BABY KILLER GETS OFF

[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.