BABY KILLER GETS OFF

[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.

[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:Me]

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