Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

CHOOSE TO MURDER HER BABY THAT IS DUN-DUN-DUN.


Good work, feminists.

im pro choice but thats really awful

This sounds very familiar.


Doubly so.

I wonder it ever occurred to her to get an abortion? I mean, it's got to be easier to do in Canada then in the US.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
CHOOSE TO MURDER HER BABY THAT IS DUN-DUN-DUN.


Good work, feminists.

This post is misleading. She was found guilty of infanticide and the improper disposal of a body and was sentenced accordingly. She is only spending so little time in prison because of the amount of time she spent in remand centres, prisons, and psychiatric hospitals while her case was tried four times in six years.




Originally posted by Lucius
I wonder it ever occurred to her to get an abortion? I mean, it's got to be easier to do in Canada then in the US.

Her irrational decision to commit infanticide instead of seeking an abortion, which is legal at all stages of pregnancy in Canada, is one of the reasons the Crown found she suffered from diminished moral blameworthiness.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Her irrational decision to commit infanticide instead of seeking an abortion, which is legal at all stages of pregnancy in Canada, is one of the reasons the Crown found she suffered from diminished moral blameworthiness.

I'm not saying I disagree with the decision. Locking her up certainty isn't going to accomplish anything. I suppose I'm more curious to the circumstances that led up to the event.

Frankly I still find the ruling (or laws?) ridiculous. Infanticide should come with a sentence for life IMO.

Infanticide is murder.

The woman murdered her child. No matter which way you look at it, it is an act of murder.

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
im pro choice but thats really awful

That is what proabortion people do. I am surprise that you had changed that after hearing this story,

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
That is what proabortion people do. I am surprise that you had changed that after hearing this story, Yes, of course the side of the argument known for stalking people, assassinating doctors, blocking access to people who may be seeking services other than abortion, and bombings of both clinics and public events such as the Olympics is going to equate a clearly psychotic woman committing infanticide with abortion.
Just sentence would be to give this woman several years in a psychiatric facility and lifetime probation to make sure she doesn't go off any meds she needs.

go canada

Over those six years she's been tried, how much time did see spend in a prison? That's the only time she should be allowed to deduct from her sentence for murdering, imo.

Also, three years for murder seems low to me. People with marijuana convictions have received more time.

Well that's the point, it wasn't murder under Canadian law.

Originally posted by Robtard
Over those six years she's been tried, how much time did see spend in a prison? That's the only time she should be allowed to deduct from her sentence for murdering, imo.

Also, three years for murder seems low to me.

What do you think more time would do in this case, aside for appease some need to punish the girl?

Its pretty clearly a psychological issue at play here

Originally posted by Robtard
People with marijuana convictions have received more time.

not in Canada, unless you are talking major grow ops. A 3 year sentence for drugs here is pretty major, and normally would come as a result of connections to other criminal enterprise

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that's the point, it wasn't murder under Canadian law.

Wasn't aware infanticide wasn't a form of murder.

You are now!

The murder charge she was facing has a minimum 10 year sentence.

But Canadian law has a specific provision for infanticide which it specifies is different from murder due to the psychological state of the mother. In this case, two murder convictions were reduced to infanticide on appeal. The Canadian infanticide law rarely jails the mother.

In Canada, infanticide is not murder.

Originally posted by inimalist
What do you think more time would do in this case, aside for appease some need to punish the girl?

Its pretty clearly a psychological issue at play here

not in Canada, unless you are talking major grow ops. A 3 year sentence for drugs here is pretty major, and normally would come as a result of connections to other criminal enterprise

Appease some need to punish the girl. If we take the "oh well, what's done is done" attitude then we should probably not have many people behind bars, at least no first time offenders serving jail time, be it murder, rape or theft.

IMO, "crazy" isn't an excuse to dismiss punishment. Call me crazy.

Fair enough, I was looking at it from a US standpoint.

Originally posted by Robtard
Appease some need to punish the girl. If we take the "oh well, what's done is done" attitude then we should probably not have many people behind bars, at least no first time offenders serving jail time, be it murder, rape or theft.

IMO, "crazy" isn't an excuse to dismiss punishment. Call me crazy.



Murderers, rapists, and thieves are active dangers to society.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are now!

The murder charge she was facing has a minimum 10 year sentence.

But Canadian law has a specific provision for infanticide which it specifies is different from murder due to the psychological state of the mother. In this case, two murder convictions were reduced to infanticide on appeal. The Canadian infanticide law rarely jails the mother.

In Canada, infanticide is not murder.

What a stupid law.

That, I believe, is the idea behind this thread.

Originally posted by Lucius
Murderers, rapists, and thieves are active dangers to society.

If they intend in doing said crimes a second time, if not, what's the use in jailing them?

Canada would be a much better country if there were no goras living there in the first place.

Originally posted by majid86
Canada would be a much better country if there were no goras living there in the first place. Anything to be racist, huh?

How the hell is that racist?

Its the world's 2nd largest country but only has a population of 35 million which just makes Canada pathetic.

Just another white-occupied country full of dickheads.

Originally posted by Robtard
Appease some need to punish the girl. If we take the "oh well, what's done is done" attitude then we should probably not have many people behind bars, at least no first time offenders serving jail time, be it murder, rape or theft.

IMO, "crazy" isn't an excuse to dismiss punishment. Call me crazy.

Fair enough, I was looking at it from a US standpoint.

/shrug

incarceration rates for first offenses are very low in Canada, and we, as a rule, do try to keep few people behind bars. Its not perfect by any means...

However, legal philosophy here is more about protecting those in society than it is about punishing the wrongdoer. I can't say I would prefer it the other way.

Originally posted by majid86
How the hell is that racist?

Its the world's 2nd largest country but only has a population of 35 million which just makes Canada pathetic.

Just another white-occupied country full of dickheads.

we are one of maybe 2-3 nations in the world where multiculturalism can be said to be a success...

Originally posted by inimalist
we are one of maybe 2-3 nations in the world where multiculturalism can be said to be a success...

And that will be your downfall and i hope it comes more sooner than expected.
I'll only respect Canada as a country when the ethinic minorities take it over.

Originally posted by majid86
And that will be your downfall

lol, engaging political commentary

you follow canadian politics then?

Cut it out on the racist comments, majid.

Originally posted by inimalist
/shrug

incarceration rates for first offenses are very low in Canada, and we, as a rule, do try to keep few people behind bars. Its not perfect by any means...

However, legal philosophy here is more about protecting those in society than it is about punishing the wrongdoer. I can't say I would prefer it the other way.

Fair enough if that works better overall.

Agreed. It can be argued that sentencing out death-sentences for those who are the most threat to a society (eg murderers, rapist) would serve as the ultimate protection. A dead murderer can't murder again; dead rapist can't rape again.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, engaging political commentary

you follow canadian politics then?

No, i dont follow DANISH politics but i have been to DENMARK at least 3 times. (Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver) never been to Montreal or Quebec for that matter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough if that works better overall.

Agreed. It can be argued that sentencing out death-sentences for those who are the most threat to a society (eg murderers, rapist) would serve as the ultimate protection. A dead murderer can't murder again; dead rapist can't rape again.

I can see that in cases for people who there is no chance of rehabilitation, or who are listed as "dangerous offenders" here, meaning they will never be released again.

The morals of the death penalty in general open a whole different can of worms though.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can see that in cases for people who there is no chance of rehabilitation, or who are listed as "dangerous offenders" here, meaning they will never be released again.

The morals of the death penalty in general open a whole different can of worms though.

Well yes. But tell that to the woman who was raped because the justice system decided that Johnny I-Only-Raped-Once-Before was rehabilitated after serving a few years in the pen and taking anger management classes.

Meh, maybe.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes. But tell that to the woman who was raped because the justice system decided that Johnny I-Only-Raped-Once-Before was rehabilitated after serving a few years in the pen and taking anger management classes.

Meh, maybe.

well, when you can describe a system that is 100% effective at preventing crime...

I don't see that as any more egregious than a system that keeps people locked up when they pose no threat to society, that is more interested in punishment than rehabilitation, and that in the end exacerbates the causes of crime than does anything to reduce it.

It is hard to find real quality stats, but the best i can find seem to suggest that America has a recidivism rate of over 67%, whereas Canada has one of 37% (and that canadian figure is a "worst case" number). 37% is 37% too high, but I don't think taking a harsher stance on criminals has ever been shown to be the answer.

http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Courts/Sun%20Repeat%20offender.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Recidivism

EDIT: by comparison, Norway gets a 20% recividism rate. There are huge cultural reasons why American and Norway aren't good comparisons, but Canada and America are much, much more relevant to eachother

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html#ixzz0n9t8l6FT

Killing a baby isn't murder in Canada. Truly a paradise compared to the corrupt United States.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, when you can describe a system that is 100% effective at preventing crime...

I don't see that as any more egregious than a system that keeps people locked up when they pose no threat to society, that is more interested in punishment than rehabilitation, and that in the end exacerbates the causes of crime than does anything to reduce it.

It is hard to find real quality stats, but the best i can find seem to suggest that America has a recidivism rate of over 67%, whereas Canada has one of 37% (and that canadian figure is a "worst case" number). 37% is 37% too high, but I don't think taking a harsher stance on criminals has ever been shown to be the answer.

http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Courts/Sun%20Repeat%20offender.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Recidivism

EDIT: by comparison, Norway gets a 20% recividism rate. There are huge cultural reasons why American and Norway aren't good comparisons, but Canada and America are much, much more relevant to eachother

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html#ixzz0n9t8l6FT


If locking up some rapist or murderer for 1 day or 10 years isn't a guarantee that they won't rape/murder someone else once released either way, what is?

Why capital punishment for rape and murder is probably a good idea. Can't you see the simple beauty in that? Moral's aside.

Prison is a waste of a tax dollars. Public flogging is a much more cost-effective solution.

I'd actually be curious to find out how much time has to pass until it is murder and no longer infanticide in Canada.

Because someone can be considered an infant up until around age 3, depending on the definition. Maybe it can just be considered a 14th trimester abortion.

Not utterly certain of the source but this purports to be the law as written:

"233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. "

So newly born, under specific circumstances which I guess the court has to judge.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not utterly certain of the source but this purports to be te law as written:

"233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. "

So newly born, under specific circumstances which I guess the court has to judge.

To me, it seems like a free-pass to murder under the "birthing affected her mental state" clause. Ridiculous.

My understanding is that it is actually inherited from UK law where it was introduced because juries simply would not convict mothers who killed their newborn children, especially when murder had a mandatory death sentence. Infanticide was introduced as a means to get convictions.

Obviously times have changed- for a start, she was twice convicted by a jury of murder.

"juries simply would not convict mothers who killed their newborn children, especially when murder had a mandatory death sentence"

Still sounds ridiculous.

Oh, it was true back then.

Nonetheless, in the UK it has very recently been recommended that infanticide remain a separate crime so I guess the UK and Canada are batting on the same side here, though the justifications for it have changed.

It's more ridiculous now considering the availability of abortion and not sure if Canada or the UK have similar "walk away" laws where a mother can leave her newborn baby at a hospital, police or fire station.

The justification is that there is a genuine mental illness involved with it.

Which if true- and I am no doctor or psychiatrist to deny it- is something I am sympathetic to.

Never heard of a 'birthing causes the want to kill' mental illness. I've seen two children being born in person and watched a few others on shows and such; never run into that.

Not saying that it isn't possible, but it seems like a bull-shit excuse to give murders a break because they're women who killed they own offspring. ie the "she suffered too much already" sentiment.

Seems it has a long legal history.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2985632.stm

That article dated three years before the review here which said, if anything, the infanticide law needs to be more accessible

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Killing a baby isn't murder in Canada. Truly a paradise compared to the corrupt United States.

lol, its funny because you clearly have no idea how messed up the American prison system is...

Originally posted by Robtard
If locking up some rapist or murderer for 1 day or 10 years isn't a guarantee that they won't rape/murder someone else once released either way, what is?

Why capital punishment for rape and murder is probably a good idea. Can't you see the simple beauty in that? Moral's aside.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that rehabilitation is a better system because it produces less recidivism than the death penalty does

Originally posted by Robtard
To me, it seems like a free-pass to murder under the "birthing affected her mental state" clause. Ridiculous.

Its only a free pass if you think the purpose of the justice system is to punish people whom it deems have misbehaved. This is not the role Canadians have decided they want their justice system to play.

I'm sorry your bloodlust is not satisfied by a thorough enough ruining of this woman's life.

And here is the case that prompted the UK review- the headline doesn't mean what some might think it does.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scrap-outdated-infanticide-law-say-judges-495016.html

Originally posted by Robtard
Never heard of a 'birthing causes the want to kill' mental illness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_psychosis

So it's like Postpartum Pepression on steroids.

Call me callous, but I find it hard to excuse baby-killers.

edit: See inimilist linked it.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, its funny because you clearly have no idea how messed up the American prison system is...



I don't think anyone has ever argued that rehabilitation is a better system because it produces less recidivism than the death penalty does



Its only a free pass if you think the purpose of the justice system is to punish people whom it deems have misbehaved. This is not the role Canadians have decided they want their justice system to play.

I'm sorry your bloodlust is not satisfied by a thorough enough ruining of this woman's life. I smell a lot of dodging and deflecting in this post.

Originally posted by inimalist

Its only a free pass if you think the purpose of the justice system is to punish people whom it deems have misbehaved. This is not the role Canadians have decided they want their justice system to play.

I'm sorry your bloodlust is not satisfied by a thorough enough ruining of this woman's life.

I blame the criminal, not the victim; I have little to no compassion for the criminal.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's like Postpartum Pepression on steroids.

Call me callous, but I find it hard to excuse baby-killers.

edit: See inimilist linked it.

Haven't been reading the thread but I seriously doubt that she's just walking away free.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Haven't been reading the thread but I seriously doubt that she's just walking away free. According to the article, she'll be serving 16 days in prison.

Nothing else was mentioned... though I wouldn't be surrpised if some sort of mandatory... I dunno psychiatric care was brought into motion as well.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Haven't been reading the thread but I seriously doubt that she's just walking away free.

"Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won't spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son."

She's walking away with a 3-year suspended sentence(for time served?) and probation.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I smell a lot of dodging and deflecting in this post.

what do you want me to answer more directly?

- Canadian prisons are far superior to American ones, and this is without bringing up privatization

- The death penalty is good at preventing people from ever doing something again, including committing a crime. However, I've never heard it argued that capital punishment wasn't effective enough. I don't feel the state should have the right to kill people. The effectiveness of killing really doesn't begin to address that.

- The Canadian Justice System, like it or not, isn't in the business of punishing people for misbehaving, and thinks more about public safety before sentencing criminals for a crime. Like, if you think the Canadian Justice System should work differently because you feel this woman needs to suffer for what she did, fine, and you are welcome to overcrowd your prisons enforcing that ideology. We don't believe that here.

Nobody has yet provided a reason, aside from a sense of vengeance, for why this woman should face major jail time. That she is mentally sick and poses no real threat to those around her seem enough of a reason, at least imho, for her to not be incarcerated

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's like Postpartum Pepression on steroids.

Call me callous, but I find it hard to excuse baby-killers.

edit: See inimilist linked it.

so your point goes from "I dont believe there are psychological disorders that cause a woman to want to kill her baby" to "I dont care that there are psychological disorders that make a woman want to kill her baby"? hand waving?

Originally posted by Robtard
I blame the criminal, not the victim; I have little to no compassion for the criminal.

who blamed the child?

the thing you seem to be hung up on is that we aren't brutalizing the woman for doing something against the rules, not that we aren't ascribing her blame.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won't spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son."

She's walking away with a 3-year suspended sentence(for time served?) and probation.

I'm guessing "abide by conditions" means mandatory counseling. There hardly seems to be anything else worth doing.

What is it that you think execution or life in prison would accomplish in this case? The baby isn't coming back. She isn't going to go on a killing spree. It's not going to discourage anyone else from doing the same.

Originally posted by inimalist
so your point goes from "I dont believe there are psychological disorders that cause a woman to want to kill her baby" to "I dont care that there are psychological disorders that make a woman want to kill her baby"? hand waving?

No, I'm still not convinced there are exact psychological disorders that happen after birth that force mother's against their will to kill their babies. In fact, it goes against the very nature of a mother to want to protect her child.

Seems like using Postpartum Depression as a scapegoat to blame-shift. I hate blame-shifting. eg "My child was an angel; it was the video-games that made him take a hammer to his classmate's head". I call BS.

Originally posted by inimalist
who blamed the child?

the thing you seem to be hung up on is that we aren't brutalizing the woman for doing something against the rules, not that we aren't ascribing her blame.

Seems to me the child being born is what caused her the grief that lead to her killing her baby and thereby "ruining her life."

I'm more hung up on the scapegoating and blame-shifting.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I'm still not convinced there are exact psychological disorders that happen after birth that force mother's against their will to kill their babies. In fact, it goes against the very nature of a mother to want to protect her child.

Seems like using Postpartum Depression as a scapegoat to blame-shift. I hate blame-shifting. eg "My child was an angel; it was the video-games that made him take a hammer to his classmate's head". I call BS.

so like, what, you are questioning if postpartum depression is a real thing? you want an explanation of how a woman could possibly come to such a deranged type of cognition?

Like, is it that you don't understand how it could work, or that you just don't care and believe it doesn't matter?

well, for one, nobody actually doing research on video games suggests that kind of relation, so the exaggeration isn't helping your point. The evidence that does exist on video games is controversial but generally supports that someone who is exposed to more violent media is more likely to access a violent schema for behaviour, like how you see kids reenacting karate movies they just saw.

in the case of a woman just after child birth, you have massive changes in the person's life mixed with massive changes in their hormones... it would be astounding if this didn't cause psychological problems...

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems to me the child being born is what caused her the grief that lead to her killing her baby and thereby "ruining her life."

I'm more hung up on the scapegoating and blame-shifting.

I fail to see how this logic is any different than the type that calls someone a terrorist sympathizer for pointing out that American military bases in Saudi Arabia are a cause for 9-11.

Just because people look for root causes that don't vilify individuals, doesn't mean they are saying they don't deserve the blame. Certainly, this woman is responsible, and our courts have found her such

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm guessing "abide by conditions" means mandatory counseling. There hardly seems to be anything else worth doing.

What is it that you think execution or life in prison would accomplish in this case? The baby isn't coming back. She isn't going to go on a killing spree. It's not going to discourage anyone else from doing the same.

Possible. For one, if the reasoning for her actions was "birth induced insanity", then the very least that could be done is a court mandated hysterectomy. That would ensure she never suffers this act again, that poor woman.

She'll never do it again. Or see above. But if we're using the "well, the victim is dead already, so punishing her will serve no purpose" attitude, that can be said for many first time murderers. Should we all get one free-pass to kill?

Originally posted by inimalist
so like, what, you are questioning if postpartum depression is a real thing? you want an explanation of how a woman could possibly come to such a deranged type of cognition?

Like, is it that you don't understand how it could work, or that you just don't care and believe it doesn't matter?

well, for one, nobody actually doing research on video games suggests that kind of relation, so the exaggeration isn't helping your point. The evidence that does exist on video games is controversial but generally supports that someone who is exposed to more violent media is more likely to access a violent schema for behaviour, like how you see kids reenacting karate movies they just saw.

in the case of a woman just after child birth, you have massive changes in the person's life mixed with massive changes in their hormones... it would be astounding if this didn't cause psychological problems...

I understand it's a real thing, as I've seen a new mother suffer depression after child-birth(friend's wife).

I question whether it leads to want to strangle your infant with some twine.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems to me the child being born is what caused her the grief that lead to her killing her baby and thereby "ruining her life."

Because stress is imaginary, right? And raising babies is easy!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because stress is imaginary, right? And raising babies is easy!

No and no. What does that have to do with what I said though?

Originally posted by Robtard
Possible. For one, if the reasoning for her actions was "birth induced insanity", then the very least that could be done is a court mandated hysterectomy. That would ensure she never suffers this act again, that poor woman.

Or she could get counseling and have this added to her psychiatric history so nurses will keep an eye on her if she has another kid.

You're awfully focused on finding a way to punish her but you've yet to identify what it will accomplish. I'd say living with the knowledge that a) you killed your child and b) its the only thing most people will care about for the rest of your life it a substatial punishment anyway.

Originally posted by Robtard
Should we all get one free-pass to kill?

Yes we should, that's exactly the point I was making.

Originally posted by inimalist
what do you want me to answer more directly?

The stupidity behind the idea that throwing your newborn child into a trashcan is any different from me walking up to you in a pub and caving your head in with a wrench? I see you're having that discussion with Rob right at this moment, so I'll just observe that.



This is also a bit irrelevent, as no one's said otherwise in here, hence my statement that you're dodging.

Like, you've compared/contrasted America's legal system to Canada's legal system several times now, even though no one has contested it. In fact, looking back through the thread, you're the first person in here to bring up America's justice system at all.

I'd gotten the impression that you believe that America's justice system being less efficent than Canadas somehow vindiciates Canada's wierd belief that killing a newborn deserves more leniency on the part of the killer than killing an adult. If I was mistaken, then I apologize.

So instead of dropping the baby off at an orphanage or at some random neighbor's doorstep, she took the one approach that's going to forever haunt her. She's an idiot.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or she could get counseling and have this added to her psychiatric history to keep it from happening again. You're awfully focused on finding a way to punish her but you've yet to identify what it will accomplish.

Yes we should, that's exactly the point I was making.

Counseling can fail, I think we can all agree with that. So a hysterectomy is more punishment than say life in prison, death-penalty or the possibility of her getting pregnant again and "suffering" again from flipping out and strangling another infant of hers? I disagree, the hysterectomy is far more compassionate.

Sarcasm aside, you did use the "crime's already happened and punishing her won't bring the baby back" angle, so I ask, why is this just for mother who kills their newborn(s)? Seems sexist for a start.

Originally posted by Robtard
I understand it's a real thing, as I've seen a new mother suffer depression after child-birth(friend's wife).

I question whether it leads to want to strangle your infant with some twine.

in different people it will manifest in very different ways.

like with most suicide and other types of completely deranged cognition, I'd imagine it is something that presents itself as an immediate and accessible solution to a problem when your own mental state is preventing you from seeing other reasonable options.

I'm not sure I can give you an a-b-c sort of sequence of events, but depression is able to cause people to forgo their own survival instinct and kill themselves, it certainly isn't that far of a jump to killing the child, especially when it is likely that the child is seen as a major cause in what is driving your life out of control. There wont be a logical reason, like, one that I could explain that you will go "oh, I see why she did it now", it is illogical, that is almost the definition of why it is a mental health disorder.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The stupidity behind the idea that throwing your newborn child into a trashcan is any different from me walking up to you in a pub and caving your head in with a wrench? I see you're having that discussion with Rob right at this moment, so I'll just observe that.

if you don't consider the motivation or causes of crime to be important in the sentencing and treatment of criminals, then I can see where you are coming from.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
This is also a bit irrelevent, as no one's said otherwise in here, hence my statement that you're dodging.

Like, you've compared/contrasted America's legal system to Canada's legal system several times now, even though no one has contested it. In fact, looking back through the thread, you're the first person in here to bring up America's justice system at all.

I'd gotten the impression that you believe that America's justice system being less efficent than Canadas somehow vindiciates Canada's wierd belief that killing a newborn deserves more leniency on the part of the killer than killing an adult. If I was mistaken, then I apologize.

I would argue the approach we have to crime plays a major role in why our nations have different rates of recidivism. You are probably right though, it was more of a tangent from the point that, in Canada, making sure we get an eye for an eye is not a priority of the Justice System.

Originally posted by inimalist
in different people it will manifest in very different ways.

like with most suicide and other types of completely deranged cognition, I'd imagine it is something that presents itself as an immediate and accessible solution to a problem when your own mental state is preventing you from seeing other reasonable options.

I'm not sure I can give you an a-b-c sort of sequence of events, but depression is able to cause people to forgo their own survival instinct and kill themselves, it certainly isn't that far of a jump to killing the child, especially when it is likely that the child is seen as a major cause in what is driving your life out of control. There wont be a logical reason, like, one that I could explain that you will go "oh, I see why she did it now", it is illogical, that is almost the definition of why it is a mental health disorder.

Seems like scapegoating to me. But okay.

Where is the line drawn anyways? New mother flips-out and kills her neighbor, could that be some sort of Postpartum Depression manifestation and therefore she's not to be tried for murder?

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like scapegoating to me. But okay.

Where is the line drawn anyways? New mother flips-out and kills her neighbor, could that be some sort of Postpartum Depression manifestation and therefore she's not to be tried for murder?

it would be a case by case thing, but clearly that poses more of a danger to society and should be treated as such

like, if it was found that a person had a tumor that caused them to act violently, would you call that a "scape-goat"?

Originally posted by inimalist
it would be a case by case thing, but clearly that poses more of a danger to society and should be treated as such

like, if it was found that a person had a tumor that caused them to act violently, would you call that a "scape-goat"?

A brain-tumor that affects behavior can be verified.

Can Baby-Strangling-Depression?

Originally posted by Robtard
A brain-tumor that affects behavior can be verified.

Can Baby-Strangling-Depression?

verified how?

theoretically, with a tumor, all you can say is that once it was removed, the behaviour stopped. This woman has, afaik, no prior history of violence and was evaluated by psychologists, thats about as verified as anything regarding human behaviour is going to get. You wouldn't expect to find "baby killing" on an fmri scan, if that is what you mean.

I could have sworn I posted on the very first page postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. I found that post in my history (you can just click back or re-open tabs in Chrome/Firefox and it maintains the history including un-submitted posts) but I failed to submit it, I guess.

Anyway, yes, I want to point out that some new moms lose their shit during and after their pregnancies.



I do not know enough about the case to make an informed opinion. I cannot auto-condemn her because her actions are abhorrent.


And removing her uterus so she doesn't commit such an atrocity again is no necessarily "bad", but it is quite fascist and meddlesome of any government to make such a ruling. How about rehab, counseling, and closely monitored (by professionals, not the government) subsequent pregnancies from her?

Originally posted by Robtard
Possible. For one, if the reasoning for her actions was "birth induced insanity", then the very least that could be done is a court mandated hysterectomy. That would ensure she never suffers this act again, that poor woman.



I detect a wee bit o' sarcasm.

Originally posted by Robtard
Should we all get one free-pass to kill?

Then a person contemplating their first "try" should make it worth it by doing a synchronized mass murder.

Originally posted by inimalist
verified how?

theoretically, with a tumor, all you can say is that once it was removed, the behaviour stopped. This woman has, afaik, no prior history of violence and was evaluated by psychologists, thats about as verified as anything regarding human behaviour is going to get. You wouldn't expect to find "baby killing" on an fmri scan, if that is what you mean.

Cos there's real life examples of people acting abnormally when they had a tumor growing on their brain. See Ted Kennedy, dude broke out into incoherent song during senate; turns out he has a massive lump in his noggin.

There's probably quite a few murderers who have had no prior history of violence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And removing her uterus so she doesn't commit such an atrocity again is no necessarily "bad", but it is quite fascist and meddlesome of any government to make such a ruling. How about rehab, counseling, and closely monitored (by professionals, not the government) subsequent pregnancies from her?



I detect a wee bit o' sarcasm.

Then a person contemplating their first "try" should make it worth it by doing a synchronized mass murder.

So is imprisoning people and telling them what they can and can not do, that's just as fascist. Again, counseling can/does fail. Think about this poor woman suffering another like event, you monster.

Maybe.

Only if we allow the new mothers to kill twins, triples etc. Otherwise, one free kill only.

Originally posted by Robtard
Cos there's real life examples of people acting abnormally when they had a tumor growing on their brain. See Ted Kennedy, dude broke out into incoherent song during senate; turns out he has a massive lump in his noggin.

There's probably quite a few murderers who have had no prior history of violence.

this just sounds like you are questioning whether postpardom depression is a thing, though... as if there aren't stories of this exact type of thing dating back hundreds, if not thousands of years

Originally posted by inimalist
this just sounds like you are questioning whether postpardom depression is a thing, though... as if there aren't stories of this exact type of thing dating back hundreds, if not thousands of years

We've been over this. I'm not denying that PD exist, I'm questioning whether is causes a mother to strangle her baby or if it's just being used as an excuse to blame-shift instead of just saying "ok, this woman is a murderer".

Originally posted by Robtard
We've been over this. I'm not denying that PD exist, I'm questioning whether is causes a mother to strangle her baby or if it's just being used as an excuse to blame-shift instead of just saying "ok, this woman is a murderer".

how are those mutually exclusive choices?

she is a murderer who was likely driven to it because of mental health issues...

Originally posted by inimalist
how are those mutually exclusive choices?

she is a murderer who was likely driven to it because of mental health issues...

Because it seems the options were to either find her guilty of murder or infanticide (which isn't murder in Canada).

Curious if all mother's who kill their babies suffer from mental health issues and then can thereby be excused of murder. Seems the argument is "she had to be crazy to do that."

Originally posted by Robtard
Because it seems the options were to either find her guilty of murder or infanticide (which isn't murder in Canada).

Curious if all mother's who kill their babies suffer from mental health issues and then can thereby be excused of murder. Seems the argument is "she had to be crazy to do that."

I'd assume some form of pre-meditation would be a big part of it. Her charges were dropped from murder 1 to infanticide as the trials progressed, I'd imagine the evidence wasn't strong enough to get a conviction for murder 1 (ie: she would have gotten off completely) and/or psychological evaluation suggested this were the case (though, I can't imagine a prosecutor dropping the murder charge if it was there to make).

Historically, women murdering their children have been isolated events (though there should be serious restrictions on her having more children) and those who commit them don't normally pose a great risk to society. This is true of some people who commit murder as an act of passion or of sort of temporary psychosis (though, we don't have that as a legal defence, only "unfit to stand trial", but the mental health criminal system is almost a worse sentence in many ways).

here is a link to our criminal code:

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Infanticide-Criminal_Code_Canada_Offence.aspx

infanticide IS murder, murder 4. The judge COULD have given her 5 years, and being in an unstable mental state is actually a prerequisite.

so, basically, if the courts thought she had wilfully committed the murder in a planned way, it would have been murder 1, if it was accidental but she was mentally fit to stand trial, murder 3 . She couldn't have been tried for infanticide if she was in a stable psychological condition, and if the judge thought she was a risk, he could have put her away for 5 years.

like I said, go Canada

WTF, was told a few pages back that infanticide isn't a form of murder in Canada.

So we're agreed on the state mandated hysterectomy, good, thread settled.

how does that benefit society in a way that justifies violating her rights?

Originally posted by Robtard
So is imprisoning people and telling them what they can and can not do, that's just as fascist. Again, counseling can/does fail. Think about this poor woman suffering another like event, you monster.

No, it's not. Not even close. A prison system built around rehabilitation and re-integration is about as good as it can get (see Norway's system) and in many ways, would greatly improve the lives of the criminals. Having your uterus forcibly removed (via surgery) does not come close to being forced to reintegrate back into society.

Originally posted by Robtard
Only if we allow the new mothers to kill twins, triples etc. Otherwise, one free kill only.

I like the "press a button that kills a bunch of people at once" approach, counting as just one "kill" attempt in court.

Originally posted by inimalist
how does that benefit society in a way that justifies violating her rights?

Criminals lose rights all the time, I think this also applies to the Canadian legal system as well. eg Drug Offender on probation, police officer can search their home at any time and for any reason.

How does it benefit society? Easy, she'll never be able to commit the same crime again, considering she's now known to lose her sanity after giving birth.

Originally posted by Robtard
Criminals lose rights all the time, I think this also applies to the Canadian legal system as well. eg Drug Offender on probation, police officer can search their home at any time and for any reason.

How does it benefit society? Easy, she'll never be able to commit the same crime again, considering she's now known to lose her sanity after giving birth.

no, totally, but the loss of rights has to be justified

I suppose you are right, that seems like the nuclear option though, when professional counselling is probably best. At the very least, if she gets pregnant again there will be eyes on her

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it's not. Not even close. A prison system built around rehabilitation and re-integration is about as good as it can get (see Norway's system) and in many ways, would greatly improve the lives of the criminals. Having your uterus forcibly removed (via surgery) does not come close to being forced to reintegrate back into society.

I like the "press a button that kills a bunch of people at once" approach, counting as just one "kill" attempt in court.

Considering she's only murderously-crazy after giving birth and having her serve 16 days in prison (for the crime of improperly disposing of a body) is "just cruel", what will rehabilitation do for her now?

Hysterectomy seems like the most sensible approach for a person like this, nip any potential future problems in the bud. She'll never have to go through this horrible ordeal again, that poor woman. If you removed yourself emotionally from the thread (ie that poor woman) you'd see I'm making perfectly logical sense.

No, that's stupid. Should be just one free kill.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, totally, but the loss of rights has to be justified

I suppose you are right, that seems like the nuclear option though, when professional counselling is probably best. At the very least, if she gets pregnant again there will be eyes on her

She's a convicted infanticider(yes, my word), seems justified.

She's done it once already, so there's precedent right there. Are you willing to risk another strangled baby and another of your Canadian neighbors waking up with a dead baby on their lawn?

i don't believe in forced sterilization for the mentally disabled, so thats sort of a Sophie's choice to me, and I'd side against the state having that power on principle.

Originally posted by inimalist
i don't believe in forced sterilization for the mentally disabled, so thats sort of a Sophie's choice to me, and I'd side against the state having that power on principle.

So what would you do with a retard who put her baby in the oven(true story) cos it cried to much and she became pregnant again?

take the child into the custody of the state

force her to stay in hospital until she has the child

Originally posted by inimalist
take the child into the custody of the state

force her to stay in hospital until she has the child

Forcing her to stay somewhere against her will and taking her child away after birth is somehow not state fascism akin to a forced hysterectomy?

Of the two, the hysterectomy seems the more humane.

Originally posted by Robtard
Forcing her to stay somewhere against her will and taking her child away after birth is somehow not state fascism akin to a forced hysterectomy?

Of the two, the hysterectomy seems the more humane.

we have vastly different definitions of humane

Originally posted by inimalist
we have vastly different definitions of humane

Probably.

IMO, taking a mother's child away is worse than taking away her ability to have one in the first place.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering she's only murderously-crazy after giving birth and having her serve 16 days in prison (for the crime of improperly disposing of a body) is "just cruel", what will rehabilitation do for her now?

No, what's cruel is the situation itself. Shit happens. Life is full of shitty situations.



Originally posted by Robtard
Hysterectomy seems like the most sensible approach for a person like this, nip any potential future problems in the bud. She'll never have to go through this horrible ordeal again, that poor woman. If you removed yourself emotionally from the thread (ie that poor woman) you'd see I'm making perfectly logical sense.

I think counseling with a close eye on her next pregnancy would be best. After her stint in the legal system, she will probably need counseling regardless of what she did.

And I'm not "emotionally" invested in the thread, at all. As a father and a Mormon, I would obviously choose the baby as superlative. I don't. I chose neither. I also see the criminal justice system in the US as grossly flawed. Canada's is better, sure, but I still think there are better systems than Canada's. So I see the best results as those results the maximize personal freedoms which includes future children from the mother. That means a society free from harm. That infant would be an example of a member of that society.

What does imprisoning her do at all? What does it do for society? You must also consider her part of society: she is also an agent.

So what does incarcerating her with hardened criminals actually do for society? I see it doing nothing since she will be a burden on the taxes used to put her in prison. She may also pick up bad habits/ideas being with criminals. She has no prior history.

So what does putting her in prison do for society? Is there a net positive gain from putting her there? No. In fact, it looks like society can more greatly benefit from her being free and being a working citizen. Caution should be taken with her having anymore children, obviously. But she does society more good out of prison.


This type of "best possible outcome" thinking is what we need more of. This is called Utilitarianism.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, that's stupid. Should be just one free kill.

One act. Multiple deaths occur all the time. So it should be one free killing act.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably.

IMO, taking a mother's child away is worse than taking away her ability to have one in the first place.

I think the state being allowed to force surgery on someone, especially in a context that is undeniably slanted against the mentally handicapped, isnt a justifiable use of its power. I'm surprised your arguing that the state should have that right just so it isn't mean?

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the state being allowed to force surgery on someone, especially in a context that is undeniably slanted against the mentally handicapped, isnt a justifiable use of its power. I'm surprised your arguing that the state should have that right just so it isn't mean?

But the state forcing someone to stay somewhere while they're pregnant and taking a child away is a justifiable use of power?

I'm not arguing that the state should have the right to do it on anyone and for any reason, I'm arguing of specifics, such as the crazy-after-birth-infant-stranglers and retards who put their babies in the oven cos they cried types.

My course of action not only seems less mean/cruel, it's also proactive, like Batman.

Originally posted by Robtard
But the state forcing someone to stay somewhere while they're pregnant and taking a child away is a justifiable use of power?

I'm not arguing that the state should have the right to do it on anyone and for any reason, I'm arguing of specifics, such as the crazy-after-birth-infant-stranglers and retards who put their babies in the oven cos they cried types.

My course of action not only seems less mean/cruel, it's also proactive, like Batman.

this crazy baby in the oven lady, was she getting counselling when she got pregnant again? where did it happen?

ah ya, I'm not saying she is put in a prison facility or anything, but being held in a hospital for 9 months is not nearly as invasive or destructive to an individual, and has way less possibility for abuse, than does government mandated sterilization. Taking the child might be cruel, but that cruelness doesn't justify removing the right to not having the government **** with her person like that.

I'd certainly be in favour of her getting counselling that, in no uncertain terms, encouraged her to not have another baby, but I just don't believe the state has the right to order medical procedures on people.

Originally posted by inimalist
this crazy baby in the oven lady, was she getting counselling when she got pregnant again? where did it happen?

ah ya, I'm not saying she is put in a prison facility or anything, but being held in a hospital for 9 months is not nearly as invasive or destructive to an individual, and has way less possibility for abuse, than does government mandated sterilization. Taking the child might be cruel, but that cruelness doesn't justify removing the right to not having the government **** with her person like that.

I'd certainly be in favour of her getting counselling that, in no uncertain terms, encouraged her to not have another baby, but I just don't believe the state has the right to order medical procedures on people.

She wasn't crazy, she was mentally retarded. I used her as an example since your brought the mentally-disabled up. No idea if she ever became pregnant again, was making a hypothetical as I was curious to your answer.

I still disagree. I can't imagine the loss of a uterus as being more devastating as carrying a child to term and them having it taken from you. Though I guess it depends heavily on the mother.

Which is fine reasoning I'd say in the general sense, but you're okay with the state taking their children. Confusing to me.

Originally posted by Robtard
Forcing her to stay somewhere against her will and taking her child away after birth is somehow not state fascism akin to a forced hysterectomy?

Of the two, the hysterectomy seems the more humane.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you willing to risk another strangled baby and another of your Canadian neighbors waking up with a dead baby on their lawn?

Typical Saturday night here!

Originally posted by inimalist
this crazy baby in the oven lady, was she getting counselling when she got pregnant again?


Robtard said 'retarded' not crazy.

There is a big difference.

oh god guys, get off the pc train

Originally posted by inimalist
oh god guys, get off the pc train

Feeble-minded/cretin/imbecile/idiot/moron...all previously valid, acceptable terms for describing a mental impairment.

Those were the good ol' days

they are the differently abled

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes, of course the side of the argument known for stalking people, assassinating doctors, blocking access to people who may be seeking services other than abortion, and bombings of both clinics and public events such as the Olympics is going to equate a clearly psychotic woman committing infanticide with abortion.
Just sentence would be to give this woman several years in a psychiatric facility and lifetime probation to make sure she doesn't go off any meds she needs.

Not all Prolife people do that. When I join the protesters we just pray infront of the building and don't do anything to anyone going in. Anyway the woman going in to kill a human being should be feeling guitly or get a clue when they see protesters that what they are doing is wrong.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Not all Prolife people do that. When I join the protesters we just pray infront of the building and don't do anything to anyone going in. Anyway the woman going in to kill a human being should be feeling guitly or get a clue when they see protesters that what they are doing is wrong.

You got it there sweetheart!

Do you carry placards when you protest?

I don't.