(V'ger) Steri-lize....steri-lize...(/V'ger)
In-depth in reference to the parents' drug use, criminal history, and history of abusing a previous child:
Parents' criminal and abuse history
Jesus, WTF's wrong with these people?
Can't really blame social services on this one, because the parents lied as to where they were living, for one thing. That puts the "oh, but they were
poor , and living in the basement of a house...it didn't have electricity or
anything, so it's not their fault." B-F-S.
OOooooooooohhhh, shit like this just burns me
up!
Sidhe
What's your point, Sid? Yeah, that's a pretty awful story. Agreed, "We we're poor" is no even a faintly legitimate excuse. So just what are you trying to convey here?
"While in labor and waiting for a taxi ride to Hopkins, Swann reportedly gave birth to one of the twins, but left the newborn in her pant leg, which should have been another red flag, according to city health officials."
Red flag? naahhh.
Originally posted by marichiko
What's your point, Sid? Yeah, that's a pretty awful story. Agreed, "We we're poor" is no even a faintly legitimate excuse. So just what are you trying to convey here?
My point is that these are the kinds of people who should not be allowed to have children.
Let's see...abuse of a previous child, who was subsequently taken by child services; extreme abuse of the two one-month-old infants, which probably included starving them (if you looked at the weight of the children); drug use while pregnant; and what the hell's up with leaving the kid in her pants leg?
They should rip her plumbing out. That's how I feel, and I'm not sorry for it.
People don't think about this, because it isn't in their faces all the time--it tends to get relegated to page five of the newspaper, and to a sound bite on the news--behind which sports star got busted doing coke and the latest fashions...but dammit, somebody should be watching out for these poor kids!
Sidhe
Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
My point is that these are the kinds of people who should not be allowed to have children.
Let's see...abuse of a previous child, who was subsequently taken by child services; extreme abuse of the two one-month-old infants, which probably included starving them (if you looked at the weight of the children); drug use while pregnant; and what the hell's up with leaving the kid in her pants leg?
They should rip her plumbing out. That's how I feel, and I'm not sorry for it.
People don't think about this, because it isn't in their faces all the time--it tends to get relegated to page five of the newspaper, and to a sound bite on the news--behind which sports star got busted doing coke and the latest fashions...but dammit, somebody should be watching out for these poor kids!
Sidhe
I don't know about ripping their plumbing out. But if they ever got out of jail (and they'd be there for the rest of their lives, dealing with "Bubba" if I had any say about it); I'd make it a condition of their release that they be on Norplant and whatever the male equivalent is. They'd be subjected to mandatory checks at surprise intervals just like someone on parole for drug charges and that would be for LIFE or in the case of the woman, until about 6 doctors independently agreed that she was well beyond menopause.
I'm of the opinion that you need to stop sticking your nose in other people's genitals.
Good thing it's still free America then, huh?:p
I'm Canadian, your paltry constitution doesn't apply to me.
Oh yeah...in Canada, you even let prisoners vote...:rolleyes:
http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/15112002/n3.shtml
Damn right, they should be allowed to vote!
I don't even know why I'm arguing this.
So far you've posted about 20 random rape and assault stories followed by you *sigh*ing and demanding sterilisation.
Who are you hoping to convince?
Graham Stewart, executive director of the John Howard Society, agrees.
"I think it unlikely that any government could come up with legislation that is justified to withhold voting rights," he says. "I hope the government realizes that. In a democracy, the voters pick the politicians; the politicians don’t pick the voters."
Good quote.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Damn right, they should be allowed to vote!
ok, just curious. why do you think prisoners should maintain this right?
i think the reason we don't let them vote is that they are in a situation where others exert control over them. hypothetically a warden could cause all of his prisoners to vote for x candidate in exchange for some privilege. that could totally skew the results.
edit: added 2nd paragraph.
They should be able to vote because no person is in ANY position to withdraw voting rights from another citizen.
A democracy is based on the voice of the people, and as soon as somebody has the ability to snuff that voice, regardless of whose voice it is, democracy has failed.
These people are in jail, they're not dead. As long as someone is alive, they have rights as a human being.
Let's see....the prisoners make their "living" breaking laws...so let's give them the right to elect the people who both make the laws and enforce them?
Riiiiiiiiiight....
Regardless of how "uncomfortable" it makes your regular Joe.
don't you think it would be pretty easy for a guard to induce people under his control to vote the way he likes?
and besides, they are in prison for a reason. there are consequences to actions.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
They should be able to vote because no person is in ANY position to withdraw voting rights from another citizen.
A democracy is based on the voice of the people, and as soon as somebody has the ability to snuff that voice, regardless of whose voice it is, democracy has failed.
These people are in jail, they're not dead. As long as someone is alive, they have rights as a human being.
A democracy should be based on the voice of the people who uphold that society, not the ones who prey on it.
These people are in jail. While they are in jail, they should not have the right to affect the society in any way. The reason they're in jail is because they have affected society adversely. Therefore they should be stripped of all but the right to food, water, clothing, and shelter. When they've paid society back and are once again free, then they should regain the rights of a citizen.
Sidhe
Those consequences do not squelch the basic right of human beings, as much as some would like them to.
I don't care how much you hate prisoners, you don't get to stamp on their rights as human beings.
Sidhe, when you became batshit crazy, did you hear a snap?
What about all the people in jail in China for believing in Democracy?
What about the people we put in jail for minor drug offences? Smoke a joint and you're out of the loop? Or murderers who are WRONGLY convicted and thrown in jail?
Being in a building you can't get out of does not make a person a piece of shit on your boot, Sidhe.
Get off your horse.
Nowhere have I said that I "hated" prisoners. However, prison is supposed to be punishment. While they are there, they should be afforded the aforementioned basic rights. The point of being in prison is to remove the person from society. If that's so, then they should be removed completely, until they've served their sentence. They shouldn't have the rights bestowed upon the free members of society until they are once again free members of society.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
I don't care how much you hate prisoners, you don't get to stamp on their rights as human beings.
i don't hate prisoners. at the current time i have a cousin and an uncle in prison for different reasons. they chose to break the law. they have lost their rights in many areas.
since the idea of a guard or warden exerting undue influence on prisoner's votes, how about this one:
politician in area with a large number of prisoners runs for office with one of his ideas being that he will free prisoners that fall within categories x,y, and z. prisoners would undoubtedly vote for this person. they should not have the option to influence this election because that is basic bribery. "you get me into office, i'll get you out of jail"
bad idea.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Sidhe, when you became batshit crazy, did you hear a snap?
i think it was more of a mild burbling. rofl.......funny, carb, funny
JAIL...A player lands in Jail when. . . (1.) his token lands on the space marked "Go to Jail"; (2.) he draws a card marked "Go to Jail"; (3.) he throws doubles three times in succession.
When a player is sent to Jail he cannot collect $200 salary in that move since, regardless of where his token is on the board, he must move it directly into Jail. A player's turn ends when he is sent to Jail.
If a player is not "sent to Jail" but in the ordinary course of play lands on that space, he is "Just Visiting", incurs no penalty, and moves ahead in the usual manner on his next turn.
A player gets out of Jail by... (1.) throwing doubles on any of his next three turns. If he succeeds in doing this he immediately moves forward the number of spaces shown by his doubles throw. Even though he has thrown doubles he does not take another turn; (2.) using the "Get Out of Jail Free" card if he has it; (3.) purchasing the "Get Out of Jail Free" card from another player and playing it; (4.) paying a fine of $50 before he rolls the dice on either of his next two turns
If the player does not throw doubles by his third turn he must pay the $50 fine. He then gets out of Jail and immediately moves forward the number of spaces shown by his throw.
Even though he is in Jail, a player may buy or sell property, buy or sell houses and hotels and collect rents.
this is from the official parker bros monopoly rules. it is not a large leap from buying and selling property to voting. We sold a car to a guy in jail once. his wife had power of attorney. they paid cash. ;)
You're acting as if you assume that everyone in jail is innocent. Not everyone is.
Like I said before, prison is supposed to be a place people don't want to go to....a punishment. But they have more privileges than law-abiding citizens do:
free medical care
free law library and representation
three meals a day, a place to sleep, clothes to wear
a gym
cable tv
Hell, I can't afford that stuff, yet they get it?
We treat our prisoners better than we treat our homeless. That's bullshit.
Prison is a punishment, period. They get enough perks as it is, especially federal prisoners. They shouldn't have the privilege of voting.
Originally posted by lumberjim
this is from the official parker bros monopoly rules. it is not a large leap from buying and selling property to voting. We sold a car to a guy in jail once. his wife had power of attorney. they paid cash. ;)
Then let their wives vote.:p
I suggest a stern letter to your congressman! They DEFINITELY would change things then!
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Sidhe, when you became batshit crazy, did you hear a snap?
What about all the people in jail in China for believing in Democracy?
What about the people we put in jail for minor drug offences? Smoke a joint and you're out of the loop? Or murderers who are WRONGLY convicted and thrown in jail?
We're not in China. And while I think certain drugs should be legal, and jail time for them is BS, the simple fact remains that they ARE illegal, and if you get busted, that's not my problem. And as far as wrongful convictions, I've stated my opinions on that (for example DNA should be MANDATORY, not optional).
I have my opinions, and I didn't just pick them out of a hat. I've thought about them, and why I believe them. Merely because I have firm opinions, which happen to disagree with yours, does not make me wrong--or batshit crazy, as you so eloquently put it.
Originally posted by lookout123
i don't hate prisoners. at the current time i have a cousin and an uncle in prison for different reasons. they chose to break the law. they have lost their rights in many areas.
since the idea of a guard or warden exerting undue influence on prisoner's votes, how about this one:
politician in area with a large number of prisoners runs for office with one of his ideas being that he will free prisoners that fall within categories x,y, and z. prisoners would undoubtedly vote for this person. they should not have the option to influence this election because that is basic bribery. "you get me into office, i'll get you out of jail"
bad idea.
i think you;re missing the point. if the area is populated with enough prisoners to influence a vote, then that area should make decisions based on what is important to the majority of people in that area.
suppose there was a county that had a population of 1000 people. 600 of them are in prison. 400 of them are not. an election is held, and one politician's platform is prison reform and living condition improvement within the jails. the other runs on a platform of cracking down and reducing the funding of the prisons. 600 prisoners all vote for politician #1. 100 of the non imprisoned people also think there should be better living conditions in the jails. 300 people vote for politician #2. 700 votes to 300 votes. if the prisoner's votes are stricken, #2 wins by a lot. and the majority suffers. NOT DEMOCRACY.
I bet if you got dragged away to sing sing for a bogus reason, you'd change your whiny tune in a hurry, Sidhe.
Preach it, jim. Democracy shall not suffer for the conveniences of the middle class.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Then let their wives vote.:p
twice?
what you are apparently missing is that we have certain inalienable rights. you can't lose your rights. if we were a nation of criminals ( meaning that the criminal population outnumbered the non criminals) then we should make our decisions that way. government for the people by the people. not goverment for the good people by the good people.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
(for example DNA should be MANDATORY, not optional).
What do you mean by this? That everyone must have DNA? That every murderer must leave DNA evidence at the scene of the crime? That DNA evidence must exist and be presented for there to be a murder trial?:confused:
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I have my opinions, and I didn't just pick them out of a hat. I've thought about them, and why I believe them. Merely because I have firm opinions, which happen to disagree with yours, does not make me wrong--
your opinions being firm and thought upon as opposed to random doesn't make them not wrong either.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
I bet if you got dragged away to sing sing for a bogus reason, you'd change your whiny tune in a hurry, Sidhe.
I'm not whining. I'm stating an opinion. Besides, I've been sent to prison for something I didn't do. Luckily, I was released a couple of days later when it was discovered that the accusers had a history of falsely accusing four or five people of the same bullshit. The judge threw it out and threatened the accusers with jail if they brought one more false accusation to waste his court's time.
Originally posted by jinx
What do you mean by this? That everyone must have DNA? That every murderer must leave DNA evidence at the scene of the crime? That DNA evidence must exist and be presented for there to be a murder trial?:confused:
That in cases which involve long prison terms or the death penalty, DNA testing should be mandatory, paid for by the state. It should not be only if the accused can afford it.
edit: and LJ, it doesn't mean they're wrong, either, just because they aren't liberal.
wait. lemme go make some popcorn.
Maybe the world would be safer if everybody inserted their johnson into a little remote controlled guillotine and you had your finger on the controls?
This isn't a police state!
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
That in cases which involve long prison terms or the death penalty, DNA testing should be mandatory, paid for by the state. It should not be only if the accused can afford it.
And when there is no DNA evidence to test...?
Oh, please....
Yes, I believe that people who abuse their children should not be able to create more victims. I believe that drug addicts who give birth to drug-addicted babies who will have mental and physical problems for life should not be able to create more victims. I believe cold-blooded murderers should die in the same way they murdered their victims. I believe that prison should be a punishment, and I believe that society as a whole is more important than the predators who would destroy it.
I'm not sorry I believe these things, and if you're looking for some kind of apology, don't hold your breath.
I have a daughter who is a hell of a lot more important to me than the Bundys, the child molesters, and the other random murderers out there. Anything that will make society safer for her has my approval.
edit: this was a reply to CB, not Jinx.
Originally posted by jinx
And when there is no DNA evidence to test...?
I've never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene. Unless he's dressed in a full body condom, it's extremely unlikely that there is no DNA evidence.
Same with rape and molestation. However, as to these two, there's more than one way to determine guilt. Those ways should be utilized. That's one of the reasons I think previous behavior should be allowed to be put before the jury. For example, if someone has prior convictions for rape or molestation, the jury should know that. It shows a propensity. As it goes now, prior records are not allowed as evidence, so juries give light sentences, thinking that it's a first offense.
edit: I use these examples because they're most likely to have long prison terms or be eligible for the death penalty.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
edit: and LJ, it doesn't mean they're wrong, either, just because they aren't liberal.
you callin me a liberal? i'll call you a fascist if you are.
sidhe, you claim to be smart. you take an extrememly simplistic view of things. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth doesn't work. that civilization failed.
sterilizing people is fraught with more peril than not.
don't be stupid, ya moron.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I've never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene.
They may have left something, but it may not have been discovered. If you think the authorities find something every time, you're sorely mistaken.
Originally posted by lumberjim
you callin me a liberal? i'll call you a fascist if you are.
sidhe, you claim to be smart. you take an extrememly simplistic view of things. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth doesn't work. that civilization failed.
sterilizing people is fraught with more peril than not.
don't be stupid, ya moron.
Who wants to start a poll? The question: Should Sidhe reopen her forum?
Originally posted by lumberjim
you callin me a liberal? i'll call you a fascist if you are.
sidhe, you claim to be smart. you take an extrememly simplistic view of things. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth doesn't work. that civilization failed.
sterilizing people is fraught with more peril than not.
don't be stupid, ya moron.
There is nothing wrong with a simplistic view of things when it IS simple.
And the eye for an eye civilization didn't fail; we got rid of it because we wanted to be more sympathetic to the criminals, rather than the victims. If we still had forms of public humiliation, I'll bet we wouldn't have as many repeat offenders. But noooo....we don't want to give them low self-esteem....
I'm also not advocating sterilization per se...however, I see nothing wrong with enforced birth control for child molesters, child abusers, and drug abusers who have a history of giving birth to addicted children.
And there's no need to namecall merely because I don't agree with your opinion. I thought you had more class than that.
Originally posted by sycamore
They may have left something, but it may not have been discovered. If you think the authorities find something every time, you're sorely mistaken.
Nope, I didn't say that. However, authorities generally don't close their eyes, spin around, and point to pick out a suspect, either. There's usually something to cause them to look at a particular person, or people.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Nope, I didn't say that.
Fair enough. But you did make a rather unusual claim. You honestly have never heard of a case where no physical evidence was left? Because it does happen.
Yes, I've heard of a few cases in which no DNA evidence was found. Not to say that it wasn't there, but it just wasn't found. However, other evidence was found that helped the police to focus on a small group of people.
For instance, Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker. He was hard to catch merely because he was a serial killer who did not have any particular preference in victims; there was other evidence that helped to find him, though. Not the least of which was that he couldn't keep his mouth shut. That's more common than people think.
Back to the subject of the thread, though, for those who don't agree with enforced birth control, what DO you think should be done with reference to child abusers, child molesters, and drug addicts who have a history of giving birth to addicted babies?
Just keep on letting them have kids? I don't understand what you feel should be done to protect these children.
Many have expressed (in the death penalty thread) that we should start with the children to prevent crime. But if we continue to allow abusers and molesters to have children, then we'll continue to have criminals who were abused or molested as children and use this as an excuse to avoid culpability. And the drug-addicted babies--they'll have mental and physical problems for the rest of their lives...what about them?
Sdihe
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
And there's no need to namecall merely because I don't agree with your opinion. I thought you had more class than that.
don't be stupid, ya moron.
firstly, it was a howard stern reference. i forget that while he's a lot of places, you may not listen to him.
secondly, i wasn't calling you a moron because you disagree. i was calling you a moron because you are a moron.
thirdly, if you had any clue, you'd know that i am not above name calling, and have very little class.
seventh, you know as well as I do that you frustrate me because you open up discussions about random shit, preach about it, and refuse to listen when the things you have obviously overlooked or discounted are brought to yuor attention. I enjoy a good argument, but trying to talk to you is like berating my cat.
( i left out 4th, 5th, and 6th to make you wonder about the things that are going unsaid here.)
I listen. Doesn't mean I have to change my original opinion, though. Merely because people disagree doesn't mean that the reasons behind that disagreement are strong enough to change my original opinion.
I'm not for indiscriminately throwing people in prison or enforcing birth control. But when someone confesses to a crime, or are caught on videotape, or are otherwise nailed to the wall, I believe they should be punished. When people have histories of abusing, molesting, or exposing to drugs innocent children, I believe they should not be able to have kids. That doesn't make me a moron.
All I ever hear about are the rights of the prisoners, as if they're all innocent. Very rarely does anyone stand up for the rights of the victims. Whenever I put up something like the death penalty thread, the victims are thrown out the window in favor of the criminals. And the title of that thread, btw, is "Why the death penalty should be enforced," not why it shouldn't be enforced, and therefore I place comments and information there upholding that opinion. I'm not forcing anyone to read or agree or uphold my opinion, merely stating it and bringing reasons for that opinion to the attention of others.
In a criminal case the victim has no rights with regard to the accused. The state is the absolute proxy. The victims aren't at the mercy of the state, so their rights aren't relevant.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Oh, please....
Yes, I believe that people who abuse their children should not be able to create more victims. I believe that drug addicts who give birth to drug-addicted babies who will have mental and physical problems for life should not be able to create more victims. I believe cold-blooded murderers should die in the same way they murdered their victims. I believe that prison should be a punishment, and I believe that society as a whole is more important than the predators who would destroy it.
I'm not sorry I believe these things, and if you're looking for some kind of apology, don't hold your breath.
What she motherfucking said! :D
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I've never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene. Unless he's dressed in a full body condom, it's extremely unlikely that there is no DNA evidence.
I was thinking the same thing. They have all these programs out there that shows how far crime solving has come in the last...what 20-30 some odd years and how they can pick up a "fingerprint" of some sort from just about any crime scene, even when it may appear that no evidence can be found. *shrugs*
Originally posted by sycamore
Fair enough. But you did make a rather unusual claim. You honestly have never heard of a case where no physical evidence was left? Because it does happen.
Now hon, in all fairness, how many times have we watched something like "Forensic Files" and they manage to find something in the most unlikely of places? I know you are not saying just because nothing was found that nothing CAN be found...right?
XOXO :D
It's people like LadySyc who daily renew my faith that the human race will not degenerate into a "what else can we do for the criminal to make jail a warmer, fuzzier place" society.
:beer:
Sidhe
how many times have we watched something like "Forensic Files"
Ah, once again, television comes to rebut the troublesome cold-hard facts.
...who daily renew my faith that the human race will not degenerate into a "what else can we do for the criminal to make jail a warmer, fuzzier place" society.
Sidhe, if we were generalising things to the point of being rediculous, I'd say you're more the "Let's make blind, ill-thought decisions based on anger and revenge, and shit all over due-process" type.
It's a good thing we're still being level headed, you silly bint
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Now hon, in all fairness, how many times have we watched something like "Forensic Files" and they manage to find something in the most unlikely of places? I know you are not saying just because nothing was found that nothing CAN be found...right?
XOXO :D
Do you think it's more likely that these cases are on TV because they are the norm, or because they are unique or remarkable in some way?
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I listen. Doesn't mean I have to change my original opinion, though. Merely because people disagree doesn't mean that the reasons behind that disagreement are strong enough to change my original opinion.
you've been here since november of 03. 780 posts as i write this. show me one instance of you changing your mind about something, or accepting that you were incorrect in your initial assesment, or that you overlooked something that makes you feel differently about something. just one, and I will apologize to you on bended knee and beg your forgiveness for calling you a moron. take your time.
I think Sidhe took me off her ignore list, does that count?
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
You're acting as if you assume that everyone in jail is innocent. Not everyone is.
Like I said before, prison is supposed to be a place people don't want to go to....a punishment. But they have more privileges than law-abiding citizens do:
free medical care
free law library and representation
three meals a day, a place to sleep, clothes to wear
a gym
cable tv
Hell, I can't afford that stuff, yet they get it?
We treat our prisoners better than we treat our homeless. That's bullshit.
Prison is a punishment, period. They get enough perks as it is, especially federal prisoners. They shouldn't have the privilege of voting.
Now here I disagree with you, Sid. I've been in jail like I said in another thread. I was too poor to buy car insurance, drove my car, anyhow and got caught. Mandatory 30 days in jail, so off I went and paid my debt to society.
The free medical care consisted of an aspirin 3 days after you'd sent a "kite" (formal written request) to the deputy in charge of your floor. People had all kinds of SERIOUS conditions that they got no medical care for. I watched an epileptic go into seizures twice, for example, and nothing was done for her. A woman with MS was deprived of her medication, on and on.
Prisoners who had no lawyer (were acting in their own behalf) could go to the law library for two hours every other week. No one else was allowed NEAR the law library.
The three meals a day were scant and what there was was inedible. The firm that had the private contract of providing "food" to the prisoners was later found to be bilking the state out of thousands of dollars by shorting on prisoners portions among other things. I lost 15 pounds in 3 weeks. The inmates who had money were the ones who ate. They ordered weekly supplies of ramen from the prison commisary and paid with their own money.
The free clothes consisted of a thin set of short sleeved shirts and cotton trousers, no underware, no sweators, although it was Feburary and freezing cold. You felt the cold even more because you were always hungry.
There was no gym, no exercise facilities. If you tried walking around the ward to get exercise and a guard noticed you doing this, you would be ordered back to your pallet (most of us slept on pallets on the floor - bunks in the cells were reserved for a few "elite prisoners due to overcrowding).
The single TV was controlled by the guards and it was allowed to be on maybe a total of 4 hours a day, less if the ward was on "lock down" which seemed to be most of the time.
Maybe if I keep posting this experience enough, you'll actually read it one of these times, Sid. This is a true experience of someone who has actually been there - not some fairy tale made up by a newscaster who wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and got the "for press only" royal tour by the warden which just so happened to not go by anything where the real prison conditions could be seen.
They told me that we women prisoners were "coddled" compared to the men. I shudder to think what conditions on their side were like.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Now hon, in all fairness, how many times have we watched something like "Forensic Files" and they manage to find something in the most unlikely of places? I know you are not saying just because nothing was found that nothing CAN be found...right?
Sidhe made the claim that she has "never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene." I find this very hard to believe.
Sidhe made the claim that she has "never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene." I find this very hard to believe.
If you cover your ears and say LALALALA often enough, you can "never hear" about most things.
What's a "bint"?:confused:
bint Noun. A woman. From the Arabic 'bint' meaning girl or daughter. Derog.
British colloq.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Ah, once again, television comes to rebut the troublesome cold-hard facts.
Don't know if you have Forensic Files in Canada, but it's a TRUE crime show that shows how forensics has been used to solve crimes. Real crimes that have been solved. Not make-believe.
Originally posted by wolf
I think Sidhe took me off her ignore list, does that count?
Thank you, Wolf.
I realized that, because of something Wolf said to me in private, that she wasn't the way I thought she was, and I changed my mind about her. I was perfectly ready to continue to dislike her, period, until then.
Originally posted by marichiko
Now here I disagree with you, Sid. I've been in jail like I said in another thread. I was too poor to buy car insurance, drove my car, anyhow and got caught. Mandatory 30 days in jail, so off I went and paid my debt to society.
The free medical care consisted of an aspirin 3 days after you'd sent a "kite" (formal written request) to the deputy in charge of your floor. People had all kinds of SERIOUS conditions that they got no medical care for. I watched an epileptic go into seizures twice, for example, and nothing was done for her. A woman with MS was deprived of her medication, on and on.
Prisoners who had no lawyer (were acting in their own behalf) could go to the law library for two hours every other week. No one else was allowed NEAR the law library.
The three meals a day were scant and what there was was inedible. The firm that had the private contract of providing "food" to the prisoners was later found to be bilking the state out of thousands of dollars by shorting on prisoners portions among other things. I lost 15 pounds in 3 weeks. The inmates who had money were the ones who ate. They ordered weekly supplies of ramen from the prison commisary and paid with their own money.
The free clothes consisted of a thin set of short sleeved shirts and cotton trousers, no underware, no sweators, although it was Feburary and freezing cold. You felt the cold even more because you were always hungry.
There was no gym, no exercise facilities. If you tried walking around the ward to get exercise and a guard noticed you doing this, you would be ordered back to your pallet (most of us slept on pallets on the floor - bunks in the cells were reserved for a few "elite prisoners due to overcrowding).
The single TV was controlled by the guards and it was allowed to be on maybe a total of 4 hours a day, less if the ward was on "lock down" which seemed to be most of the time.
Maybe if I keep posting this experience enough, you'll actually read it one of these times, Sid. This is a true experience of someone who has actually been there - not some fairy tale made up by a newscaster who wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and got the "for press only" royal tour by the warden which just so happened to not go by anything where the real prison conditions could be seen.
They told me that we women prisoners were "coddled" compared to the men. I shudder to think what conditions on their side were like.
Hey, I've been there too, remember?
Originally posted by Clodfobble
Sidhe made the claim that she has "never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene." I find this very hard to believe.
If you cover your ears and say LALALALA often enough, you can "never hear" about most things.
You leave something everywhere you go, whether you commit a crime or not: hair, skin flakes, clothing fibers. It's whether they FOUND the forensic evidence or not .
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Don't know if you have Forensic Files in Canada, but it's a TRUE crime show that shows how forensics has been used to solve crimes. Real crimes that have been solved. Not make-believe.
How often do they pick crimes for which no evidence
was found?
Stop treating DNA evidence like it's some light switch that turns on the "guilty" bulb over the killer's head.
DNA evidence CAN be contested in court, is sometimes overturned, is notoriously difficult to use conclusively, and is by no means perfect.
It's just another tool used by detectives, same as any other.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
You leave something everywhere you go, whether you commit a crime or not
Back it up.
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
How often do they pick crimes for which no evidence was found?
They put those on Cold Case Files.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Stop treating DNA evidence like it's some light switch that turns on the "guilty" bulb over the killer's head.
DNA evidence CAN be contested in court, is sometimes overturned, is notoriously difficult to use conclusively, and is by no means perfect.
It's just another tool used by detectives, same as any other.
What some people don't seem to realize is that you can mess up DNA to make it look like it isn't someone it IS, but you can't mess it up to make it look like it IS someone it ISN'T.
DNA is not as open to being contested as other types of tools. You know, I'll bet you're all for DNA evidence when it's exculpatory, and proves that someone has been imprisoned falsely, but are one of the first to talk about how it isn't perfectly accurate when it's used to convict someone, aren't you?
Originally posted by sycamore
Back it up.
Let me look up the "rule" that says that. It's one of the first things they teach you in Forensics. Since one is constantly shedding skin flakes and hair, one leaves "evidence" of one's presence everywhere they go.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Let me look up the "rule" that says that. It's one of the first things they teach you in Forensics. Since one is constantly shedding skin flakes and hair, one leaves "evidence" of one's presence everywhere they go.
Proof?
*sigh*
It's an accepted "rule," proven enough so that it's been in use for close to a century. It was discovered by a scientist and named after him.
If you don't shed skin and hair, you're the only person in the world that doesn't.
And apparantly, it seems that even if I find it, it won't make a difference. You'll just keep wanting more "proof." Why don't you find a forensics forum and ask someone with a PhD? Or would you consider them to not know what they're talking about as well?
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
*sigh*
It's an accepted "rule," proven enough so that it's been in use for close to a century. It was discovered by a scientist and named after him.
Okay. So why can't you provide the information?
If you don't shed skin and hair, you're the only person in the world that doesn't.
I'm not arguing that. I just think it's possible to be in a spot at a particular time and not leave anything.
And apparantly, it seems that even if I find it, it won't make a difference. You'll just keep wanting more "proof." Why don't you find a forensics forum and ask someone with a PhD? Or would you consider them to not know what they're talking about as well?
I merely asked you to back up your statement, and I don't think you have. If you don't want people to challenge your opinions and/or statements, then don't make 'em.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
You leave something everywhere you go, whether you commit a crime or not: hair, skin flakes, clothing fibers. It's whether they FOUND the forensic evidence or not .
The point being that it's not always available. You cannot "make it mandatory".
OK you leave something everywhere you go, but so does everyone that passes by. How do you sort out the perp from all the rest?;)
SIDHE: If you don't shed skin and hair, you're the only person in the world that doesn't.
SYCAMORE: I'm not arguing that. I just think it's possible to be in a spot at a particular time and not leave anything.
~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~
ME: It's also possible for you to leave something behind that isn't found.
Or the fact that it is left behind doesn't mean a slam dunk conviction. Bloody glove, anyone?
Originally posted by wolf
It's also possible for you to leave something behind that isn't found.
No doubt...I mentioned that
earlier.
My coworker was decomposing for a month-month and a half before Norristown's finest thought to ask his live-in girlfriend
1. "Can we take a peek in the basement?"
2. "What's that smell?"
(Eau d'Deadguy is quite distinctive. The neighbors had been complaining for several weeks about the stench.)
From the first DAY that he didn't show up to work I was telling people "Sam's dead. She killed him. He's in the basement, wrapped in plastic."
Guess where and how they found him?
Man, that's horrible.
Truly horrifying.
Oh, and BAAhahahhahahahhaha
Originally posted by wolf
My coworker was decomposing for a month-month and a half before Norristown's finest thought to ask his live-in girlfriend
1. "Can we take a peek in the basement?"
2. "What's that smell?"
(Eau d'Deadguy is quite distinctive. The neighbors had been complaining for several weeks about the stench.)
From the first DAY that he didn't show up to work I was telling people "Sam's dead. She killed him. He's in the basement, wrapped in plastic."
Guess where and how they found him?
Wait a minute...was that the one that made the news a few years ago?
Yeah, it pretty much sucked.
Sam was a good guy.
It was also a bad year for our hospital I think I mentioned it elsewhere ...
Suicide of a former ambulance crew member (actually late 2001, but we count her into the list)
Suicide of a psychologist
Sudden death (unknown cause) of a 25 year old staff member
Heart attack and death of an elderly staff member
Sam's murder.
Part time nurse drank herself to death.
I may have gotten the order wrong, but I don't want to have to redo 2002. Please.
edited to add: I should clarify ... the police DID search the house when our hospital (not the girlfriend, despite what the news reports say) reported Sam missing. She had him hid better at that time, moved him a couple times according to reports.
That sounds like a pretty sobering line of work.
Sometimes. Again, 2002 was not typical.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Hey, I've been there too, remember?
NO. And I'm not just joking around. I really don't remember. The way I manage on this board is to refer to the handy list of posts under each thread. If somebody posted something a while back in a different thread, I'm lost since I don't have it right under what I'm writing to refer to. The only reason I remember that I'd posted about my experience before is because it was the first time I'd "told" anyone about it except my two closest friends. I thought everybody might think I was some awful person when I 'fessed up to the experience. But I don't remeber which thread it was or what we had originally been discussing.:confused:
bint Noun. A woman. From the Arabic 'bint' meaning girl or daughter. Derog.
Is that where that comes from? fabulous I didnt know. Great word bint. As is maud. (northern slang meaning girlfreind or wife)
Haven't heard 'maud' before. Will remember to use it instead of bint occassionally (great adjective). Have you heard of 'mare'? (Could take this as (night)mare or 'you are a horse'.)
Mare is both a derogatory name for a gal, and a horrid situation (shortened "nightmare"), you're right.
I've also heard the term "Larry" thrown around.
"I spilled the beer, I'm such a larry!"
The female equivalent is Sue.
And if you want to get flamboyant, switch Larry with "Pierre".
My apologies to anybody named Larry, Sue and Pierre.
Lol. You're such a Geneveve!
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Ah, once again, television comes to rebut the troublesome cold-hard facts.
*shrugs* Check it out for yourself:
Forensic Files:
http://www.forensicfiles.com/Originally posted by jinx
Do you think it's more likely that these cases are on TV because they are the norm, or because they are unique or remarkable in some way?
I think it's becoming the norm. Forensic Science, over time, has become more advanced and is now able to seek out and convict more criminals. Even cold cases are being reopened more because of new evidence that has been found:
Cold Case Files:
http://www.aetv.com/tv/shows/coldcasefiles/How is linking to 2 television episodes backing up your argument?
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
How is linking to 2 television episodes backing up your argument?
They are based on Facts. Plus, I made it clear (I thought) in my reply to jinx. So maybe I should have elaborated more with my response with you perhaps?
Ok then. The "troublesome cold hard facts" that you spoke about is what those shows are all about. Pretty simple.
Yes, you said that, and three or four of us said that those shows glorify the "special cases" where the evidence is solid, forensics could be readily and reliably used, and it made good TV.
We're arguing that the vast majority of cases aren't as clean cut as to be featured on a television show, and so television is a heavily biased and unreliable source of evidence.
In short, these shows display the "good" cases, and not the ones where DNA evidence fails.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Yes, you said that, and three or four of us said that those shows glorify the "special cases" where the evidence is solid, forensics could be readily and reliably used, and it made good TV.
We're arguing that the vast majority of cases aren't as clean cut as to be featured on a television show, and so television is a heavily biased and unreliable source of evidence.
In short, these shows display the "good" cases, and not the ones where DNA evidence fails.
Oh well. I suppose you're right...wouldn't be worth watching if the evidence failed to nail someone.
But, I did some surfing on it:
Evaluating forensic DNA evidence:
http://bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html
It made for an interesting read. Asks if the laboratory's conclusions fully supported by the test results and more. It gets quite detailed.
"I merely asked you to back up your statement"
I'm looking for it right now. When I find it, I'll let you know.
"OK you leave something everywhere you go, but so does everyone that passes by. How do you sort out the perp from all the rest?"
Say, for instance, you find fingerprints in a house. First you eliminate those that belong to anyone who lives in the house, then those belonging to guests, say....after you've eliminated those people as suspects, if there are unidentified prints, you look for matches in a database.
That's just an example, though. That's not how it works all the time.
A friend of mine who worked at the hospital got murdered, too. She lived in one of the New Orleans suburbs, like Metarie, or something. They found her wrapped in a shower curtain in her apartment, two weeks after she died.
She had diabeties, so they're looking at that as a cause. I'm not sure if she was "wrapped" in a shower curtain or had, say, fallen in the shower and got caught in it.
However, she was dating a former mental patient (you'd think she'd know better), and both he and her truck were gone.
I haven't heard anything on it in over a year, though, so I don't know what the cops found out.
I guess psychology isn't a very safe business to be in...
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040610/5bcaf5cb1001e60e9e89148c7a1ddc8c_1.html
Judge offers choice of jail or vasectomies to deadbeat dads.
"Family court judges in Ohio and Wisconsin have imposed similar restrictions on deadbeat dads. The pre-eminent case, Wisconsin v. Oakley, No. 99-3328, went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case of a five-year conception restriction imposed on a defendant who fathered nine children and owed $25,000 in unpaid child support"
"A March 31 decision by Monroe County, N.Y., family court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ordered an allegedly drug-addicted homeless couple to stop having children. The case, In the matter of BobbiJean P., No. NN 03626-03, was a first in New York. The couple's four children were placed in foster care last year and the woman is pregnant again. The judge determined that they should be given free family planning to prevent future pregnancy. The 35-year-old mother is identified in court papers only as Stephanie. Rodney Evers, 54, is the father of three of the four children, including a 6-year-old boy. The younger children, ages 4, 2 and 1, tested positive for cocaine at birth."
*shrugs* I don't see what the problem is (to anyone who has a problem with it). Those examples are perfect cases for this, IMO. No one is being forced to do this. It's a perfectly viable option to choose. Why bring another life into the world that you can't properly care for and afford? It's madness that ppl in the most negative situations are the ones having all these kids.
:confused:
The Locard Principle. “Every Contact leaves it’s trace”
Professor Edmond Locard (1877), Founder and Director Institute of Criminalisitcs, University Lyons, France
In the United States a court decision went further with the following
"WHEREVER HE STEPS, WHATEVER HE TOUCHES, WHATEVER HE LEAVES, EVEN
UNCONSCIOUSLY, WILL SERVE AS SILENT WITNESS AGAINST HIM. NOT ONLY HIS
FINGERPRINTS OR HIS FOOTPRINTS, BUT HIS HAIR, THE FIBERS FROM HIS CLOTHES,
THE GLASS HE BREAKS, THE TOOL MARK HE LEAVES, THE PAINT HE SCRATCHES, THE
BLOOD OR SEMEN HE DEPOSITS OR COLLECTS --- ALL OF THESE AND MORE BEAR
MUTE WITNESS AGAINST HIM. THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT FORGET. IT IS
NOT CONFUSED BY THE EXCITEMENT OF THE MOMENT. IT IS NOT ABSENT BECAUSE
HUMAN WITNESSES ARE. IT IS FACTUAL EVIDENCE- PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE
WRONG; IT CANNOT PERJURE ITSELF; IT CANNOT BE WHOLLY ABSENT. ONLY ITS
INTERPRETATION CAN ERR. ONLY HUMAN FAILURE TO FIND IT, STUDY AND
UNDERSTAND IT, CAN DIMINISH ITS VALUE.”
(Harris Vs. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 1947)
Today the following is taught and practiced in crime scene work:
Theory of Transfer
(A) The perpetrator will take away traces of the victim and the scene.
(B) The victim will retain traces of the perpetrator and may leave
traces of him/herself on the perpetrator.
(C) The perpetrator will leave behind traces of himself at the scene.
There ya go.
Sidhe
edited for sp.
Interesting...but not a hard fast rule. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Not "There you go", damnit.
The argument is that the perpetrator always leaves DNA evidence on the scene.
Of course there will always be SOME form of marking or evidence in a crime, I was under the impression we were arguing with regard to viable biological evidence.
Finding a sneaker imprint is a fuckload different than a fingerprint, hair follicle, and blood sample.
I'm (and others are) saying that not everybody leaves behind DNA!
Your quote is self-evident and meaningless to this argument.
Actually, my argument is that it is theoretically possible not to leave something behind...you're on asphalt (no footprints), the skin cells and hair stick to your clothes, fibers don't come off your clothing at one point. I don't doubt that more often than not, you're gonna leave something behind, but I don't think it's definite.
if you killed some one in two feet of surf, and they washed out to sea to float for 3 days, then washed back up on a different beach what evidence would there be?
If you killed someone from a windy belltower at a great distance with a high powered, silenced rifle while dressed in leather from head to toe.
if you stabbed someone in the heart with an icecicle while it was snowing very hard.
if you pushed someone off of a cliff while gloved
if you poisoned a stranger's drink while in line at Arby's and didn;t touch them or their drink
no evidence. certainly no dna.
Wait, let me write these down.
I don't have time to look back through the thread but has the point been brought up that the presence of someone's DNA somewhere doesn't necessarily mean that they have committed a crime?
So this thread is as relevant and useful as the word association thread then.
Originally posted by lumberjim
if you killed some one in two feet of surf, and they washed out to sea to float for 3 days, then washed back up on a different beach what evidence would there be?
Beach sands differ. So do microrganisms in the water. Some of this evidence could remain on the body, and would certainly remain on your shoes and in your clothing. You, in killling the individual will have acquired traces of their DNA. (This is true of any of your scenarios.)
If you killed someone from a windy belltower at a great distance with a high powered, silenced rifle while dressed in leather from head to toe.
marks on the bullet tie it to your gun. marks on the shell casing tie it to your gun. Powder residue on YOU tie you to your gun. chemistry of the powder load ties you to the bullets you bought. Bits and pieces of the leather can be left at the belltower.
if you stabbed someone in the heart with an icecicle while it was snowing very hard.
struggle ensues, blood transfer occurs. them to you.
if you pushed someone off of a cliff while gloved
your dna is on the inside of the gloves, theirs to the outside. shoeprints and other marks will further build the case that you were present.
if you poisoned a stranger's drink while in line at Arby's and didn;t touch them or their drink
access to poison. video surveillance camera will reveal your presence and contact with stranger. the chemical composition of the poison will have unique characteristics. purchase records of the poison or consitutents for homebrewing will exist. traces of the storage and/or manufacture of the poison will also trip you up.
no evidence. certainly no dna.
plenty of evidence. plenty of DNA.
Didn't you see the CSI game prominently figuring in the picture of my desk in that thread?
Originally posted by sycamore
Interesting...but not a hard fast rule. We'll have to agree to disagree.
I can do that. ;)
Originally posted by Undertoad
I don't have time to look back through the thread but has the point been brought up that the presence of someone's DNA somewhere doesn't necessarily mean that they have committed a crime?
I said something about that earlier. That's why the investigators collect everything, so that they can start ruling people out.
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Not "There you go", damnit.
First off, I was talking to Syc, and second of all, it was to indicate to him that I'd found the "rule" I'd been referring to earlier. Breathe, dude...
Wolf, you're reaching. The point was simply that there is not always dna evidence with which to convict someone. people sometimes DO get away with murder. In fact the whole mini argument is tangental to the original discussion. It does however, illustrate my point about sidhe not wavering from even the smallest detail in her original internal opinion. it makes having any discussion with her fruitless. i won't go so far as radar and put her on my ignore list, but i don't see myself giving much of a shit about bothering to discuss anything that we don't happen to agree on in the future. why bother.
take a look at her title. it's very telling:
" Lady Sidhe
Yeah, uh-huh, right, whatever...
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 738"
I enjoy debating with people, but not when they generalize a lot and don't respect my opinion.
Sidhe, I strongly suggest reopening your forum.
I didn't say the crimes were always solved. The original point was that DNA testing should be mandatory, not optional.
And speaking of never wavering, it seems that even when I have something that backs up an argument I have made, you still don't want to accept it.
I can agree to disagree, but I'm not going to change my mind simply because you think I should.
Sidhe
edit: Wolf wasn't reaching. That's exactly how such crimes are solved. Just because someone is not present at the scene at which a crime is committed does not mean that there is nothing that can link them to the crime. No, people don't always get caught, but wearing gloves or using a high-powered rifle doesn't guarantee they won't get caught, either.
yeah...uh huh. right. whatever.
Originally posted by lumberjim
yeah...uh huh. right. whatever.
obnoxious, but occasionally wise
You left off the "guy":D
obnoxious guy but occasionally wise doesn't really flow right.
look. it is possible to be a dick and be right. i know i'm roughing sidhe up. and at this point i think i have expressed my frustration adequately. i will try not to bring it up again.
don't hate me because i'm so damn sexy. i can't help it.
Originally posted by lumberjim
it is possible to be a dick and be right.
Absolutely...just ask Radar.
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I listen. Doesn't mean I have to change my original opinion, though. Merely because people disagree doesn't mean that the reasons behind that disagreement are strong enough to change my original opinion.
I'm not for indiscriminately throwing people in prison or enforcing birth control. But when someone confesses to a crime, or are caught on videotape, or are otherwise nailed to the wall, I believe they should be punished. When people have histories of abusing, molesting, or exposing to drugs innocent children, I believe they should not be able to have kids. That doesn't make me a moron.
All I ever hear about are the rights of the prisoners, as if they're all innocent. Very rarely does anyone stand up for the rights of the victims. Whenever I put up something like the death penalty thread, the victims are thrown out the window in favor of the criminals. And the title of that thread, btw, is "Why the death penalty should be enforced," not why it shouldn't be enforced, and therefore I place comments and information there upholding that opinion. I'm not forcing anyone to read or agree or uphold my opinion, merely stating it and bringing reasons for that opinion to the attention of others.
[COLOR=indigo]Preach on my sistah! Don't let the bastids wear you down![/COLOR]
Originally posted by marichiko
Now here I disagree with you, Sid. I've been in jail like I said in another thread. I was too poor to buy car insurance, drove my car, anyhow and got caught. Mandatory 30 days in jail, so off I went and paid my debt to society.
The free medical care consisted of an aspirin 3 days after you'd sent a "kite" (formal written request) to the deputy in charge of your floor. People had all kinds of SERIOUS conditions that they got no medical care for. I watched an epileptic go into seizures twice, for example, and nothing was done for her. A woman with MS was deprived of her medication, on and on.
Prisoners who had no lawyer (were acting in their own behalf) could go to the law library for two hours every other week. No one else was allowed NEAR the law library.
The three meals a day were scant and what there was was inedible. The firm that had the private contract of providing "food" to the prisoners was later found to be bilking the state out of thousands of dollars by shorting on prisoners portions among other things. I lost 15 pounds in 3 weeks. The inmates who had money were the ones who ate. They ordered weekly supplies of ramen from the prison commisary and paid with their own money.
The free clothes consisted of a thin set of short sleeved shirts and cotton trousers, no underware, no sweators, although it was Feburary and freezing cold. You felt the cold even more because you were always hungry.
There was no gym, no exercise facilities. If you tried walking around the ward to get exercise and a guard noticed you doing this, you would be ordered back to your pallet (most of us slept on pallets on the floor - bunks in the cells were reserved for a few "elite prisoners due to overcrowding).
The single TV was controlled by the guards and it was allowed to be on maybe a total of 4 hours a day, less if the ward was on "lock down" which seemed to be most of the time.
Maybe if I keep posting this experience enough, you'll actually read it one of these times, Sid. This is a true experience of someone who has actually been there - not some fairy tale made up by a newscaster who wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and got the "for press only" royal tour by the warden which just so happened to not go by anything where the real prison conditions could be seen.
They told me that we women prisoners were "coddled" compared to the men. I shudder to think what conditions on their side were like.
[COLOR=indigo]Jail is not prison.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
bint Noun. A woman. From the Arabic 'bint' meaning girl or daughter. Derog.
British colloq.
[COLOR=indigo]A derogatory remark, made because someone has a different opinion and won't change it without serious evidence to the contrary.
That's all we need. [/COLOR]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Jail is not prison.
Many jails are close enough.
Thanks, Onyx...:D
:thumb:
Sycamore and I can be the Sharks, and Sidhe and Onyx can be the Jets.
(singing) Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset;
We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get.
We ain't no delinquents,
We're misunderstood.
Deep down inside us there is good!(/singing)
We can't help being hammurabi-light-ists. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it....
Sidhe
Again, this didn't happen in the US, but murdering and dismembering a five-year-old baby? Uh-uh. These people should be sterilized with a rusty scalpel and no anesthetic.
Sidhe
Stepmother gets 15 years in girl's murder
Associated Press
Toronto — A woman convicted along with her husband in the savage murder and dismemberment of his five-year-old daughter must spend at least 15 behind bars, a judge ruled Monday.
In imposing the sentence, Superior Court Justice David Watt said Kaneez Fatima was not just a passive participant in the horrendous death of Farah Khan four years ago.
“She was not the mere spectator immobilized by fear,” Judge Watt said. “She did nothing to stop the onslaught.”
Ms. Fatima will not be eligible to apply for parole until Jan. 19, 2015.
She was convicted of second-degree murder and automatically sentenced to life in prison in the killing.
At issue in sentencing was whether Ms. Fatima would be eligible for parole after serving the minimum 10 years.
In submissions to Judge Watt, Crown lawyer David Fisher argued for raising the minimum to 18-to-20 years, saying Ms. Fatima had a “hair-trigger temper.”
She helped carry her stepdaughter's body parts in backpacks to a city park for disposal, then lied to protect herself and her husband, Mr. Fisher told the court.
“Farah Khan was a sweet, helpless and defenceless five-year-old child, he said.
Defence lawyer John Collins portrayed Ms. Fatima as a victim of two abusive arranged marriages who loved and cared for Farah as if the girl were her own child.
As a battered wife, Ms. Fatima was powerless to stop the vicious assaults on a stepdaughter who called her “mommy.”
She lied only because Mr. Khan had threatened her and her family, Mr. Collins said.
But Mr. Fisher countered that Farah suffered 30 distinct blows to her head, arms and legs and showed evidence of previous beatings.
Ten of the jurors who convicted her recommended minimum parole eligibility ranging between 15 and 25 years.
Farah's father, Muhammad Arsal Khan, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for at least 25 years.
Jurors at their trial heard how Mr. Khan had chased Farah around the family apartment, beat her and smashed her head against a coffee table before taking her into the bathroom, slitting her throat and decapitating and dismembering her.
Parts of Farah's body were found by a passerby at a waterfront park, but her torso was believed to have been carried off and eaten by animals and never recovered.
Fatima has already been in prison for more than four years.