Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosStill bad.
A person who testifies ans still does time usually does much less than someone who doesn't.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavHow do you know? 15 years for not going against the man she loves? I agree she should've stopped it, but 15 years seems a little harsh.
Umm took her long enough to testify didn't it...if the boy never died the woman would have kept her trap shut and let him keeping beating the kid for who knows how much longer...
Originally posted by lord xyz
Still bad.How do you know? 15 years for not going against the man she loves? I agree she should've stopped it, but 15 years seems a little harsh.
The man she loves? What about the little boy, her child, that she should love unconditionally?
She should be doing time for killing the bastard that murdered her child, not for neglecting to stop him.
I think it's fairly ridiculous that she's being convicted for not doing something, the whole premise of that makes very little sense.
The courts should not be able to punish someone for not taking action, in obviously distressing circumstances. She could have feared for her own life, for instance. I'm sure this will be received to yells of "she should put the child's life above her own!", but it's not down to a court to administer punishments for lack of parental intuitiveness.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Kinda bullshit if you ask me, but meh.
Originally posted by lord xyz
That's retarded.What a stupid reason, she ****ing testified for a start. Besides, maybe she was acustomed to abuse aswell, or was one of those co-dependant kind of people.
In any case, that's injustice.
no, it certainly doesn't take human psychology into account at all
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You know...I am so glad we are taking for granted she didn't have some involvement or didn't willingly stay silent...there was a trial afterall...(not that im saying that equals justice)
I thought we were doing that because people are assumed to be innocent until there is evidence to prove them guilty...
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I would have had her shot...she didnt stop it because she probably agreed with him!
i actually agree there.
a mother's first instinct should be to protect her child, even if it means simply notifying the authorities.
what i find odd though is that you seem to emphasize more blame on her than on the murderer.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I think it's fairly ridiculous that she's being convicted for not doing something, the whole premise of that makes very little sense.The courts should not be able to punish someone for not taking action, in obviously distressing circumstances. She could have feared for her own life, for instance. I'm sure this will be received to yells of "she should put the child's life above her own!", but it's not down to a court to administer punishments for lack of parental intuitiveness.
confront nobody and call the cops. simple.
she allowed it to continue and thus was an accessory. makes sense to me at least.
Originally posted by Schecter
a mother's first instinct should be to protect her child, even if it means simply notifying the authorities.
Personally I don't find I have the authority to decide what a mother's first instinct should be.
Probably because mothers happen to be individuals.
Originally posted by Schecter
confront nobody and call the cops. simple.
she allowed it to continue and thus was an accessory. makes sense to me at least.
I agree, she should have done that.
I disagree, she shouldn't go to jail for 15 years for not doing it.
I tried to write a paper last year about the cognitive neuroscience behind Stockholm Syndrome.
I can see why people morally might be outraged at the mother's actions, and I can't personally say she deserves no punishment (even though I don't think the justice system should be in the business of punishing people), but they are 100% consistent with human psychology in those situations.
Likely, presuming the woman wasn't some sadist, she identified with the husband for other reasons, and was too worried/scared of the police because they would break that situation. Likely she believed that any change would make the situation worse. Blah, its such a complicated thing, but people in stressful situations like that will make very strange choices and alliances.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavYou'd shoot someone because they PROBABLY agreed with someone doing something bad? Personally, I'd learn more about the situation before taking action.
I would have had her shot...she didnt stop it because she probably agreed with him!
I believe letting shit like that happen is wrong, but seriously, over here murderers get let out after 10 over here (provided they behave).
Originally posted by lord xyz
You'd shoot someone because they PROBABLY agreed with someone doing something bad?
during a hostage situation in Stockholm Sweeden, where hostages were kept isolated from the outside world for ~14 days (iirc), by the end the hostages were ideologically and emotionally commited to the hostage takers.
Statements from the hostages during the event were along the lines of "this is our life now, don't try to save us", especially as the situation drew out and the prospects of a non-violent end seemed to become less and less. Hostages were against the police, were not interested in escaping, and it can be assumed from other cases of Stockholm syndrome and from their comments that had the opportunity arisen, they would have not attempted to escape.
After the hostage situation ended, many of the hostages kept positive feelings for the captors, many tried to fund their legal defense, and at least one had a romantic involvement with one of the captors.
Simalar, seemingly paradoxical, results were found in survivors of the Theatre hostage situation in Russia and of kidnapping events in general (though by no means are they expected or the norm, as most kidnapping events don't undergo the processes which lead to Stockholm Syndrome).
Many theorists have linked the way battered women defend their husbands as being similar to Stockholm Syndrome (I warn against making broad generalizations between the two, but it is possible). The most important factor being that, as long as the status quo is maintained, the woman or hostage knows behavioural patterns which will lead to survival, whereas change to the status quo, even from people who might be trying to help, will lead to a situation where the woman/hostage does not have specific guarantees about survival.
It sounds illogical because it is. Our brains process and respond to salient stimuli and situations before conscious thought (evidence shows that even 'consciously initiated' action is started sub-consciously before a person ever intends to move) and because of a) something called 'the interpreter' located in the left side of the brain, which makes narratives for why we do what we do based on available stimuli, and b) cognitive dissonance, which justifies our choices and actions to ourselves, the woman/hostage will act according to basic survival pincipals then afterward explain the situation to herself in a way that justifies that same behavioural pattern in similar situations. Because she lives in fear and is able to survive on the status quo, and has cognitively justified her actions, change is neurologically unavailable as a behavioural option and causes more cognitive dissonance and stress than not changing.
I don't know if you would call that "probably agreeing"
Originally posted by lord xyz
If that's the case, she needs a therapist, not to be locked up for 15 years.
regardless of her involvement or disinvolvement, obviously the lady should be seeing a therapist. As should the father.
If she poses a threat to society and was not simply a victim to ridiculous circumstance, then sure, lock her up.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Man I hate people with Schadenfreude.
categorical misconception of what I was describing. There is no joy, or pleaseure, or release in the mechanisms that cause "Stockholm" like behaviours. They are in fact bottom-up survival mechanisms which a person has little control over their feelings toward.
Unless you have some evidence that the mother actually enjoyed the child abuse?
Originally posted by inimalistExactly, she didn't pose a threat.
regardless of her involvement or disinvolvement, obviously the lady should be seeing a therapist. As should the father.If she poses a threat to society and was not simply a victim to ridiculous circumstance, then sure, lock her up.
categorical misconception of what I was describing. There is no joy, or pleaseure, or release in the mechanisms that cause "Stockholm" like behaviours. They are in fact bottom-up survival mechanisms which a person has little control over their feelings toward.
Unless you have some evidence that the mother actually enjoyed the child abuse?
No no no, I was refering to the people on this thread who want that woman dead and the man too. Having pleasure in those people being killed and hurt is schadenfreude.