| Author |
|
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1414
|
| Posted: 08 April 2015 at 2:30pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
You find it credible that she both killed a fetus and neglected a living baby?
In so far as I'm skeptical of the prosecution's case, the contradictory nature of the charges is the source of my skepticism. I'm less concerned with the conviction of feticide, however, than I am with the question of felony neglect. I say this not only because I'm unable to build a moral case for the rights of a child (so long as it remains inside the host body) to supersede the rights of the host, but also because the sentence in the former conviction is a six year sentence to be served concurrently with the thirty year sentence of the latter conviction (twenty, if accounting for the ten year suspension). This woman's punishment is, in effect, the same punishment she would have received had she been found guilty of only the latter crime. But if there is room for appeal, I expect it will be found in the seeming contradiction of the two charges. I also expect that, in the event of an appeal, she will have more chance of achieving success in vacating the former conviction than she will of the latter.
As for why I'm inclined to believe the prosecution over the defense, first and foremost, I'm inclined to believe the judgement of the jury- not to suggest that juries are infallible, but they usually do get things right. But beyond that, I simply do not find the woman in question to be reliable, and I call her reliability in question first because of her childish response to her pregnancy, and second because of her willingness to throw the child's body into a dumpster-- I wonder if you've seen a child at 23-25 weeks of gestation; it is not the formless mass of tissue found in early term miscarriages, and I have a difficult time believing that an innocent person would callously toss such a child's body in a dumpster and subsequently lie about the birth to doctors and police, unless she was attempting to conceal guilt. And I suspect the jury reached the same conclusions.
Ultimately, only the woman in question knows how long she was in labor and what steps she could have taken to secure medical attention for both herself and the child. Only she knows, with certainty, weather the child was living, or still born. But jury's are asked all the time to decide between conflicting testimony; this jury decided, and without having heard all the evidence they heard, I'm more inclined to believe their judgment than the testimony of an established liar.
How about we avoid the obfuscation of the issues at hand and talk about the evidence?
I'm sorry, that is the issue at hand; it's the first question asked by everyone involved in the criminal justice system- from the police investigating a potential crime, to defense and prosecuting attorneys, to jurors sitting in judgement of their peer, and judges overseeing the proceedings. Is there a reason you don't wish to confront the question? It strikes me that you're not willing to challenge your preconceived notions. I wonder why.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17995
|
| Posted: 09 April 2015 at 10:01am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Maybe, for nine months. In short order, women would be the men as men watched their stock plummet and women saw their opportunities unfold. And both genders, sadly, probably won't have learned a thing. •• I can't follow your reasoning. --------------------- If the biological act, the work of carrying a child were to suddenly become the man's instead of the woman's, the role-reversal would be complete: men would find themselves in the same situation that women are in today.
I suppose there's a small chance women would treat men better than they were treated when the shoe was on the other foot, but I am not that optimistic.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132282
|
| Posted: 09 April 2015 at 10:37am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
If the biological act, the work of carrying a child were to suddenly become the man's instead of the woman's…•• Nobody said "instead".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17995
|
| Posted: 09 April 2015 at 6:13pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
My misunderstanding then. In this scenario are both sexes carrying children? Because if that were the case, then I absolutely agree the abortion debate would be utterly resolved.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
