Should child murderer have children?

[Wolfman]

First, some background -- Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka were a married couple who in the early 1990s kidnapped, raped, and brutally killed two teenage girls, videotaping the process as they tortured and slowly killed the girls over an extended period of time. It is one of the most brutal and sickening cases in Canadian history (and all the more memorable for me because I was studying at university in St. Catharines, Ontario at that time...the city that Paul and Karla lived in, and were caught in).

Karla was released a few years ago (and the controversy over that is in and of itself quite a story), and the news report below discusses the fact that she has been confirmed to recently have given birth to a child.

My main concern in this article is the bit at the end, where the lawyers and families of the two girls who were killed express concern/outrage over the fact that Karla has had a child, when they themselves had their own children taken away from them.

Now please don't get me wrong -- I'm no apologist for Karla, I'd personally be all for keeping her in prison for the rest of her life. And given her background, I'd be extremely concerned for the welfare (both mental and physical) of a child raised by her (how would you like to grow up having Canada's most infamous female murderess as your mother?).

But the idea that "because we've lost our children, therefore she should not be able to have children"...it causes me discomfort. Not considering the specific person involved, but more the principle of it. While I understand the feelings of the families involved, I dislike the focus of the families, and of this article.

Think about it -- no concern is expressed for the child itself. Nobody in this article (the families, the nurses, the reporter) talks about the potential danger to this child. All they talk about is that its not 'fair' for Karla to have a baby when she's killed someone else's children.

Comments?

Quote:

Homolka had baby boy, nurses group says


INGRID PERITZ
Globe and Mail Update

MONTREAL — Quebec's order of nurses says it has received confirmation that sex murderer Karla Homolka has become a mother.
Gyslaine Desrosiers, head of the Quebec Order of Nurses, says her professional association has begun looking into published reports that Ms. Homolka may have been mistreated when she recently gave birth at Montreal's St. Mary's Hospital.
Both Ms. Desrosiers and Chantal Charron, a press attaché for the professional group, say that in probing the allegation, they were given confirmation Ms. Homolka gave birth.
“She gave birth to a little boy at St. Mary's,” Ms. Charron said in an interview Monday.
A representative of the nurses' order contacted the hospital after a Montreal newspaper published reports, based on an anonymous tip from inside the hospital, that Ms. Homolka had been poorly treated.
“[The order's representative] told me that Mrs. Homolka was there [at St. Mary's]. She had a baby,” Ms. Desrosiers told CTV News Monday. “She was a pregnant woman and she had a baby.”
Ms. Desrosiers says that nothing suggests Ms. Homolka, who has gained nationwide notoriety for her involvement in the slayings of Ontario teenagers Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, was given poor treatment.
“Everybody gave her the care she needs,” Ms. Desrosiers said.
Julie Plamondon, a spokeswoman for St. Mary's, said in an interview Monday that the hospital was conducting its own investigation into the allegations.
“We're going to conduct an internal investigation to find out exactly what happened,” she said. “The investigation is going to be done with the people directly involved in her case.”
Reports that Ms. Homolka delivered at St. Mary's raised eyebrows. St. Mary's is a small hospital in Montreal's west end Côte-des-Neiges district, and the risk of being recognized is higher because the area has a relatively large English-speaking community.
Tim Danson, lawyer for the families of Ms. Homolka's victims, said he found news of her motherhood distressing. He has been in touch with the French and Mahaffy families, who are also upset.
“There a very distressing irony that their children won't grow up to have children, and the person who willingly participated in their abduction, kidnapping and sex torture and murder is now having a child,” Mr. Danson said.

[steverino]

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

Having been employed in a veterinary office, she drugged her sister with Halcion-laced drinks and then used a cloth saturated with halothane (an inhalant anesthetic) to further sedate her. As a consequence of the drugs, Tammy choked to death on her own vomit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was not aware of this couple until now. One aspect I find very unsettling is that she worked closely with animals and we hear that serial killers often had histories of being cruel to animals. Maybe they should have tied Karla's tubes in prison. Too late now.

[Francesca R]

Quote:

Tim Danson, lawyer for the families of Ms. Homolka's victims, said he found news of her motherhood distressing. He has been in touch with the French and Mahaffy families, who are also upset.
“There a very distressing irony that their children won't grow up to have children, and the person who willingly participated in their abduction, kidnapping and sex torture and murder is now having a child,” Mr. Danson said.

Irony that may be but this lady's crime was against the state and the parents of the victims are—and should be IMO—excluded from the business of deciding punishment, which is not about retributivism.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by steverino

I was not aware of this couple until now. One aspect I find very unsettling is that she worked closely with animals and we hear that serial killers often had histories of being cruel to animals. Maybe they should have tied Karla's tubes in prison. Too late now.

Pretty well every Canadian is very familiar with this story; and it received significant international coverage, also. For me, it is one of those events that are a defining moment in your life...one of those things that you always remember exactly where you were, and what you were doing, when you heard about it.

When the first girl was kidnapped, there was minimal press coverage. She was from a 'poor white trash' background, nobody much cared about her, and it seemed to be a single event. When the second girl was kidnapped, it received much more serious coverage. She was an attractive, popular girl from a prominent family, who was literally snatched off the street in broad daylight in front of her friends and family. This all happened in St. Catherines, where I was studying at university at the time.

This second abduction stirred up deep passions in the city. I remember all-night vigils, constant press coverage, etc. The day that her body was found, and it was confirmed she was not only dead, but had been tortured and raped, traumatized everyone.

The things that Bernardo and his wife did to these girls go beyond imagining. Tied up in the basement, they were systematically tortured for several weeks. Teeth yanked out of their mouths. Bones broken. Skin burned/cut. This was no spur-of-the-moment thing, it was a systematic and carefully planned program of incredible sadism.

Paul Bernardo will die in prison. Guaranteed he's never, ever going to see freedom again. His wife, Karla, got off easier because of her lawyer's contention that her participation/cooperation was based on her fear of her husband (and because of her help in giving testimony to convict her husband). But considering what those girls went through, with Karla's full knowledge and assistance, her case gets very, very little sympathy from the general public.

I just can't help but think that, unless someone else adopts her baby, that poor child is doomed to grow up as one incredibly f***ed up kid. Just the social stigma of having her as a mother would do the job; but add to that the psychological impact on Karla of A) having Paul Bernardo as a husband, B) watching and assisting in the torture/murder of two girls, C) many years spent in a maximum security penitentiary, and D) the ongoing social pressures she faces now that she's free again, I just don't see how she'd ever be able to provide anything remotely resembling a stable or nurturing family life for her child.

I remember at the time of the trial that one of the Canadian newspapers did a national poll. They asked first if people supported bringing the death penalty back to Canada. The vast majority stated they were opposed to that, that capital punishment was inhuman and unjustifiable. They were then asked if they would support capital punishment for the specific case of Paul Bernardo.

Over 80% said yes.

The scars of that time still run deep for a lot of Canadians.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I just can't help but think that, unless someone else adopts her baby, that poor child is doomed to grow up as one incredibly f***ed up kid.

You're probably right. But with this type of example I ask myself: "Would I prefer to be born into that environment, or never be alive?" and I don't need much time to choose.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by acuity

You're probably right. But with this type of example I ask myself: "Would I prefer to be born into that environment, or never be alive?" and I don't need much time to choose.

Ummmm...and your choice is...? Sorry, I have no idea of what your own beliefs are, so this could go either way. I know lots of right-to-life fundamentalist types would would say that the former is the best choice, while I myself would absolutely go for the latter choice.

[Francesca R]

Oh . . . I thought it would be obvious (pardon). I would prefer to be alive than not alive. This is not about "right-to-life fundamentalist types" but simply that to be alive seems logically better.

If you were this woman's child, do you think you would take your life at an early opportunity? If you knew this woman's child and he asked you to help him end his life would you do it?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by acuity

Oh . . . I thought it would be obvious (pardon). I would prefer to be alive than not alive. This is not about "right-to-life fundamentalist types" but simply that to be alive seems logically better.

If you were this woman's child, do you think you would take your life at an early opportunity? If you knew this woman's child and he asked you to help him end his life would you do it?

Wait a second...you are discussing two entirely different situations here. The first, which you initially stated, is to "not be born at all". The second, which you bring in now, is to end that person's life after they are born.

In the former case, I'm most definitely choose to never have been born, rather than to be born into a situation of suffering and abuse. We aren't talking about killing someone to stop suffering; we are talking about never creating a life to begin with.

In the latter case, of course I would not assist someone in killing themselves simply to escape a difficult situation (I do support the idea of assisted suicide, but for the most part only in cases of terminal illnesses). As to whether I'd take my own life, that question is impossible for me to answer -- I know people who've taken their own lives for much less significant reasons, and people who've refused to take their lives in much worse situations. That choice is up to the individual.

You say you're not a 'fundamentalist' type, but quite frankly I'm concerned at how rapidly you turned a "never being born" question into a "killing someone after they're born" question; that is a typical tactic of the right-to-life groups that I mentioned earlier, and it relies on a false equivalence in the two arguments.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

In the former case, I'm most definitely choose to never have been born, rather than to be born into a situation of suffering and abuse.

Why?

(You can spare me the charges of being a fundamentalist and equating killing with never being born, please.)

[El Greco]

Well, I guess there are many children of famous murderers around. And some of them must have grown up knowing what their parent(s) were. I guess many of them have followed their own path in life and might even be happy.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by acuity

Why?

(You can spare me the charges of being a fundamentalist and equating killing with never being born, please.)

In regards to the former question, because I do not consider simply "living" as an end in and of itself. I would consider some lives to be very much not worth living. To use some more extreme examples, I'd prefer to never have been born rather than to be born with a chemical imbalance that causes me to hear voices that tell me to kill people. I'd prefer to never have been born rather than to be born to someone who rapes me, and then I go on to rape others. I'd prefer to never have been born than to suffer a birth defect that leaves me unable to communicate or interact with the outside world. I'd prefer never to have been born than to be born in poverty, dying a slow, painful death from starvation at two years old. I'd prefer to never have been born than to have been born with any disease that caused me to die a slow, agonizing death before I was even old enough to appreciate the cause of my suffering. My list could go on and on and on and on. If you can honestly state that you'd prefer to be born even in those situations, well, I guess that's your choice.

Given my current, actual life, yes, I'm happy I was born. But the idea that being born in and of itself has some special value seems ludicrous. There are many factors to consider -- the quality of that life, and the impact of that life on others, both being good examples thereof. So let me turn the argument around on you -- why do you feel that "being born" is preferable to any life situation that you might be born into?

In regards to your latter comment -- it is you who raised questions somehow trying to equate killing someone after they were born to the question of never being born in the first place. Those questions had no part of this discussion, they're a complete non-sequitur. If you want to ignore them now, that's fine; but please refrain from similar ridiculous arguments in the future.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by El Greco

Well, I guess there are many children of famous murderers around. And some of them must have grown up knowing what their parent(s) were. I guess many of them have followed their own path in life and might even be happy.

Most certainly. And there have been children born to completely normal parents who turned out to live terrible lives.

However, I'm very comfortable in assuming that children who have been born to parents with histories of dreadful violence and abuse, with diagnosed psychological disorders, and in a situation of tremendous negative societal reaction will, by and large, live lives that are much more miserable than those born into 'normal' families.

This is sounding more and more like an abortion debate, which is not the issue at all. While I do support abortion, the question here is a question of never being conceived, of never existing in the first place.

Yes, it is possible that a child born in such a situation could turn out well, and make a positive contribution to society. That is true of any child. However, if a child were given the choice in advance of what kind of family they'd like to be born into, I'm certain we'd find very strong preferences.

I personally know of people who have been born into abusive families, and who've faced terrible difficulties, who have nonetheless been able to triumph, and serve as an inspiring model to others. And all the more power to such individuals. I also personally know people who have been born into abusive families, and who've faced terrible difficulties, who not only suffered for their entire lives, but who in turn inflicted significant suffering on others.

I know that someone's gonna' try to turn this into some sort of pro-euthanasia argument, which is not my argument at all. I am not advocating things like sterilizing 'undesirable couples', or killing babies because their life is sub-standard. So let me beat you to the punch. I am adamantly opposed to such policies, and would never support them. But, as I said before, that is a very different issue from the question of never existing in the first place.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I wonder how those eighty percent who support the death penalty in Bernardo's case feel about capital punishment in David Milgard and Steven Truscott's cases.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by acuity

Irony that may be but this lady's crime was against the state and the parents of the victims are—and should be IMO—excluded from the business of deciding punishment, which is not about retributivism.

But if they hunt her down and take a while killing her, I will have no problem (except not being Canadian) lying to get on the jury and then voting not guilty if they are caught. NO crime of violence against an innocent person is simply a crime against the state.


Vd/TsV

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

I wonder how those eighty percent who support the death penalty in Bernardo's case feel about capital punishment in David Milgard and Steven Truscott's cases.

First, thanks to you and fuelair for getting this discussion back more to the original topic.

Personally, I agree with you...I'm opposed to the death penalty. For those not familiar with the names mentioned above, both are people who were convicted of murder who were later (much later) proven to actually be innocent. That 80% reaction was more of an emotional reaction than anything else. Even though I oppose the death penalty, on an emotional level, I'd have a hard time opposing putting Paul Bernardo to death; although if it came to a question of actually doing it, I'd be opposed (and perhaps is more suitable to make him suffer for the rest of his life, than to give him a quick and easy execution).

Originally Posted by fuelair

But if they hunt her down and take a while killing her, I will have no problem (except not being Canadian) lying to get on the jury and then voting not guilty if they are caught. NO crime of violence against an innocent person is simply a crime against the state.

Vd/TsV

That is a sentiment that I cannot agree with at all. While I appreciate the emotions behind it, such an attitude will inevitably lead to greater abuses than those inflicted by the original criminal. While I may sometimes disagree with the penalties imposed by the state, I disagree even more with those who think they have the 'right' to take the law into their own hands.

You talk about crime against individuals and crime against the state -- yet you support not only murdering this woman, but doing so slowly, which is purely an act of revenge, not of justice; to me, such a mentality is a much greater threat to both the individual and the state than that posed by Karla Homolka.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

First, some background -- Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka were a married couple who in the early 1990s kidnapped, raped, and brutally killed two teenage girls, videotaping the process as they tortured and slowly killed the girls over an extended period of time. It is one of the most brutal and sickening cases in Canadian history (and all the more memorable for me because I was studying at university in St. Catharines, Ontario at that time...the city that Paul and Karla lived in, and were caught in).

Karla was released a few years ago (and the controversy over that is in and of itself quite a story), and the news report below discusses the fact that she has been confirmed to recently have given birth to a child.

My main concern in this article is the bit at the end, where the lawyers and families of the two girls who were killed express concern/outrage over the fact that Karla has had a child, when they themselves had their own children taken away from them.

Now please don't get me wrong -- I'm no apologist for Karla, I'd personally be all for keeping her in prison for the rest of her life. And given her background, I'd be extremely concerned for the welfare (both mental and physical) of a child raised by her (how would you like to grow up having Canada's most infamous female murderess as your mother?).

But the idea that "because we've lost our children, therefore she should not be able to have children"...it causes me discomfort. Not considering the specific person involved, but more the principle of it. While I understand the feelings of the families involved, I dislike the focus of the families, and of this article.

Think about it -- no concern is expressed for the child itself. Nobody in this article (the families, the nurses, the reporter) talks about the potential danger to this child. All they talk about is that its not 'fair' for Karla to have a baby when she's killed someone else's children.

Comments?

How droll. Killer brings forth a new life. (Is she married, or yet another single mom who will have major challenges raising a child? )

Quote:

Tim Danson, lawyer for the families of Ms. Homolka's victims, said he found news of her motherhood distressing. He has been in touch with the French and Mahaffy families, who are also upset.
“There a very distressing irony that their children won't grow up to have children, and the person who willingly participated in their abduction, kidnapping and sex torture and murder is now having a child,” Mr. Danson said.

If they are that distressed, they ought to sue for custody of that child as recompense for their loss. If punative damages in a civil suit were found, she'd need to breed three more times to make total recompense.

DR

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

How droll. Killer brings forth a new life. (Is she married, or yet another single mom who will have major challenges raising a child? )

Well, she's definitely not married. No news on if she's living with any guys, or even on who the father might be. There's a massive publication ban on the majority of information about her, including specifics of where she lives, where she works, etc., specifically to prevent people hunting her down.

Quote:

If they are that distressed, they ought to sue for custody of that child as recompense for their loss. If punative damages in a civil suit were found, she'd need to breed three more times to make total recompense.

DR

I strongly suspect that the child will be taken away by child welfare officials anyway.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I strongly suspect that the child will be taken away by child welfare officials anyway.

OK so there is supression of free speech, a protective custody move suited to the information age as I see it. There is also the potential of state sanctioned kidnapping of her child.

Is it possible that the state might have better served her by forcing her to change her name as part of the protective custody/informational lockdown deal?

Or have they done that, and the info leaked out anyway?

DR

[Wolfman]

DR,

Well, in regards to "suppression of free speech", Canada's laws are significantly different to those of the U.S. in regards to the media. A good example was the actual trial of Paul and Karla -- the Canadian media was barred from publishing the majority of the details of the murder (a ban that remains in place to this day), both to try to ensure a fair trial before their conviction, and to avoid unfair suffering on the parts of the victims' families after the trial.

However, American media refused to follow this ban, and for that reason for the most part were barred from attending the trial. Personally, I agreed 100% with this decision -- when I watch American trials like that of OJ Simpson, it has nothing to do with "free speech" and "the public's right to know", and everything to do with making a profit at the expense of the victims.

In Karla's case, she's been given severe restrictions on her activities (she'll essentially be on strict parole for the rest of her life, and go straight back to prison if she violates it at any time). There have been numerous serious threats made on her life, and like it or not, the state has the responsibility to provide reasonable protection to her from those threats. Quite frankly, I'd prefer the option of a publication ban (which so far as I can see does no damage to anyone), to having the media publish where she lives/works, and we then have to fork out massive tax dollars to pay for 24-hour police protection for her.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

If you can honestly state that you'd prefer to be born even in those situations, well, I guess that's your choice.

Yes I would rather be born.

Quote:

But the idea that being born in and of itself has some special value seems ludicrous.

What else is there, other than the opportunity to live? Are you making a "nether-world" reference? Unproven, to say the least.

Quote:

So let me turn the argument around on you -- why do you feel that "being born" is preferable to any life situation that you might be born into?

I don't understand the question. What you may be asking is "Why do you feel that being born (into any life situation) is preferable to not being born?". Is that your question?

Originally Posted by Wolfman

However, I'm very comfortable in assuming that children who have been born to parents with histories of dreadful violence and abuse, with diagnosed psychological disorders, and in a situation of tremendous negative societal reaction will, by and large, live lives that are much more miserable than those born into 'normal' families.

I am very uncomfortable with that sweeping assumption being used to—say—prohibit a former violent convict from having a child.

Quote:

This is sounding more and more like an abortion debate, which is not the issue at all. While I do support abortion, the question here is a question of never being conceived, of never existing in the first place.

The question in your own title is: "Should child murderer have children?". You appear to be answering "No". And your reasoning seems to be "because that child will probably have a quality of life that is relatively bad". I vehemently disagree with your justification if this is the case.

Quote:

if a child were given the choice in advance of what kind of family they'd like to be born into, I'm certain we'd find very strong preferences.

Not relevant. A non-sequitur of your own actually.

Quote:

I know that someone's gonna' try to turn this into some sort of pro-euthanasia argument, which is not my argument at all. I am not advocating things like sterilizing 'undesirable couples', or killing babies because their life is sub-standard. So let me beat you to the punch. I am adamantly opposed to such policies, and would never support them. But, as I said before, that is a very different issue from the question of never existing in the first place.

Well—what are you proposing? Are you proposing that Homolka should have been prevented from having a child? Are you proposing that the child be removed from her care forcibly? Please state your position rather than complain that someone is going to interpret your position a certain way.

Originally Posted by fuelair

But if they hunt her down and take a while killing her, I will have no problem (except not being Canadian) lying to get on the jury and then voting not guilty if they are caught. NO crime of violence against an innocent person is simply a crime against the state.

Thank you for illustrating why the state takes punishment out of the hands of the public (and the victim).

Originally Posted by Wolfman

That is a sentiment that I cannot agree with at all. While I appreciate the emotions behind it, such an attitude will inevitably lead to greater abuses than those inflicted by the original criminal. While I may sometimes disagree with the penalties imposed by the state, I disagree even more with those who think they have the 'right' to take the law into their own hands.

Per above, I agree with you.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

DR,

Well, in regards to "suppression of free speech", Canada's laws are significantly different to those of the U.S. in regards to the media. A good example was the actual trial of Paul and Karla -- the Canadian media was barred from publishing the majority of the details of the murder (a ban that remains in place to this day), both to try to ensure a fair trial before their conviction, and to avoid unfair suffering on the parts of the victims' families after the trial.

However, American media refused to follow this ban, and for that reason for the most part were barred from attending the trial. Personally, I agreed 100% with this decision -- when I watch American trials like that of OJ Simpson, it has nothing to do with "free speech" and "the public's right to know", and everything to do with making a profit at the expense of the victims.

I understand the differences in laws. I tend to agree with your position on this, particularly as regards cameras in a courtroom. I think Judge Ito should have grown a sack, and barred cameras from his courtroom. Gag orders are used in the US, in some cases, in a similar fashion to what you describe above. I'd like to see them used more often.

Sorry to see that the US media circumvented the Candaian government's attempts to desensationalize the trial.

Quote:

In Karla's case, she's been given severe restrictions on her activities (she'll essentially be on strict parole for the rest of her life, and go straight back to prison if she violates it at any time). There have been numerous serious threats made on her life, and like it or not, the state has the responsibility to provide reasonable protection to her from those threats.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer the option of a publication ban (which so far as I can see does no damage to anyone), to having the media publish where she lives/works, and we then have to fork out massive tax dollars to pay for 24-hour police protection for her.

A bullet to her head would have been cheaper. And to his. I know, y'all don't go for that.

DR

[Wolfman]

Acuity,

Your ability to construct strawman arguments is absolutely incredible. When I answer your question as to whether I'd prefer to be born into a certain situation, or to never have been alive at all (ie. to have never been conceived, to have never had life), the first thing you do is try to tie that to some completely unrelated questions about killing children.

When I point out how ridiculous that is, okay, you drop it...but then turn around and bring in another strawman argument that because I personally wouldn't want to be born into a certain situation, that somehow means that I actually support mandatory sterilization of criminals.

You say that you're not a religious fundamentalist, but all your arguments use exactly the same methods that they use. If someone has a different perspective/belief than yours, you immediately summon up the worse possible spectres of abuse (killing babies, sterilizing criminals), and attempt to tie them to the person who has the audacity to actually have different views than your own.

Allow me to demonstrate in a very simple way just how ludicrous your argument is. You attempt to claim that since I said I'd prefer not to be born to a murderer, that somehow means that I think that all murderers should be sterilized. Well, I also made it quite plain that I'd prefer not to be born with a fatal genetic disease that killed me slowly and painfully before I reached two years of age. And the fact is, any family on the planet is potentially capable of having children with such diseases. According to your logic, that would mean that I support mandatory sterilization of every human being.

I'm torn as to whether to continue this debate with you or not -- curious because I've got to admit to a morbid fascination as to what terrible crimes against humanity you will try to attach to me next. However, as it is my belief that debate should consist of two people attempting to exchange differing viewpoints and to understand those different viewpoints, I see little or no purpose in going any further with you. Its plain that you've already made up your mind, and any opposing opinions will just get more of the same nonsense.

[timhau]

While the idea of Karla Homolka having kids makes me queasy, the idea of giving the government the power to decide who will procreate and who will not disgusts me even more.

[Francesca R]

Wolfman: I am not fuelair. Your comments are aimed at me. But you seem to be overly interested in "furious typing" . . .

Just—what's your position on the question, other than "you would rather not be born"?

ETA—This was in reference to post 22 which Wolfman has removed.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by acuity

Wolfman: I am not fuelair. Your comments are aimed at me. But you seem to be overly interested in "furious typing" . . .

I've corrected that...my apologies to fuelair.

Quote:

Just—what's your position on the question, other than "you would rather not be born"?

Actually, your initial question was to "never be alive", not "rather not be born". The two are quite different...the former inferring that I could have been conceived, and subsequently aborted; the latter definitively stating that I was never conceived, never had life. It is the latter to which I am referring (and that you originally asked).

Besides that, what else do you want to know of my beliefs? You've managed to take this discussion in so many different and unrelated directions that it is truly amazing. Do I think that we should babies after they're born, because their situation is bad? No, of course not -- which should be obvious from my posts. Do I think that we should sterilize criminals? No -- but then, I've already stated that.

Quote:

ETA—This was in reference to post 22 which Wolfman has removed.

I didn't remove it...simply deleted my initial response and replaced it with one that has the same essence, but expressed more succinctly.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by timhau

While the idea of Karla Homolka having kids makes me queasy, the idea of giving the government the power to decide who will procreate and who will not disgusts me even more.

Oh, I agree completely! However, the government does have a well-established right to determine who can raise children. I don't see many people objecting if the government takes children from parents who neglect or abuse them.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I didn't remove it...simply deleted my initial response and replaced it with one that has the same essence, but expressed more succinctly.

It was removed when I wrote that, and replaced with: "Edit". You have since repopulated it

Quote:

it is my belief that debate should consist of two people attempting to exchange differing viewpoints and to understand those different viewpoints

To be honest I am still trying to get what your viewpoint is. In response to my questions regarding your views you express amazement that I could ask what I ask (which you regard as inferring or accusing) and you kind-of fly off the handle in a trigger-happy way that seems to display more interest in fogging viewpoints than exchanging them. Having said that—you have answered my questions amid your protests that they be asked—so thank you. Please just calm down and discuss your position—if you wish to.

I think there are risks that Homolka's child will suffer. I think that a former felon such as Homolka should nonetheless be allowed to have and raise children once released. I do not think that the state or the parents of her victims should have the right to stop this. I would rather be born into any environment—no matter how wretched the prospects—than never be concieved (to the extent that it is possible to logically say this), and my reason for this is simple logic: absence of life is nothing, and life presents a chance—no matter how small—of fulfillment. I don't see how this can be refuted.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by timhau

While the idea of Karla Homolka having kids makes me queasy, the idea of giving the government the power to decide who will procreate and who will not disgusts me even more.

I hear you, but still, when the government locks a criminal away for life without parole, it has used its power to decide that criminal will no longer have the chance to procreate.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I've corrected that...my apologies to fuelair.

Actually, your initial question was to "never be alive", not "rather not be born". The two are quite different...the former inferring that I could have been conceived, and subsequently aborted; the latter definitively stating that I was never conceived, never had life. It is the latter to which I am referring (and that you originally asked).

Besides that, what else do you want to know of my beliefs? You've managed to take this discussion in so many different and unrelated directions that it is truly amazing. Do I think that we should babies after they're born, because their situation is bad? No, of course not -- which should be obvious from my posts. Do I think that we should sterilize criminals? No -- but then, I've already stated that.
I didn't remove it...simply deleted my initial response and replaced it with one that has the same essence, but expressed more succinctly.

No problem by me!! And, re: earlier, I understand your position. Nonetheless, I would lie to get on a jury for someone who killed - with little regard for how - the murderer, torturer, mutilator, rapist, etc. - who got their friend. relative, random person and would happily do it myself if a relative, wife, children, friend etc. was involved. Jail is not justice in those cases - unless the jail is sealed off from the outside, no rights in it, guards on wall tops only and food thrown in. I really do not like those who prey on the innocent -and I do not care about their situation, early life problems, genetics, intelligence, etc. I trust it is clear that that is my belief, that I will, if necessary act on it and I have the training, equipment and ability to carry it out. And I still think you write well and make your points well!!

[Morrigan]

If it were up to me, I would have destroyed that woman. So needless to say, since I don't think she should be allowed to live, I certainly don't think she should be allowed to breed.

I hope she loses custody of the child.

[Jas]

Um, the woman is a convicted sex offender. There are provisions restricting the access of those people to children. She should most definitely lose custody of the child on that basis alone. The ability to procreate shouldn't serve as a loophole to getting around restrictions which are designed to protect children.

As far as the comparison with David Milgard re: the death penalty: do we have videos of him raping and murdering the nurse (Gail... the name escapes me at the moment)? I have no problem with their being a heavier burden of proof with regards to death penalty cases.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by fuelair

But if they hunt her down and take a while killing her, I will have no problem (except not being Canadian) lying to get on the jury and then voting not guilty if they are caught. NO crime of violence against an innocent person is simply a crime against the state.


Vd/TsV

We recently had a case here in Saskatchewan where a man killed his daughter's drug-dealing boyfriend because he'd gotten her hooked on morphine. At his trial, the judge instructed the jury that they could not acquit the defendant. He was convicted of second-degree murder, and will probably die in prison, as he does not appear remorseful. He was a sympathetic defendant, but he was clearly guilty. It was a very sad case all around.

At any rate, here in Canada it is common for judges to instruct juries in this way. In some ways, this is a good thing (did you ever hear of the case of T. Cullen Davis?), but on the other hand it makes juries more ornamental than practical.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

We recently had a case here in Saskatchewan where a man killed his daughter's drug-dealing boyfriend because he'd gotten her hooked on morphine. At his trial, the judge instructed the jury that they could not acquit the defendant.

What if they did it anyway?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Jas

Um, the woman is a convicted sex offender. There are provisions restricting the access of those people to children. She should most definitely lose custody of the child on that basis alone. The ability to procreate shouldn't serve as a loophole to getting around restrictions which are designed to protect children.

As far as the comparison with David Milgard re: the death penalty: do we have videos of him raping and murdering the nurse (Gail... the name escapes me at the moment)? I have no problem with their being a heavier burden of proof with regards to death penalty cases.

Yup, agree 100%. Remains to be seen exactly what will be done.

Regarding Milgaard, I agree that the two cases are different...but there was also direct proof of police tampering with evidence in his case in order to secure a guilty verdict. Granted that a confession and video tape of the crimes is pretty incontrovertible proof, I'd still be concerned that at least in some cases, police (or others) could tamper with evidence in such a way as to make a person seem guilty, without any doubt at all.

While there's a part of me that sees a certain 'justice' in executing murderers and rapists, it can still be abused. Imprisoning a person for life is a terrible punishment anyway, and it at least leaves room for at least some form of restitution if it turns out later that the conviction was wrong. David Milgaard suffered terribly, and nothing will ever really compensate for what he went through; but how much worse would it have been if he'd been executed, then later found to be guilty?

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

We recently had a case here in Saskatchewan where a man killed his daughter's drug-dealing boyfriend because he'd gotten her hooked on morphine. At his trial, the judge instructed the jury that they could not acquit the defendant. He was convicted of second-degree murder, and will probably die in prison, as he does not appear remorseful. He was a sympathetic defendant, but he was clearly guilty. It was a very sad case all around.

At any rate, here in Canada it is common for judges to instruct juries in this way. In some ways, this is a good thing (did you ever hear of the case of T. Cullen Davis?), but on the other hand it makes juries more ornamental than practical.

It should be added that the reason he could not be acquitted was because he had admitted to the actions he was charged with. Under Canadian law, a person cannot be found innocent of something that they have themselves admitted to.

The jury could have still said that they found the defendant innocent; but that would have led automatically to a declaration of a mistrial, and they would have gone through the whole thing again. This is likely an area that should be explored by Canada's Supreme Court, but this man was not a great case for such a challenge; he did not appear remorseful, and although people sympathized with his reasons for doing this, not many people found him a very appealing defendant. My own impression of him was that he was proud of what he had done, and that punishment simply played into a martyr complex.

But this raises an interesting question -- how much power should juries have? Juries are most definitely not supposed to interpret law; they are supposed to determine guilt or innocence based on the laws as they are written and intended. It is the judge's responsibility to let them know within what limits they are allowed to render judgments. While I may not agree with this in all cases, I think it would open us up to much worse problems if this were not the case.

Let's reverse the situation -- someone is on trial who has a particularly nasty personality, who is instinctively disliked by the jury. The case against him is largely circumstantial, and there is more than reasonable doubt that he did not do it. The judge gives clear directions on what "reasonable doubt" means, and the jury is instructed that they must render a judgment within those directions. They do not have the option that just because they don't like the guy personally, they can therefore find him guilty. Such verdicts should be based on the law, not on how you feel about the person (if you sympathize with them, or hate them), and not on how you personally think the law should be interpreted.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

At any rate, here in Canada it is common for judges to instruct juries in this way. In some ways, this is a good thing (did you ever hear of the case of T. Cullen Davis?), but on the other hand it makes juries more ornamental than practical.

Interesting. There are almost no precedents in the UK of a judge directing a jury to convict (withdrawing defence). One significant case (which was upheld on appeal) is R v Wang. This related to possession of a blade (but not intent to commit violence). I don't believe a judge direction to convict has ever happened in a murder case in the UK, or that it would ever be allowed by the lords (thankfully IMO).

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

It should be added that the reason he could not be acquitted was because he had admitted to the actions he was charged with. Under Canadian law, a person cannot be found innocent of something that they have themselves admitted to.

OK—that's altogether different. Do Canadian judges have the power to direct conviction when a defence pleads not guilty?

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Let's reverse the situation -- someone is on trial who has a particularly nasty personality, who is instinctively disliked by the jury. The case against him is largely circumstantial, and there is more than reasonable doubt that he did not do it. The judge gives clear directions on what "reasonable doubt" means, and the jury is instructed that they must render a judgment within those directions. They do not have the option that just because they don't like the guy personally, they can therefore find him guilty. Such verdicts should be based on the law, not on how you feel about the person (if you sympathize with them, or hate them), and not on how you personally think the law should be interpreted.

The thing is that that might be how things are supposed to work, but juries can ignore those limitations unless there are procedures that prevent it. For example Danish judges can overturn a guilty verdict from a jury, but in the absence of such rules they can do it, whether or not they're supposed to.

ETA: I just saw from the potion of your post that Acuity quoted that there are in fact procedures against that in Canadian law. That should teach me not to read properly. But if guilt was already established, what was the jury supposed to determine? Also, if you will permit a slightly off topic question, how do you deal with false convictions? I find it hard to believe that I could be convicted of any crime I confessed to, as long as I could find a prosecutor willing to press charges, no matter how strong the evidence for my innocence was.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

The thing is that that might be how things are supposed to work, but juries can ignore those limitations unless there are procedures that prevent it. For exampel Danish judges can overturn a guilty verdict from a jury, but in the absence of such rules they can do it, whether or not they're supposed to.

In Canada, if a jury returned such a verdict, it would almost inevitably be declared a mistrial.

I'm not a legal expert on this, but I do remember at least one case from when I was a teenager (that was about 25 years ago) where a jury found a man guilty, but the defense argued successfully that there had been more than reasonable doubt, and a mistrial was declared.

Subsequently, the members of the jury were questioned, and it was found that in their deliberations, they had all agreed that according to the evidence, there was reasonable doubt; but according to their own gut feelings, they felt he was guilty. So they declared him guilty.

All members of the jury were subsequently punished (I don't remember exactly what the punishment was, but it wasn't that serious).

So at least in Canada, a jury's role is fairly clearly defined; technically, yes, they can disobey or ignore a judge's instructions, but almost never will that result in an actual verdict and sentence. Instead, it will just result in a retrial.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by timhau

What if they did it anyway?

Fortunately (usually anyway) in the US we have jury nullification.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by acuity

OK—that's altogether different. Do Canadian judges have the power to direct conviction when a defence pleads not guilty?

Actually, he did not specifically admit to shooting the victim. The defendant stated that he recalled unlocking his pistol, and had a vague memory of driving to the victim's house. Of the actual shooting however, he claimed to have no recollection at all. So, he wasn't pleading guilty, but I think his defence was based on diminished capacity. He also stated he was fearful of the victim.


In my opinion, he would have been convicted anyway. The general feeling of most people was that they felt bad for his situation, but there were other options available. The jury could have convicted him of manslaughter, but they didn't. I think they were simply unable to ignore the eyewitness testimony of the defendant's daughter. He was fortunate, actually, that he wasn't convicted of first-degree murder.

We have another case being tried currently involving a man who shot two police officers to death in front of a third officer. He stated he was shooting in the direction of the victims, but not at them specifically. I suspect this jury will receive instruction as well.