightly so. The law changes and evolves to suit the needs of the humans that invented it. This is just a wrinkle in a fairly good system. Time will tell us if it sticks.

In my opinion, society gets into serious trouble when it thinks it has an absolute code by which to judge all actions.... You may as well programme a computer to dispense justice in that case (or hire Pastor Tamaki). To broadly quote Mr Pratchett. "Everyone is OK with someone being on a spiritual or religious journey but the trouble starts when they claim that they have found the answer and are actually speaking to god."

I still applaud these people and think you are wrong, terribly so. They did their job, they acted like decent human beings.... (with all the faults)

Paul N

[James Deuce]

We used to follow a maxim, that is was better to have a justice system that put one innocent man in jail, than no justice system at all.

The law is meant to be independent of human frailties and judgements (but like computer programmes is fundamentally SNAFUed and fixed with patches because humans wrote it) and not take into account the emotion or ethics of a situation, but what is written in the statute books. Even if the outcome is "wrong". The message now is that justice is for the "deserving", and you can weasel your way out of anything, given enough extenuating circumstances.

The Police (and good on them) were very careful to lay Murder charges. Manslaughter is involuntarily causing death, which would be really easy to prove in this particular case.

I know what Hitcher and Paul are saying. But we forget that it isn't a perfect world, and all elements of this imperfect result will be hashed over for years to come to the detriment of developing an ethical framewrok to address the issues of Euthanasia, abortion, and assisted suicide. Plus the Media will be able to "spin" this issue five ways from Sunday.

[Hitcher]

But we forget that it isn't a perfect world, and all elements of this imperfect result will be hashed over for years to come to the detriment of developing an ethical framewrok to address the issues of Euthanasia, abortion, and assisted suicide.
That fact that this case has caused us to collectively and individually challenge our values systems is, to me, proof that a child did not die in vain.

[James Deuce]

That fact that this case has caused us to collectively and individually challenge our values systems is, to me, proof that a child did not die in vain.
If we were law makers, aspiring politicians, or doctors and nurses, I too would be cheered.

[MikeL]

We used to follow a maxim, that is was better to have a justice system that put one innocent man in jail, than no justice system at all.


I've never come across this before. I am, on the other hand, familiar with the saying that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to hang.

I suspect that in this case the jurors individually were aware that their verdict was "wrong" in law. Emotion may have been a factor but I am more inclined to think that they made their decision soberly and rationally. What followed in the media was a lot less dignified.

The importance of setting a precedent has been exaggerated. In any future similar case there will be differences of circumstance and detail. To describe the verdict as some sort of charter for open-slather child-killing and euthanasia is dishonest. To use the case as a weapon in a campaign for an absolutist moral code and consequent legislation would be equally dishonest.
But predictable.

[Lou Girardin]

The pathologist misled the jury. Simple. The medical profession, the judicial system, and dare I say it the Police have all tried to "help" avoid a murder verdict - with reason as a jail sentence was definitely not appropriate, but now the only option.

Really!
As a qualified pathologist who also examined the corpse, could you elucidate on the actual cause of death please?
As for your comment on a justice system that convicts an innocent man being the alternative to no justice system.
Don't create maxims to serve your own argument, it's far too transparent.
Our 'justice' system has convicted far too many innocent people; Arthur Allan Thomas, David Doherty for sure and probably Scott Watson and David Tamahere as well, plus the ones whose cases aren't 'sexy' enough to gain media attention.