# Mother puts her baby in a microwave!



## Karl Hungus (Nov 29, 2006)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_us/baby_death_microwave

Jesus, I just couldn't believe it when I read that. It sounds like something out of one of those dead baby jokes, but holy crap there's some sick people out there! 

What's the world coming to?


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 29, 2006)

Yeah I read that yesterday too. What digusts me the most is at the bottom where it mentioned in a similar case a Virginia woman who microwaved her newborn was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Five years??? That's it?? I know I know... the 'ol insanity plee. Regarless five years is ridiculously short for such a horrific crime.


Rev.


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2006)

Burn in hell, bitch.


----------



## playstopause (Nov 29, 2006)

rg7420user said:


> Burn in hell, bitch.



+ 1 000 000!!!!!!!!
She should be micro-waved too, so she can get the feel of it.

Just reading the headline of this thread gives me nausea.
(i have a 13 months baby girl)


----------



## metalfiend666 (Nov 29, 2006)

Well there's always post natal depression, that really messes people up. The other woman mention apparently suffered from epilepsy induced blackouts. I'm not defending microwaving a living being, that's an awful act, but I'm just putting some inpartial spin on the thread.


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2006)

metalfiend666 said:


> Well there's always post natal depression, that really messes people up. The other woman mention apparently suffered from epilepsy induced blackouts. I'm not defending microwaving a living being, that's an awful act, but I'm just putting some inpartial spin on the thread.



I'd like to put an impartial spin on her. In a microwave.


----------



## metalfiend666 (Nov 29, 2006)

Innocent until proven guilty remember. When she's been convivted, then you can nuke her.


----------



## Ken (Nov 29, 2006)

I heard this on the radio last night. Very few things absolutely disgust me, and this one did. I told my wife about it this morning, and she nearly doubled-over. 

I still can't really believe it.


----------



## noodles (Nov 29, 2006)

rg7420user said:


> Burn in hell, bitch.



Satan: Right this way, ma'am. Jump on in. How much do you weigh? OK, Defrost, 130lbs, Beef, Start.


----------



## Drew (Nov 29, 2006)

Though, if her story's true, it could have been the babysitter. 

Remember, innocent until proven guilty, no matter how heinous the crime looks from the outside. It's the price of being an american.


----------



## Your Majesty (Nov 29, 2006)

rg7420user said:


> Burn in hell, bitch.



I second that!

Some people should not be parents.


----------



## Ken (Nov 29, 2006)

Drew said:


> Though, if her story's true, it could have been the babysitter.
> 
> Remember, innocent until proven guilty, no matter how heinous the crime looks from the outside. It's the price of being an american.



For me, it's not about guilt or innocence, because I don't give a fuck about either her or a babysitter. The perpetrator will get their due. My heart hurts for what that baby went through.


----------



## playstopause (Nov 29, 2006)

metalfiend666 said:


> Innocent until proven guilty remember. When she's been convivted, then you can nuke her.





Drew said:


> Though, if her story's true, it could have been the babysitter.
> 
> Remember, innocent until proven guilty, no matter how heinous the crime looks from the outside. It's the price of being an american.



Something like that can only be said by someone who's not a father yet 

Trust me, when you get to be a father, you get to know what _the true meaning of fear is_.
You also a very high "rage factor" get when you hear stuff like what this mother did.
No matter if "justice" or whatever we call it comes into it or not.


----------



## ohio_eric (Nov 29, 2006)

I know a lot of you want an eye for an eye but as Drew said she's innocent until proven guilty. Plus she might have severe mental illness or God only knows what. I'm not condoning what happened to the kid, it's a horrific way to die. But wait for all the facts and let justice be served.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Nov 29, 2006)

Man, the idea of someone actually doing that is fucked up.


----------



## eaeolian (Nov 29, 2006)

Drew said:


> Though, if her story's true, it could have been the babysitter.


Unlikely. A parent would most likely know if a newborn had high-heat injuries from their responses. If the sitter had put the child to bed, I'd see a possibility, but if they interacted with the baby beforehand, I'd find it very unlikely...



Drew said:


> Remember, innocent until proven guilty, no matter how heinous the crime looks from the outside. It's the price of being an american.



That's price of civilization, really. It's not perfect, but any other way is too easy to abuse. As a father, I abhor the actions. As a jurist, I'd need to see the evidence. Emotion has no place in a courtroom, no matter how lawyers try to use it.


----------



## Drew (Nov 29, 2006)

playstopause said:


> Something like that can only be said by someone who's not a father yet



Sorry, dude, but I'm going to call bullshit. 

"nuking" the perpetrator won't bring the baby back to life. Nothing will. The american judiciary system isn't a formal way to exact revenge, it's a system whose purpose is to both keep dangerous criminals from being able to commit additional crimes, and to deter people from commiting crimes in the first place. 

If something happens to your daugher, the natural human reaction is blind rage. It's exactly FOR this reason that the judicial system exists the way it does, with the burden of guilt upon the accuser and not as a form of revenge but as a form of deterrance. 

She's innocent until proven guilty exactly because your first reaction as a father would be to kill her, and in a highly emotional situation such as this, you probably aren't thinking clearly and thus shouldn't be allowed to have the life of another human being in your hands. 

Mike, the sense I got was the babysitter put the baby to bed. If it was the mother, then I agree, she's due to be found guilty (the injuries would be instantaneous, we've all heard the story about the old woman putting her cat in the microwave and it exploding, and frankly I'm shocked the same didn't happen here) and then playstopause will get the payback he's looking for. But short of that, it'll be a tough case to prosecute...


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 29, 2006)

I think it's pretty clear the anger should be towards who did this and that, at this moment, is really unknown. It was either the mother or the babysitter. Either way this crime evokes a strong feeling of digust and anger. But since you mentioned the legal system acting as a deterrent I'll say unlike your views though Drew I do feel microwaving the guilty the person, or "eye for an eye or worse" type punishment DOES act to a degree to deter some from commiting horrific acts such as this. As it stands most murderers get time in prison. As you can see that other mother only got 5 years. Again, I know I know... insanity. But when criminals know there's an extremely torturous painful price to pay for a certain crime I do believe a large number would be deterred. Look at criminals in past history with brutal dictators. In the time of Vlad the Impaler no one would even dare steal! Not saying prison isn't scary in and of itself but it's far less scary than being microwaved. Only problem is having to be 100% absolutely positive of guilt lest a big big mistake!


Rev.


----------



## Drew (Nov 29, 2006)

Rev2010 said:


> But since you mentioned the legal system acting as a deterrent I'll say unlike your views though Drew I do feel microwaving the guilty the person, or "eye for an eye or worse" type punishment DOES act to a degree to deter some from commiting horrific acts such as this.



 Reread my post dude, my argument was that justice WAS a deterrent, not simple revenge for the family of the victem.


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2006)

What part of your day do you say to yourself, "Hey, I think I'll drop my kid in the microwave."


----------



## Mastodon (Nov 29, 2006)

The thing that scares me the most about when these crimes occur is people's response to it.

Everyone flips out and goes on about how the accused is disgusting and dosn't deserve to live and how angry this makes them. 

My response is usual from the "shit happens, rather then get upset, let's examine WHY it happened" angle.


----------



## Buzz762 (Nov 29, 2006)

Drew said:


> Though, if her story's true, it could have been the babysitter.
> 
> Remember, innocent until proven guilty, no matter how heinous the crime looks from the outside. It's the price of being an american.



Innocent until proven guilty, although something like 80%+ of the people charged with a crime are actually guilty.




Mastodon said:


> The thing that scares me the most about when these crimes occur is people's response to it.
> 
> Everyone flips out and goes on about how the accused is disgusting and dosn't deserve to live and how angry this makes them.
> 
> My response is usual from the "shit happens, rather then get upset, let's examine WHY it happened" angle.



Why it happened? I smell a great criminology debate.


----------



## kmanick (Nov 29, 2006)

that's just plain old disgusting.
WTF is wrong with people today?


----------



## playstopause (Nov 29, 2006)

Drew said:


> Sorry, dude, but I'm going to call bullshit.



Honestly dude, I don't really care about what the american justice is about and if it does this or that. 

I'm talking about the fact that that kind of headline _*in itself*_ (the baby in the microwave thing. Then again, i don't care about who did it and if she's guilty or not) is bringing up some huge feelings that can be _felt more_ by someone who as a child. That doesn't mean others don't have any reaction to it. I'm just saying parents feel it trough a magnifying glass.
That's what i'm talking about: feelings.

If you call that bullshit, then, for me, it just re-enforce the fact that you can't really get what i'm talking about and then re-direct my thought on "the way the american justice system works" avenue.
Maybe i don't get the full idea behind what you wrote (again, english is just my 2nd language), so sorry if i misunderstood.
...



> "Nuking the perpetrator won't bring the baby back to life. Nothing will".


Ok, i agree, but shall we sit there and shut the fuck up?
If the last option we have is saying : "Nuke the bitch!" (because we blindly put our faith in justice and it's the "price to be american"),
then let's do it if it helps us to releave some pressure caused by such horrible news...
Anyway, i don't have to pay that price.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Nov 29, 2006)

The most worrying part of this is that stories like this don't shock me anymore. Whatever sick, perverted, inhuman act you can think of, you can guarantee someone, somewhere has either done it, or will do it. 

Kneejerk reactions to crimes like this solve nothing though, and in the long run, will undermine the effectiveness of the legal system.


----------



## metalfiend666 (Nov 29, 2006)

I totally agree that whoever commited this horrible crime should face justice. Doing something like that to a defenceless infant is unblievably cruel. However automatically assuming the mother is guilty because she is the one facing trail and demanding she "burns in hell" etc isn't the way to go about it. Yes, the likelyhood is that she did commit this terrible act, but as observers reading a new artical all we can say for sure is she is the person the authorities believe is most likely to have done it.

This is why we have trials, to assertain if someone actually is guilty of the crime they are accused of. It's also to find out why they commited that act, be it willingly as they are truely sick, or unwillingly as they are mentally ill. That is all matters for the courts to decide and not for an angry mob to storm in and lynch them as they seem the person most likely to be guilty.

I'm also against the use of lethal punishment as there have been far too many cases where someone has since be proved innocent. You can't bring someone back to life, but you can release them if they're in prison. I believe that for the most serious of crimes life should mean life. It gets a dangerous person out of society and gives them many, many years to punish themselves by contemplating the acts that led them to be in the situation they are.


----------



## Clydefrog (Nov 29, 2006)

Drew said:


> Though, if her story's true, it could have been the babysitter.
> 
> Remember, innocent until proven guilty, no matter how heinous the crime looks from the outside. It's the price of being an american.



That's in the court's eye's only.

As an American, I reserve every right to pass judgement on this evil woman from the first instant I hear the story.


----------



## Mastodon (Nov 29, 2006)

playstopause said:


> Honestly dude, I don't really care about what the american justice is about and if it does this or that.
> 
> I'm talking about the fact that that kind of headline _*in itself*_ (the baby in the microwave thing. Then again, i don't care about who did it and if she's guilty or not) is bringing up some huge feelings that can be _felt more_ by someone who as a child. That doesn't mean others don't have any reaction to it. I'm just saying parents feel it trough a magnifying glass.
> That's what i'm talking about: feelings.
> ...



I believe that was what drew was adressing here though...



drew said:


> If something happens to your daugher, the natural human reaction is blind rage. It's exactly FOR this reason that the judicial system exists the way it does, with the burden of guilt upon the accuser and not as a form of revenge but as a form of deterrance.
> 
> She's innocent until proven guilty exactly because your first reaction as a father would be to kill her, and in a highly emotional situation such as this, you probably aren't thinking clearly and thus shouldn't be allowed to have the life of another human being in your hands.



Our last option is not to say "nuke the bitch"

Sure it could relieve your stress, but it dosn't achieve anything outside of that.

We could choose not to get angry about this, and examine the event from a non-objective perspective.

That way we may come up with some answers other than "she did it because she's an evil bitch"


----------



## playstopause (Nov 29, 2006)

Again, my  : Well, i don't know if that was trully what Drew was adressing on that specific paragraph. I sometimes don't get every subtleties of the english language... Sorry again (and again).

If so, I do agree with this paragraph, i just don't like the "justice is right and will fix everything because we like to think it does" magical thought.

We humans beings often think we are so right when we're not necessarily. 
Of course, justice solves a lot of society's problem. Otherwise, it would be chaos.
I just think it's not an _answer in itself_... And by talking about a parent's feeling regarding true horror done to a harmless kid shouldn't be mixed with a "the law is right because it's like this" debate. 
It's just 2 separate things, 2 different debates, imo.

Then again, i expressed views of a feeling of "wanting to nuke that bitch" (wich wasn't my quote, btw), wich is very different from taking a real gesture to do something to that woman. I mean, i know the law is like that to stop people from killing other people when they're angry at them.

Just talking about the feeling, not the direct action.
And by sayin' that this feeling is bullshit just proves my point : you only know once you're a father or a mother.
And that can't be denied. Because when you are one, you can't choose to be or not to be angry about it.
You just are angry and that's it. No rationnal thinking is gonna help... at all.
To me that's the bullshit : the rationnal thinking. It's clever and all but...
It just doesn't add up for me. But hey... It's just my  No offense.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 29, 2006)

Drew said:


> Reread my post dude, my argument was that justice WAS a deterrent, not simple revenge for the family of the victem.



Hiya Drew. I got what you're saying. I was referring to this part of your post, ""nuking" the perpetrator won't bring the baby back to life. Nothing will. The american judiciary system isn't a formal way to exact revenge, it's a system whose purpose is to both keep dangerous criminals from being able to commit additional crimes, and to deter people from commiting crimes in the first place. " In that respect what I was saying is that I do feel that once someone is found 100% guilty that severe punishment would further help deter an *amount* of criminals from committing unusually vicious crimes. Granted, the 100% guilty I'm referring to are situations such as a person confessing fully with their lawyer present (non mid-interrogation), overwhelmingly obvious evidence that points right to the suspect, and possibly even having an eye witness(es).


Rev.


----------



## Naren (Nov 29, 2006)

Giving someone only 5 years in jail for doing something like this only is telling the criminal that this is the small price you have to pay for murder. "Hey, I can't take this anymore. I need to get rid of my baby? What? I'll only get 5 years in prison and a life without having to deal with little Joey anymore? Woah, sign me up!" It's just like something I read where there was a school that had a problem with parents consistently showing up 30 minutes to an hour late to pick up their kids, so they started charging a couple dollars for however long the parents were late. Did that deter the problem? No, to the contrary. On average, parents started to arrive later and later because they didn't feel as guilty since they were paying the school/teachers, almost as if it were babysitting or daycare. In the same way, someone might think, "I kill this baby and I get 5-10 years in jail... Well, that's the price I have to pay. It's not really that bad." If we started handing out death row sentences for this, it might help prevent some of this shit from happening. A baby is worth no less than an adult. If you cruelly murder a college student, you might get the death penalty. Why don't you get that for killing a baby? Insanity is no excuse.

I don't think I need to comment on the actual act that was committed in this case.


----------



## metalfiend666 (Nov 30, 2006)

Eric, I agree with you that every human life has the same worth. If anything I think killing an innocent child is much worse than killing an adult as they had absolutely no way of defending themselves.

I have to disagree with you with the part about insanity not being an excuse. If someone is proved beyond doubt to be insane they *don't* have the control over their actions that we do. That's why crimes commited by someone who is insane are delt with in a different manner.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Nov 30, 2006)

metalfiend666 said:


> I have to disagree with you with the part about insanity not being an excuse. If someone is proved beyond doubt to be insane they *don't* have the control over their actions that we do. That's why crimes commited by someone who is insane are delt with in a different manner.



Agreed. Not that a punishment isn't due for a crime like this, but it shouldn't be the same one handed out to someone who did it knowingly and maliciously.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

Why not execute an insane person? Fuck treatment, if they forget to take a pill or they relapse or something, someone else, or several people may die. Insanity is no excuse. Lots of people have schizophrenia (sp?) or depression and a whole whack of other mental illnesses, but they don't all have the need to go out and kill people. If we're going to treat everyone, why don't we just do mass hypnosis on the jails full of criminals and make them never commit a crime for the rest of their lives? It may stick on some people, and they could be productive citizens for the rest of their lives. Others may not be able to be hypnotized, but could pretend anyways, and wait until they get out of jail, and go kill more people, just like mental patients.


----------



## metalfiend666 (Nov 30, 2006)

I bet you'd change your tune if someone in your life had been affected by mental illness.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Nov 30, 2006)

metalfiend666 said:


> I bet you'd change your tune if someone in your life had been affected by mental illness.



Exactly.

I'd say spending the rest of your life in an asylum is a pretty nasty punishment anyway.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

Actually I have several relatives who have mental illness, and several friends with depression. However, not one of them has killed anyone, and I can think of 2 specific people who aren't slightly crazy...they're nuttier than bat shit. If they did kill someone, I would be all for punishing them.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Nov 30, 2006)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Actually I have several relatives who have mental illness, and several friends with depression. However, not one of them has killed anyone, and I can think of 2 specific people who aren't slightly crazy...they're nuttier than bat shit. If they did kill someone, I would be all for punishing them.



Neither of us said they shouldn't be punished, just that the circumstances are different, and that that should be taken into account in the trial.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

I know, but that's where we disagree. I think they should be given punishment on par with sane people, maybe even more severe. My reasoning is is that a sane person is more likely to reform because they understand their actions. If you could somehow instill morality (I wouldn't hold my breath though) then they could see the error of their ways. A mentally ill person doesn't even realize that they have done something wrong, and if you treat them, their illness could return after they are released and they could go on a rampage killing more people.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Nov 30, 2006)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I know, but that's where we disagree. I think they should be given punishment on par with sane people, maybe even more severe. My reasoning is is that a sane person is more likely to reform because they understand their actions. If you could somehow instill morality (I wouldn't hold my breath though) then they could see the error of their ways. A mentally ill person doesn't even realize that they have done something wrong, and if you treat them, their illness could return after they are released and they could go on a rampage killing more people.



I was under the impression that mentally ill people who commit crimes like this tend not to get released...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

I think they do in like 10 years or whatever their sentence IF they've been "cured" or are deemed no longer a threat to anyone, I could be wrong. I don't think it's short term, but I don't think it's the rest of their life. Someone who actually knows law should clarify this. If they spent the rest of their life in the asylum I wouldn't have any problem with it. Being a sane person in a mental institution is probably going to suck more than being crazy in a regular jail.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Nov 30, 2006)

I think most mentally ill murderers in the UK tend to get locked up in secure homes. I used to live within driving distance of the one that held all the worst lunatics in the country. The village nearby had to be fitted with an alarm in case one of them escapes...

Another point; if she was genuinely not in control of herself when it happenned, and is capable of realising what she's done when she comes round, then she'll have to live with that for the rest of her life, which will probably be a far worse punishment than anything the state can inflict on her.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

That might not stop her from doing it again if she's released and her mental illness re-occurs.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Nov 30, 2006)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> That might not stop her from doing it again if she's released and her mental illness re-occurs.



That's why people like that tend to be contained. It's just locking her in a normal jail or executing her probably wouldn't be appropriate.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> That's why people like that tend to be contained. It's just locking her in a normal jail or executing her probably wouldn't be appropriate.



Probably be a lot cheaper though  If she's not going to get released, then I don't see the point in treatment anyways, so why spend money on doctors and all that? Mentally ill people who are free don't get treatment if they can't afford it, not that that is a huge issue here in Canada, but we still have to pay for some meds and stuff.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Nov 30, 2006)

She'd be treated, but at the expense of her freedom, and any chance of rebuilding her life. Not a brilliant way to live your remaining years.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> She'd be treated, but at the expense of her freedom, and any chance of rebuilding her life. Not a brilliant way to live your remaining years.




Correction, at the expense of the tax payers to feed/cloth/treat her. Not a brilliant way to spend my hard earned cash  Not that it would lower my taxes any, but Canadians are taxed a retarded amount of income tax, then we're taxed %14 on everything we buy. It'd be nice if we could cut some costs a bit and save me some cash, not that I'd want to give up my free health care. BTW I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, I just have no sympathy for anyone who does anything like this, whether they actually are crazy or not.


----------



## Drew (Nov 30, 2006)

First dude, your english is excellent for someone who isn't a native english speaker. 



playstopause said:


> And by sayin' that this feeling is bullshit just proves my point : you only know once you're a father or a mother.
> And that can't be denied. Because when you are one, you can't choose to be or not to be angry about it.
> You just are angry and that's it. No rationnal thinking is gonna help... at all.
> To me that's the bullshit : the rationnal thinking. It's clever and all but...
> It just doesn't add up for me. But hey... It's just my  No offense.



And that's sort of what I'm getting at - whether or not you're a parent bears absolutely no influence on how this needs to be handled. I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset about this - of course you did, it's a human life lost in an absolutely appalling manner. It's human to be angry, and that's ok. 

But the way you're directing your anger is what I'm talking about - whether or not you're a parent doesn't change the fact that we don't KNOW that this parent is responsible for the crime. Saying "nuke the bitch" it completely misguided rage becase we don't know she's the person responsible, and two murders don't make one any better. 

Part of it might be simple miscommunication, but what I got from your post was that you were saying the only reason I didn't want the mother to fry too was that I didn't have a kid of my own. That's absolutely not the case - my first instinct isn't "fry the mom!" because my first instinct is "let's find out what happened first and not jump to conclusions."

If the mother is in fact guilty? sure, fry her. But if she's innocent, then suddenly we have two innocent deaths on our hands. I don't think "justice" is magical, far from it. I just think it's the only thing we DO have here, because blind rage won't accomplish anything. Being a parent or not has nothing to do with that.


----------



## playstopause (Nov 30, 2006)

I soo agree with you (that my english is good  ). Kiddin'.

I think the only miscommunication comes from the fact that i just said that being a parent triples how you feel when you hear stuff that concerns childrens. 
It's no justification to the fact that this needs to be handled in a certain way. That being said, i'm totally agree with everything you said (we should not do actions based on the rage we feel after hearing such stuff and jump to conclusions, weither you're a parent or not).

It's tough coming down to agree with such a sensitive subject.
Reading all of the posts in this thread just confirms it.

But hey, it makes good conversations


----------



## Drew (Nov 30, 2006)

Ok, so we are on the same page - you're probably more upset about it than I am, since it's a little more personal for you, but 1.) I'm still disgusted that someone could do this to a kid, and 2.) we both agree that, rage or not, this has to be treated without passion so not to punish an innocent party. 

Cool, I agree, it makes for good conversation.


----------



## HighGain510 (Nov 30, 2006)

Very sad to hear about what happend to that infant, not cool at all. I know some people who are mentally ill (not family, but some good friends of mine do have mentally ill relatives that I have met on several occasions) and honestly, I don't think they should be KILLED if they commit a crime. I do, however, think that they need to be removed (read: locked up somewhere, not killed) from society so they are no longer a threat to anyone again. It's not entirely their fault if they cannot fully control/comprehend their actions. I do draw the line for the damn idiots who "claim insanity" after they have commited the crime just to get off easy. If you're NOT insane, and you try to claim insanity, I DO think you deserve to be killed for killing someone else because you DID know what you were doing and you did it anyways no matter what state of mind you were in. Do you think I would be allowed to get out of my car and kick the idiot in the balls who was tailgaiting me last night then tell him "dude, you can't be angry about this.... I'm not mentally stable!"?  Nope, that wouldn't fly. I wish they had a more error-proof way of determining TRUE mental illness though to separate the real crazies from the jackasses who claim it after they commit a violent crime to get out of a more serious punishment; THAT is what I think is effed up about situations such as this! Just my .02 here.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

HighGain510 said:


> I don't think they should be KILLED if they commit a crime.



I'm not saying fuck all crazy people and let's kill them all, or even if they rob a bank they should be killed, etc. I'm saying there shouldn't be special treatment, if it's a capital case if they were sane, then it should be if they were insane.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 30, 2006)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I know, but that's where we disagree. I think they should be given punishment on par with sane people, maybe even more severe. My reasoning is is that a sane person is more likely to reform because they understand their actions.



I wholeheartedly agree here. Giving much lighter sentences for insanity plees is nuts. Having a defect in the brain is far harder to overcome a propensity to harm than a sane person. So why give them less time in a more relaxed captive environment (mental hospital)? It's not like we have the technology to "cure" mental illness. And the point about taxes is an excellent one. A prisoner in a mental institution costs far more money than one in a standard prison. With the expense of medical doctors and drugs? We're talking a lot of tax payer dollars.


Rev.


----------



## HighGain510 (Nov 30, 2006)

I agree, I'm just saying if these other guys who are currently serving "life in prison" (which is a crock too, many get out early for good behavior.... so stupid...) don't get the death penalty for killing people, I don't think the mentally ill should either. I didn't say you thought that either!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

HighGain510 said:


> I agree, I'm just saying if these other guys who are currently serving "life in prison" (which is a crock too, many get out early for good behavior.... so stupid...) don't get the death penalty for killing people, I don't think the mentally ill should either. I didn't say you thought that either!



I know, I was just clarifying.


----------



## HighGain510 (Nov 30, 2006)

Word, no problemo senor!


----------



## Mastodon (Nov 30, 2006)

Naren said:


> Giving someone only 5 years in jail for doing something like this only is telling the criminal that this is the small price you have to pay for murder. "Hey, I can't take this anymore. I need to get rid of my baby? What? I'll only get 5 years in prison and a life without having to deal with little Joey anymore? Woah, sign me up!" It's just like something I read where there was a school that had a problem with parents consistently showing up 30 minutes to an hour late to pick up their kids, so they started charging a couple dollars for however long the parents were late. Did that deter the problem? No, to the contrary. On average, parents started to arrive later and later because they didn't feel as guilty since they were paying the school/teachers, almost as if it were babysitting or daycare. In the same way, someone might think, "I kill this baby and I get 5-10 years in jail... Well, that's the price I have to pay. It's not really that bad." If we started handing out death row sentences for this, it might help prevent some of this shit from happening. A baby is worth no less than an adult. If you cruelly murder a college student, you might get the death penalty. Why don't you get that for killing a baby? Insanity is no excuse.
> 
> I don't think I need to comment on the actual act that was committed in this case.



But for someone to think "I kill this baby and I get 5-10 years in jail... Well, that's the price I have to pay. It's not really that bad." means that they're rationalizing.


The people who commit these crimes are usually loose in the the head, and would not rationalize like that.


rev2010 said:


> I wholeheartedly agree here. Giving much lighter sentences for insanity plees is nuts. Having a defect in the brain is far harder to overcome a propensity to harm than a sane person. So why give them less time in a more relaxed captive environment (mental hospital)? It's not like we have the technology to "cure" mental illness. And the point about taxes is an excellent one. A prisoner in a mental institution costs far more money than one in a standard prison. With the expense of medical doctors and drugs? We're talking a lot of tax payer dollars.



So we just lock them up like normal prisoners, causing them further mental trauma, until we one day have a cure for their illness?

But you don't want to use tax dollars to reach that cure? (From my perspective this was implied, please correct me if this is not what you meant)

So they just end up being dismissed in prisons and we reach a cure much slower(or never) and so these types of crimes continue to be commited.

( I don't want to be rude and come across as chastising, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.)


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

Why not? Baby = 18-20 years of your life raising it, and lots of money. Killing baby = 5-10 years in a mental institution, with free drugs, food, and living. Doesn't take much reasoning to come up with that.


----------



## Drew (Nov 30, 2006)

Mastodon said:


> The people who commit these crimes are usually loose in the the head, and would not rationalize like that.



Or too stupid to realize that a microwave isn't a good way to warm something up. 

If the mother DID microwave her baby, my money says she was just trying to warm it up or dry it a bit, much like the famous story of the old woman who tried to dry her cat in the microwave, and blew it up. 

JJ, I'm going to pretend I didn't just read that.


----------



## Rick (Nov 30, 2006)

Drew said:


> Or too stupid to realize that a microwave isn't a good way to warm something up.
> 
> If the mother DID microwave her baby, my money says she was just trying to warm it up or dry it a bit, much like the famous story of the old woman who tried to dry her cat in the microwave, and blew it up.
> 
> JJ, I'm going to pretend I didn't just read that.



So she doesn't own a towel?


----------



## Jason (Nov 30, 2006)

I actaully agree with Mastadon. Instead of being outraged find out if she is. She metanlly fucked up? or is she just a moral less scum bag?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Nov 30, 2006)

Drew said:


> JJ, I'm going to pretend I didn't just read that.



It was in response to the "But for someone to think "I kill this baby and I get 5-10 years in jail... Well, that's the price I have to pay. It's not really that bad." means that they're rationalizing."

I didn't mean to say "Hey everyone let's nuke some babies because it's easier than raising them", it was just showing some easy reasoning that some dumb shit could come to.


----------



## Mastodon (Nov 30, 2006)

rg7420user said:


> So she doesn't own a towel?



He's joking that either a. she is insane or b. she's got such a low IQ that it dosn't occur to her that a microwave may harm her baby (her thinking is that it will quickly warm the baby up with no harm done)


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 30, 2006)

rg7420user said:


> So she doesn't own a towel?



Yeah seriously.



Mastodon said:


> But you don't want to use tax dollars to reach that cure?



Sorry, but do you honestly think convicted prisoners are used to further mental health medicine rather than just being treated with what's available?? Look... if they are being used as lab subjects, which I seriously doubt, we've had at least 50 years of continuing mental health study. What the hell is taking medical professionals so long to come up with a cure or at the least a substantially acceptable treatment??


Rev.


----------



## Drew (Dec 1, 2006)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> It was in response to the "But for someone to think "I kill this baby and I get 5-10 years in jail... Well, that's the price I have to pay. It's not really that bad." means that they're rationalizing."
> 
> I didn't mean to say "Hey everyone let's nuke some babies because it's easier than raising them", it was just showing some easy reasoning that some dumb shit could come to.



It's like the joke about the woman whose mother dies, goes to the funeral, and meets the man of her dreams, and then the next week kills her sister. You're supposed to figure out why, and if you respond "to get another chance to get the guy's number," then you have psychopathic tendancies because you're _willing_ to rationalize things like killing your family members for personal gain. 

I'm just saying, you seemed disturbingly OK with limiting your analysis to just the math, there...


----------



## Rick (Dec 1, 2006)

Mastodon said:


> He's joking that either a. she is insane or b. she's got such a low IQ that it dosn't occur to her that a microwave may harm her baby (her thinking is that it will quickly warm the baby up with no harm done)



Who knows which way. I guess both could work.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 1, 2006)

Even if someone has psychopathic tendancies it doesn't mean I'm going to go microwave a baby. I was stating the logic someone could use to arrive at a conclusion. I wouldn't kill a baby, if only for the simple fact it hasn't grown up enough to really piss me off yet. My reasoning was based on a statement someone else had made, I didn't mean to condone or defend the actions this woman may or may not have taken, and I have a feeling you're not really accusing me of that, you may just be fucking with me. I don't know you well enough to tell


----------



## Rick (Dec 1, 2006)

I don't know why but this reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw here in town.

"Nuke a gay baby whale for Jesus."

I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but I couldn't stop laughing.


----------



## Mastodon (Dec 1, 2006)

Rev2010 said:


> Yeah seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well the problem with most convicted criminals in the US is that they're illiterate. 

I was referring to people who we know are clinically insane.


----------



## Drew (Dec 1, 2006)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> ...I have a feeling you're not really accusing me of that, you may just be fucking with me. I don't know you well enough to tell



Bingo.


----------



## Korbain (Dec 3, 2006)

holy jesus! Microwaving a baby lol. What the fuck! never heard of anything like this before


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Dec 11, 2006)

Mmm, microwaved baby...

Seriously, who the fuck would ever think this was a good idea?


----------



## jim777 (Dec 12, 2006)

I'm surprised it doesn't happen a lot more often. You can kill a baby legally at any point through out your pregnancy, even in the delivery room minutes before birth. Some people were bound to figure another month wouldn't hurt. It's a disgusting story, but it just didn't shock me (ruined my day, sure).
Babies need to take their fingers out of their mouths and organize and get themselves some rights and legal protection.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 12, 2006)

What are you son? 2 weeks old? Isn't it about time you got a job and moved out?


----------



## sevenstringdeath (Dec 12, 2006)

i say burn the bitch!


----------

