Man abuses infant in microwave, fridge and hotel safe

[SteveGrenard]

An Arkansas man, moving to Galveston, decided to stuff his infant daughter in a safe, then a fridge and a microwave, the last for 10 to 20 secs on what setting who knows. Oh, he was hoping to be a preacher. And oh, he was posessed by satan at the time .... which explains everything.


http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=8508

A man charged with putting his infant daughter in a microwave oven also placed her in a refrigerator and in a hotel room safe, a Texas police detective testified Tuesday.

"He placed her in the hotel safe, shut the door for about five seconds, according to him. He takes the baby out, places her in the refrigerator, shuts the door. He says this is about five seconds also, and then places her in the microwave, shuts the door and turns the power on," Galveston Detective Holly Johnson testified.

The May 10 incident happened as Mauldin, his wife and daughter were moving to Galveston, where Mauldin planned to become a preacher.


This case gives new meaning to child abuse by clergy ...well, in this case, would-be clergy.

More coverage which has been widespread in the area (184 hits in Google News):

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070522-khoujc-microwavebaby.9536c003.html

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=d3e17d48b33d150b

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070517-khoujc-babymicrowave.7ad4df7a.html

[mr rosewater]

There really should be a test for parenthood. Just because you have the equipment to reproduce doesn't mean everyone should.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

On the plus side, it sounds like the little girl will be okay. I don't know about Satan, but it sounds like this guy needs psychiatric intervention. Bizarre.

[casebro]

At least the fridge and the hotel are safe.

[Roadtoad]

Satan, huh? If he was looking for the Devil, all he needed was to look in a mirror.

And they say there's no place for forced castration in a civilized society.

[SteveGrenard]

Satan, huh? If he was looking for the Devil, all he needed was to look in a mirror.

And they say there's no place for forced castration in a civilized society.

His wife has gone on MySpace defending her husband, saying it was demonic posession. She hasn't been charged yet and probably won't be but she isn't getting the baby back either...for now. The court will decide where it goes, hopefully not to this woman.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

His wife has gone on MySpace defending her husband, saying it was demonic posession. She hasn't been charged yet and probably won't be but she isn't getting the baby back either...for now. The court will decide where it goes, hopefully not to this woman.

Link? :D

[NeilC]

Maybe he just wanted the kid to confirm whether the light in the fridge goes off when you shut the door?

What a grim story. Every time you think you've heard how low people stoop, along comes someone to unpleasantly surprise you.

[Francesca R]

There really should be a test for parenthood. Just because you have the equipment to reproduce doesn't mean everyone should.Your reaction smacks of knee-jerking. Would you seriously like your government to decide whether or not you (and everyone else) should be allowed to have a child, and enforce that decision against you (and everyone else)—because there are some monsters around who mete out deadly crimes on their own?

[Wolfman]

Your reaction smacks of knee-jerking. Would you seriously like your government to decide whether or not you (and everyone else) should be allowed to have a child, and enforce that decision against you (and everyone else)—because there are some monsters around who mete out deadly crimes on their own?
I understand your point, and largely would agree with it...but let me pose the following question/dilemma.

The government, very plainly, has the right to seize children and take them away from parents who are unable to provide the proper standard of care to those children. And I would contend that the government absolutely should have the right to do so, as the child's welfare far outweighs any rights the parent may have to keep the child.

But although the government has the right to seize such a child, they have no right to prevent such parents from having more children? A person who's had three children taken away from them for being physically and sexually abused...can just go and have more babies. And those babies are either going to be seized and stuck in the state welfare system, or will live with those parents until they are abused and taken away also.

In such a case...would it not be arguable that preventing them from having more babies in the first place is preferable? A very simply sterilization procedure would prevent huge amounts of future suffering for all involved.

[Francesca R]

The government, very plainly, has the right to seize children and take them away from parents who are unable to provide the proper standard of care to those children.Yes, true

And I would contend that the government absolutely should have the right to do so, as the child's welfare far outweighs any rights the parent may have to keep the child.Agreed

But although the government has the right to seize such a child, they have no right to prevent such parents from having more children?I think the government would need to demonstrate that the parents cannot or will not care for the child in respect of each child, not in a "blanket" manner in respect of as yet unborn children.

A person who's had three children taken away from them for being physically and sexually abused...can just go and have more babies.Well I guess this would assume that the individual is not in prison convicted of a crime of abuse. If they are out and free, then I think they should be free to conceive.

And those babies are either going to be seized and stuck in the state welfare system, or will live with those parents until they are abused and taken away also.

In such a case...would it not be arguable that preventing them from having more babies in the first place is preferable? A very simply sterilization procedure would prevent huge amounts of future suffering for all involved.I don't think so, no. Forced sterilisation is hard to reverse, whereas abusive parenting can potentially be corrected.

I am not sure if somewhere in your last statement is an implication that abused children are better off not being conceived?

[crackers]

I understand your point, and largely would agree with it...but let me pose the following question/dilemma.

The government, very plainly, has the right to seize children and take them away from parents who are unable to provide the proper standard of care to those children. And I would contend that the government absolutely should have the right to do so, as the child's welfare far outweighs any rights the parent may have to keep the child.

But although the government has the right to seize such a child, they have no right to prevent such parents from having more children? A person who's had three children taken away from them for being physically and sexually abused...can just go and have more babies. And those babies are either going to be seized and stuck in the state welfare system, or will live with those parents until they are abused and taken away also.

In such a case...would it not be arguable that preventing them from having more babies in the first place is preferable? A very simply sterilization procedure would prevent huge amounts of future suffering for all involved.

Well, yes, but to people who are afraid of the BIG BAD GUBMINT, ideological purity is more important. Better a thousand babies should be abused than that any more power (such as power to prevent such abuse) should be given to the BIG BAD GUBMINT.

[Wolfman]

I am not sure if somewhere in your last statement is an implication that abused children are better off not being conceived?
Well, I AM playing devil's advocate here, and my arguments should not necessarily be taken to reflect my actual beliefs (but then, I'm not saying I entirely disagree with what I'm arguing, either); but allow me to answer your question with a question of my own:

Are YOU contending that it is somehow better to be born to suffer, than not to be born at all? If so, would that not mean that we should all stop using condoms and any other form of birth control, and just have as many kids as possible? After all...it is better to simply be born, and have an existence, regardless of how miserable that existence may be, rather than to simply never exist in the first place. Every time I practice birth control, I'm "denying" some potential child the "gift" of existing.

It seems to me this is the logical corollary to the assumptions implicit in your question :-)
I don't think so, no. Forced sterilisation is hard to reverse, whereas abusive parenting can potentially be corrected.
Well, actually, many forced sterilizations could be easier to reverse than the likelihood of "correcting" a habitual sexual offender. Not to mention the fact that the only way to know if the offender is "cured" is to first give them a child, and see if the child is likewise abused. I would personally argue that a system of verification that can only be confirmed through exposing another child to potential abuse is fundamentally flawed, and certainly not one that I'd want to argue for.

[SteveGrenard]

Link? :D


Her MySpace posted defense of her husband came up on a number of press articles so far. Here is a brief quote from one such press article. There is more on her defense of her husband's actions in this story:

She even set up a MySpace page “Joshua Mauldin is not a Monster” in hopes of defending her husband and making pleas for people to help her.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/galveston/stories/khou070519_tnt_microwavedbaby.8687c772.html


I don't know how MySpace works, nor am I interested in logging on there.
Apparently the heading for her MySpace thing is:

"Joshua Mauldin is not a Monster"

if this is any help (as per above).

Well Joshua will either be going to a mental institution for a very long time or if not to jail for a similarly very long time. Of greater interest is whether or not the mnother should regain custody of this child?

Given her satanic/demonic defense of her husband's actions I don't think so. What's to prevent satan or one of his demons from posessing her one day, causing her to finish off the baby?

[Ove]

Wolfman i totally agree with you. There was a schocking documentary on Danish TV some time ago. They followed a young couple with their 3. child. The two other children had been removed but this time mummy and daddy was on an institution under supervision to try to get the situation under control. Dad was an alcohol/drug abuser and mum was, to put it polite "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" (slightly retarded.
They tried for 6 months after the birth but it was doomed from the beginning. The dad dissappeared several times on drug rampages and mummy screamed at the kid and could not understand basic nursing skills.
In the end the child was taken to a adoptive home. When cofronted with this the mother got very mad and allmost screamed :"Well then i'll just have to make another baby won't i" ......................

A small cut would save a lot of trouble.

[Zep]

Hmmm... Is everyone over-reacting?

The initial report says he shut the door in each case for only a few seconds, and this happened just once. If true, is that enough to warrant all the hand-wringing about abuse? I'd be worried about the father's state of mind, sure, but I'm not seeing the child being harmed any in this instance.

ETA: I would also ask: Who is reporting this? The mother? A friend? The baby? My money is on the mother, and from the nature of the report, it sounds like a nuisance call. Given that it happened while the family were in transit to a new location for a new job, I'll make a long-shot call: The mother hates the idea of going to Galveston and be a preacher's wife, the father is acting weird as a result, and she called the police to make it sound like he's abusing the baby so now she has an excuse to go back home to mom. This marriage is in deep trouble?

Of course, if he repeated this regularly, and prolonged the situation beyond a few seconds (or turned the microwave on, of course), I'd be after him with a swinging shovel myself.

[BPSCG]

"Joshua Mauldin is not a Monster" Evidence?

[tkingdoll]

Zep - I've read that the baby sustained facial and hand burns from the microwave but no idea if that's true.

ETA: seems to be.

From one of the stories in the OP:

The child, who was released from Galveston Shriners Burns Hospital Monday morning, suffered burns to her face and hand.

If she was hospitalised, that's about as clear-cut abuse as you can get.

[Francesca R]

allow me to answer your question with a question of my own:Grrrr . . . :)

Are YOU contending that it is somehow better to be born to suffer, than not to be born at all?All I can say is that I would rather have been born, even to drug-addicted violent parents, than not born. But logic gets awfully bent out of shape when tying to argue that an event (birth) is in the best interest of "something that does not yet exist". My answer is a qualified "yes".

If so, would that not mean that we should all stop using condoms and any other form of birth control, and just have as many kids as possible?Not unless we want to. We should not be compelled to reproduce and I would make no statement in this direction. But when one speaks of "preventing suffering [of the to-be-born child]" one is speaking of what is in the child's best interest. When it comes to conception, the interests of [potential] conceivers dominate the interests of the children they [could] create.

After all...it is better to simply be born, and have an existence, regardless of how miserable that existence may be, rather than to simply never exist in the first place. Every time I practice birth control, I'm "denying" some potential child the "gift" of existing.As above—you can and should have that priviledge, no?

It seems to me this is the logical corollary to the assumptions implicit in your question :-)OK Your turn: Is it worse to be born into suffering than to never be born at all?

I would personally argue that a system of verification that can only be confirmed through exposing another child to potential abuse is fundamentally flawed, and certainly not one that I'd want to argue for.But the system for verifying who are murderers—and therefore who should be punished as such (in society's interest)—can only be confirmed by allowing murders to take place first.

[Wolfman]

OK Your turn: Is it worse to be born into suffering than to never be born at all?
I'm glad you're taking this in the spirit in which it is intended :-)

To answer you, I would contend that it is impossible to state that it would be either better or worse. A state of non-existence is just that -- non-existent. I mean, the number of "potential" lives -- lives that could have been, but never were -- is virtually infinite; it far outstrips the number of people that have ever lived. To argue that "existence" is somehow "better" or "worse" is illogical in the extreme.

Instead of the illogical "existence" vs. "non-existence" argument, I focus on more pragmatic reality. If I knew that a person was a sexual offender, with a history of abusing several children previously, would I be justified in allowing that person to adopt another child, or through any other means gain control over a child that had already been born? I'd say absolutely not.

Childbirth is simply another way of giving this person access to a child that can be abused. And if I'm justified in denying them every other way of gaining access to a child, I don't see why denying this choice to them is so terrible. The "potential" child is certainly not being harmed in any way whatsoever by never being conceived, since you cannot harm that which does not exist; and I don't see how denying the potential to have children to this person would represent grievous or unacceptable harm to them, no moreso than would denying them access to any other children.
But the system for verifying who are murderers—and therefore who should be punished as such (in society's interest)—can only be confirmed by allowing murders to take place first.
Personally, in cases where there's a high likelihood of a person repeating an offence such as rape or murder, I'm all in favor of locking them away for life.

So, are you seriously championing the argument that a person who has sexually or physically abused children should continue to be allowed access to children, in order to verify whether or not they've been "reformed"? ("Oops, I know that I abused the last ten children, but this time I swear I've changed, so give me another one") Because that is the only way that one can confirm such a change; and in my opinion, I think that the risk to the child far, far outweighs any rights the adult may have.

[Wolfman]

Hmmm... Is everyone over-reacting?

The initial report says he shut the door in each case for only a few seconds, and this happened just once. If true, is that enough to warrant all the hand-wringing about abuse? I'd be worried about the father's state of mind, sure, but I'm not seeing the child being harmed any in this instance.
I don't think it is over-reacting.

First, as stated by others already, the infant did suffer physical harm. However, even if it had not suffered physical harm, it would still be cause for significant concern, and certainly reason to take the child away from its parents.

Dude, this guy is putting his kid in a microwave because DEMONS told him to do it!!! If the kid wasn't actually hurt this time, does that mean that we're supposed to just overlook this incredibly dangerous behavior, and wait until the demons tell him to broil his kid for one minute?

Abusive or dangerous behavior is not defined only by actual physical harm done to the child. Putting your kid in a microwave and turning it on for any period of time is abusive and dangerous, regardless of whether or not the child actually suffers any physical harm in that instance; because any rational, sane person should be able to recognize the danger implicit in such an action, and any person who cannot recognize that, or control it, is abusive.

[SteveGrenard]

Evidence?

Ask his wife for the evidence, she's making the claim her husband Joshua is not a monster. You can find her on MySpace presumably.

[Francesca R]

Personally, in cases where there's a high likelihood of a person repeating an offence such as rape or murder, I'm all in favor of locking them away for life.But they have to murder / rape first, at least once. You are not—I take it—in favour of goverment testing all civilians for likelihood of murdering, with those who print a positive being denied liberty? You need to allow the "flaw" of the crime being committed first.

So, are you seriously championing the argument that a person who has sexually or physically abused children should continue to be allowed access to children, in order to verify whether or not they've been "reformed"? ("Oops, I know that I abused the last ten children, but this time I swear I've changed, so give me another one") Because that is the only way that one can confirm such a change; and in my opinion, I think that the risk to the child far, far outweighs any rights the adult may have.No. But why not lock them up for life and deny them the ability to procreate that way? As you admit—sterilisation can be reversed, so this procedure might not be effective in what you want to achieve.

I maintain that ex-criminals who have "paid their debt to the state" should be allowed to become parents.

[BPSCG]

Ask his wife for the evidence, she's making the claim her husband Joshua is not a monster. I know; I wasn't ascribing the claim that he's "not a monster" to you.
You can find her on MySpace presumably.Thanks, but I think I'll pass.

[Wolfman]

But they have to murder / rape first, at least once. You are not—I take it—in favour of goverment testing all civilians for likelihood of murdering, with those who print a positive being denied liberty? You need to allow the "flaw" of the crime being committed first.
Please note, that all of my comments and suggestions have been in regard only to those who have already committed these offenses before. Nowhere did I say it was wrong to give children to someone who has never committed such an offense before, nor have I anywhere recommended sterilization as a method to be used on such a person. You are using a strawman argument here, debating something that is not what I claim.
No. But why not lock them up for life and deny them the ability to procreate that way? As you admit—sterilisation can be reversed, so this procedure might not be effective in what you want to achieve.I'd be 100% in favor of locking them up for life. But it is curious to me -- you seem to support the idea of preventing them from procreating by locking them up in prison, but not the idea of preventing them from procreating by sterilization. Which makes no sense whatsoever, from your perspective; you argue for the "freedom" of this person to choose whether or not to have children, free from interference from the state, but then turn around and argue that even greater state restrictions, not just on their ability to have children, but on every aspect of their day to day life in prison, is acceptable? Where is the logic in an argument that the state does have the right to prevent them from procreating by locking them away for the rest of their lives, but not to prevent them from procreating via a very simple operation?

I maintain that ex-criminals who have "paid their debt to the state" should be allowed to become parents.So, a person rapes three children, is sentenced to 15 years in prison. When they are finally released from prison, they should be allowed to adopt children? They should be allowed to open a daycare center and care for children? They've "paid their debt to the state", and therefore their personal rights to "have children" trump the rights of any child to be protected from someone who is a proven child molester?

Sorry, dude, but seriously, you and I live in entirely different universes. In the world I live in (or would like to live in), any child's right to be protected from abuse by such a person will always trump any "right" that person may have to have children of their own. And, in fact, most laws that I am familiar with tend to support my position, not yours. Even after a sexual offender is released from prison, having "served their time", they must still register as a sexual offender, they are still given strict restrictions on their access to children, etc.

Another question for you. Consider adoption. In order to adopt a child, you must undergo a number of evaluations to determine your suitability as a parent. If you've previously abused children, physically or sexually, it is about 99.9% likely that you'll be refused the right to adopt a child now, regardless of whether or not you've "paid your debt to the state". And I fully support such a policy...as do most other people I'm aware of.

It is the argument of a lunatic to state that it would be wrong for the state to interfere in such a matter, that any person should be allowed to adopt children, as many as they want, as often as they want, without restriction.

Would you argue that such a person should be allowed to adopt children? Would you argue that it is wrong for the state to "play god", and choose who can be parents, and who cannot, when it comes to adoption? Would you argue that the adult's "right" to have children supercedes the child's right to be protected from an obvious threat of abuse at the hands of a previous offender?

If yes -- then, like I said, you and I live in other universes.

If no -- then why is it that an adopted child has the right to be protected by the state, to be denied 'possession' by a proven abuser...but a 'natural' child has no right to similar protection? Because sterilizing an offender like this is doing just that -- it is denying them possession of a child, exactly the same as denying them the right to adopt a child. It is ludicrous to argue that the potential child is harmed in some way since, as I stated above, you cannot harm that which does not exist.

[Zep]

Zep - I've read that the baby sustained facial and hand burns from the microwave but no idea if that's true.

ETA: seems to be.

From one of the stories in the OP:



If she was hospitalised, that's about as clear-cut abuse as you can get.DOH! My post-blindness!

I agree, the guy IS a nutter. Child-abuse is absolutely intolerable. Galveston, deal with it NOW, before he kills someone.

[Zep]

I don't think it is over-reacting.

First, as stated by others already, the infant did suffer physical harm. However, even if it had not suffered physical harm, it would still be cause for significant concern, and certainly reason to take the child away from its parents.

Dude, this guy is putting his kid in a microwave because DEMONS told him to do it!!! If the kid wasn't actually hurt this time, does that mean that we're supposed to just overlook this incredibly dangerous behavior, and wait until the demons tell him to broil his kid for one minute?

Abusive or dangerous behavior is not defined only by actual physical harm done to the child. Putting your kid in a microwave and turning it on for any period of time is abusive and dangerous, regardless of whether or not the child actually suffers any physical harm in that instance; because any rational, sane person should be able to recognize the danger implicit in such an action, and any person who cannot recognize that, or control it, is abusive.

Agreed. See above.

[Francesca R]

Sorry, dudeI'm female. And that could be perceived as an antagonistic form of address, apparently contrary to the "spirit intended" by you a few posts ago. Either way I would thank you not to refer to me as "dude".

Please note, that all of my comments and suggestions have been in regard only to those who have already committed these offenses before. Nowhere did I say it was wrong to give children to someone who has never committed such an offense before, nor have I anywhere recommended sterilization as a method to be used on such a person. You are using a strawman argument here, debating something that is not what I claim.Actually I am not. You might not be claiming that, but it was the initial suggestion that I am debating. You may want to comment only on convicts but I was not doing. Recall post 3 by mr rosewater and post 9 by me. The "test for parenthood" was presumably in reference to those who had never been parents before (never mind whether they had actually abused children).

I'd be 100% in favor of locking them up for life. But it is curious to me -- you seem to support the idea of preventing them from procreating by locking them up in prison, but not the idea of preventing them from procreating by sterilization. Which makes no sense whatsoever, from your perspective; you argue for the "freedom" of this person to choose whether or not to have children, free from interference from the state, but then turn around and argue that even greater state restrictions, not just on their ability to have children, but on every aspect of their day to day life in prison, is acceptable? Where is the logic in an argument that the state does have the right to prevent them from procreating by locking them away for the rest of their lives, but not to prevent them from procreating via a very simple operation?Who said I support that? You infer incorrectly. I merely observe that if someone is a proven threat to society such that they are in prison, then normally they can't procreate there. I would not support compulsory sterilisation. Either let them out because they are no longer a threat, and they are free to have children, or (depending on what crime they are guilty of) keep them incarcerated and they are not.

So, a person rapes three children, is sentenced to 15 years in prison. When they are finally released from prison, they should be allowed to adopt children? They should be allowed to open a daycare center and care for children? They've "paid their debt to the state", and therefore their personal rights to "have children" trump the rights of any child to be protected from someone who is a proven child molester?

Now that's a strawman of your own. I am not talking about adoption or working with other people's children. I am talking about being able to bear children. There is a difference—in the eyes of the state—between having your own child and adopting one or caring for one in any capacity. The legal situation is very different—even for innocent civilians. I would go as far as to say that the environment in respect of adoption/childcare is one of "guilty until proven innocent" (proven by satisfying police checks and other tests of suitability and competence). To have your own child there are no such restrictions—you are deemed competent and suitable automatically. I support these differences and the current state of affairs. I don't know if you do. You appeared to agree in post 10, but now you want to talk about proven offenders and adoption—both digressions that you brought up.

Another question for you. Consider adoption [ . . . ] Would you argue that it is wrong for the state to "play god", and choose who can be parents, and who cannot, when it comes to adoption? Would you argue that the adult's "right" to have children supercedes the child's right to be protected from an obvious threat of abuse at the hands of a previous offender?

No and you will not find a statement from me otherwise.

If no -- then why is it that an adopted child has the right to be protected by the state, to be denied 'possession' by a proven abuser...but a 'natural' child has no right to similar protection? Because sterilizing an offender like this is doing just that -- it is denying them possession of a child, exactly the same as denying them the right to adopt a child. See above (in this post and in post 11) for my position on this. I think you are not advancing your arguments well if you see procreating as "gaining possession of a child".

It is ludicrous to argue that the potential child is harmed in some way since, as I stated above, you cannot harm that which does not exist.
Then by your logic you cannot act to "protect" that which does not exist either. If you are protecting a "not-yet-existent" child by sterilising somebody then you must also be harming it by denying it the possibility of existing. Don't try to have things both ways please—that's ludicrous.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Cant the government just snip his "man hood" so he can never breed again?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Shouldn't they arrest Satan?

[Wolfman]

I'm female. And that could be perceived as an antagonistic form of address, apparently contrary to the "spirit intended" by you a few posts ago. Either way I would thank you not to refer to me as "dude".
My unconditional apologies for that, you are quite right.
Actually I am not. You might not be claiming that, but it was the initial suggestion that I am debating. You may want to comment only on convicts but I was not doing. Recall post 3 by mr rosewater and post 9 by me. The "test for parenthood" was presumably in reference to those who had never been parents before (never mind whether they had actually abused children).The comment to which I referred was written specifically to me, after I argued that sterilization of people who had already committed abuse should be considered. Nowhere at any time have I argued for "testing" or "sterilization" of people who have not committed any offense. Yet it was you who came back at me with this ridiculous thing about arresting or testing people who have not committed murder.

From the beginning, I have referred only to proven offenders...this isn't something I dragged in later in the argument. If you will read my first post, I stated this quite clearly: "The government, very plainly, has the right to seize children and take them away from parents who are unable to provide the proper standard of care to those children. And I would contend that the government absolutely should have the right to do so, as the child's welfare far outweighs any rights the parent may have to keep the child. But although the government has the right to seize such a child, they have no right to prevent such parents from having more children? A person who's had three children taken away from them for being physically and sexually abused...can just go and have more babies. And those babies are either going to be seized and stuck in the state welfare system, or will live with those parents until they are abused and taken away also."

I would appreciate it if you restrict your responses to me within this context; as I have plainly stated, several times now, that it is only this specific situation to which I refer. I agree 100% that the state should not have the right to sterilize people based only on an unproven potential for abuse. My argument is restricted exclusively to those who are already proven abusers.
Who said I support that? You infer incorrectly. I merely observe that if someone is a proven threat to society such that they are in prison, then normally they can't procreate there. I would not support compulsory sterilisation. Either let them out because they are no longer a threat, and they are free to have children, or (depending on what crime they are guilty of) keep them incarcerated and they are not. Gee, I'd LOVE to keep them locked up for life. But we're talking real world here, not fantasy island. Sentencing and convictions are almost never based on whether a person has been rehabilitated or not. When the person is convicted, the judge gives a specific term for which they may be imprisoned, and they will be released when that time is up, regardless of whether or not they are "no longer a threat". So this whole "They've paid their dues, now they've been rehabilitated" thing is absolute nonsense.

Fact of "real life"; sexual predators who, having served their time and been released, are at very high risk to commit sexual offenses again. And those with a history of violence and abuse often become more violent in prison, not less. Again, please, let us use arguments based on real life, not on some wishful view of how we'd like the world to be. Yeah, it'd be great if people were released only "because they are no longer a threat"; but that's not the real world, and I don't see how any rational argument can be made on the basis of such an assumption.
Now that's a strawman of your own. I am not talking about adoption or working with other people's children. I am talking about being able to bear children. There is a difference—in the eyes of the state—between having your own child and adopting one or caring for one in any capacity. The legal situation is very different—even for innocent civilians. I would go as far as to say that the environment in respect of adoption/childcare is one of "guilty until proven innocent" (proven by satisfying police checks and other tests of suitability and competence). To have your own child there are no such restrictions—you are deemed competent and suitable automatically. I support these differences and the current state of affairs. I don't know if you do. You appeared to agree in post 10, but now you want to talk about proven offenders and adoption—both digressions that you brought up.Please, check your definitions of "straw man" arguments. I was using a parallel example to illustrate my argument. As you yourself have agreed, the state does have a responsibility to screen potential parents, and to protect them from potential parents who are likely to harm them.

I find this statement particularly interesting -- "I would go as far as to say that the environment in respect of adoption/childcare is one of "guilty until proven innocent" (proven by satisfying police checks and other tests of suitability and competence). To have your own child there are no such restrictions—you are deemed competent and suitable automatically" So, let me get this straight. The authorities can deem you as absolutely unsuitable to adopt a child because you are a pedophile and habitual child abuser; but because you happen to have a penis and sperm, and a woman willing to accept both, you suddenly are "deemed competent and suitable to be a parent". Personally, I think it would be impossible for you to set any lower standard for parenthood than that. Personality doesn't matter. Character doesn't matter. A proven pattern of sexual abuse doesn't matter. Even an actively stated desire to rape children doesn't matter. You've got a penis, and you've got sperm...congratulations, you are competent and suitable to have children!!!

See above (in this post and in post 11) for my position on this. I think you are not advancing your arguments well if you see procreating as "gaining possession of a child".Ummm...you mean that a person who procreates does not gain possession of a child? While you may, again, prefer some terribly romantic or idealized vision of what giving birth to a child is, the practical reality is that the parent does gain possession of a child through childbirth. And it is the possession of a child -- by any means, be it adoption, childbirth, or anything else -- by a proven sexual abuser that causes me concern.
Then by your logic you cannot act to "protect" that which does not exist either. If you are protecting a "not-yet-existent" child by sterilising somebody then you must also be harming it by denying it the possibility of existing. Don't try to have things both ways please—that's ludicrous.Actually, I'd argue that I'm not acting specifically to "protect" the child...as you correctly state, the child does not exist, and you cannot protect something that is nonexistent. What I am arguing is to prevent a proven sexual abuser from gaining access to or possession of a child which they can subsequently abuse. Either locking them away for life, or sterilization when they are released, accomplishes that goal. None of your arguments accomplish that goal, and in fact your arguments set the lowest possible standard for being considered a "competent and suitable" parent (your own words). Personally -- and you can feel free to call me an idealist -- I like to set my standards a little higher than that.

[LawnOven]

I wanna know what the hell satan is up to having a guy put his infant daughter in a safe fridge and microwave for a few seconds; did the dark prince make another bet with god?

[Miss Anthrope]

If Satan is this powerful, perhaps the god squad is playing for the wrong team.

[fuelair]

Hmmm... Is everyone over-reacting?


Of course, if he repeated this regularly, and prolonged the situation beyond a few seconds (or turned the microwave on, of course), I'd be after him with a swinging shovel myself.
Original post quoted police detec. saying he did turn the microwave on. You grab a shovel, I'll bring the hammer.:mad:

[cloudshipsrule]

Original post quoted police detec. saying he did turn the microwave on. You grab a shovel, I'll bring the hammer.

As a loving father of a young son, I'll bring the bamboo shoots and lighter.

[BPSCG]

Okay, now that we've entered the realm of everyone trying to one-up the previous poster on how they'd inflict bodily harm on this guy, would anyone care to entertain the idea that he's simply insane and needs medication a lot more than he needs an ass-whipping?

Just a thought.

[Zep]

Okay, now that we've entered the realm of everyone trying to one-up the previous poster on how they'd inflict bodily harm on this guy, would anyone care to entertain the idea that he's simply insane and needs medication a lot more than he needs an ass-whipping?

Just a thought.We did. What garden implement are you bringing?

[fuelair]

I have a problem - always have - with the idea that insanity should be usable as an excuse for murder or other violence against innocent persons. And as for the cruel and unusual aspect, a sane killer (etc.) who is sentenced to death knows it is coming, and insane one doesn't so less "cruel and unusual" aspect.
To put this more simply (and using very limited examples), if an insane person kills my wife, my nephew, my mother etc. it will die - I can live with it if done by the state but I would be happier if I got to.