Weirdest reaction video title I've read

They had the presence of mind to understand the child was sick and getting worse, while still refusing to seek treatment. By admitting he knew he should have gotten help he proved there was no insanity grounds. They chose to watch their child die so they could tout themselves as martyrs. She died of malnutrition and dehydration. Those are two things EASILY preventable, even without direct medical intervention. For that matter, the father wears glasses, despite that being a medical intervention.

It’s an interesting idea. Them needing to know the consequences of their actions. But... I wonder? What could any mortal do that would better teach them the consequences of their actions than having a child die because of you? From the start the cause of death wasn’t malice, wasn’t evil intent. It was ignorance. Stupidity. When you are so dumb that you commit a crime just by being your stupid self- how do you teach a person? They didn’t mean to do it last time, they probably won’t do it again- but because they are stupid by nature, you have no guarantee they won’t do something else that is equally stupid and harmful later. Nothing will bring the child back, nothing done to or by them will make up for what they did. They make a poor example, as it was a crime of stupidity it’s reasonable to assume that some other idiot would do it again without knowing or learning from them, and an idiot who didn’t mean to do a crime isn’t dissuaded from a crime of idiocy. So how does one teach them?

It wasn't stupidity, they knew the consequences, they chose not to help her. They are religious extremists.

Then back to my question, if they knew the consequences already, how would one teach them the consequences if they already knew? To be specific, this was something honeybumblebee had mentioned. I would also agree there is no grounds or justification for insanity. You can’t let people plead insanity based on ignorance, and you can’t make ignorance a defense for crime or anyone could do as they like and claim ignorance.

That is why we put them in jail for murder.

Ok. But why do we put them in jail for murder was the question? The original proposition was an intent to teach them the consequences of their actions. What does it teach them to put them in jail for murder? How does it teach them the consequences of their actions? Is being in jail for murder equivelent to death, or have some power of enlightenment? What way does this teach them the consequences of murder? What does it matter if you teach someone a lesson they can’t use? Why waste the time and money? If the answer is: “the consequence is you go to jail for murder” then it is circular logic. That is simply the consequence because it is imposed as the consequence, not in inherent consequence. Say you give someone life in prison for killing a child, how will you know they learned their lesson? They can’t kill any children in prison. The fact they haven’t killed any children can’t be confirmed as them learning anything, just that younlrevented them from having access to do it.

You say: “that is why..” but there is no “why” simply a self fulfilling truism, not an explanation or a logic or even an intent.

Well, I don't speak for the others but when I meant they need to face the consequences is by them going to jail and hopefully not reproduce again. They indirectly killed their child, I don't see enough evidence that they are hurt nor see any regret for their actions. If they truly cared for their child they would've taken it to proper care and begs the question how did it let to this outcome. Negligence of any kind must face punishment of the level of severity. I understand what you ask guest, but when it comes to law, religion of any kind does not make any change the outcome for the people taken to court. What they have done with the evidence provided does not hinder their belief and so face jail time as their physical punishment whether or not they learn from it.

A fair answer. That is all was asking. The idea is t about teaching them anything, if they learn, they learn, but it’s not a concern. The idea is to punish. I think it’s an important distinction. To be clear, since it seems from the DV’s some people have problems with questions- I’m not saying they shouldn’t gave some sort of action for what they did, nor am I saying that nompart of me wouldn’t want to see them punished. I’m merely asking questions. It’s scary isn’t it? If there is anything in our society that shouldn’t be beyond question, explanation, or clearly defined purpose and a consistent methodology to support that purpose, you’d think it would be something like the justice system, which carries great power and great burden. If any decision should be above knee jerk emotion or basal instinct it should be the one which could impact a life so much is it not? Yet it seems some people dislike when anyone asks questions.

@honeybumblebee unfortunately its already too late on the not reproducing again. She's already pregnant again. As for why jail, thats like asking why we would put someone in jail for drunk driving. Assuming they didn't intentionally withhold nutrients from the child, which, so far, that's the only cause of death we have, malnutrition and dehydration (meaning they starved her to death), they directly caused her death through their gross negligence. There is no indirect. Indirect would be if they keft a pot boilig on the stove, causing a fire in which she died. And it's not about learning a lesson, it's about not letting them hurt anyone else.

That’s likely a better answer. Next to killing them, locking a person away from others is probably the best way we have available to be as certain as possible they won’t hurt others. Of course, it then raises the question- how long do they need to be locked up to make sure they don’t hurt anyone else? How many days or years in the calendar does it take a person to suddenly stop being a danger? One also then has to wonder, if the only goal is to keep them from endangering others by keeping them away from others, why does it have to be a prison as we know it at all? And lastly of course, how can you tell they have reached a point where they aren’t dangerous to others? How can they prove they stopped being dangerous? Or is one act, wether through crealessness or ignorance or malice, enough to prove you are a danger now and forever, with no possibility to ever be otherwise?

Celticrose true. I was referring that they didn't use a weapon other than torture. Also guest, I think the jail time would give them something to think about and hopefully this experience ruined their lives. I am sadden that they have more children. I don't know the judicial side well enough to know if they will provide some form of counseling for various of reasons. Regardless they are a danger to their own children.

Torture is arguably worse than using a weapon, and is usually punished worse. The children are already in other custody, hopefully not like minded. I posted a separate link to an article about their home, it's full of warning signs, both figuratively and literally. Also @guest_ why are you choosing this particular thread to try and tackle the concept of A) prinson system as a whole and B)bthe justice system as a whole? Is it perfect, no, but it is what we have and its far to complex and nuanced a subject to cover in a comment section, especially one with a character limit.

But in regards to this specific case, let me make this clear, in case it hasn't been, the court doesn't think the parents refused to seek help for their sick child of religious grounds. They don't believe the child was sick, at least not enough to be potentially fatel. The court believes they intentionally let that baby waste away, letting her die of starvation and dehydration. So what punishment do you think is justified if that is the case?

@celticrose- in every case we must examine the justice we intend to do with our actions. How do you ensure justice if you don’t question what justice is? If judges just read a book and did whatever it said, they’d be interchangeable with any random fast food employee, and I really don’t think we’d want a justice system like that do you? We are citizens. The justice of this land is shaped by us, directly or indirectly by those we appoint on our behalf. It works for us, from us. Regardless of that, when we discuss these things we play arm chair judge and jury. When playing armchair judge, shouldn’t one think of justice and not just revenge or reaction? Shouldn’t we execute diliberatd thought in all actions of our lives when we have the time to do so? Why bother to engage if one only intends to do so partially? If you care enough to express an opinion, certainly you should care enough to think about it no? As for punishment...

I gravitate towards horrific and ongoing torture. Deep, dark, inhuman things that would leave any decent human being broken just doing that to another, hell, just knowing it was done at all in the world would make a person sick. But that is wrong, on many levels, and serves no purpose beyond a revenge that can never be fully had, and an exercise of my rage and disgust at their actions. Next to that I would think- kill them. An eye for an eye. But again, that is wrong on many levels, and really only serves the same purposes- although it does have the practical effect of saving the costs of life in prison. If this case existed in vacuum I would lean strongly to this. However it creates precidence, so I can’t advcoate it as justice isn’t applied selectively. Life in prison seems like a waste to me. A waste of money in all but a narrow margin of cases, and a waste of life....

Prison doesn’t reform people, and is generally shown to make them worse. Long sentences aren’t shown to deter crime any better, or to avoid future recidivism. In general I don’t think “longer is better” and things like house arrest, counseling, close supervision parole, and lighter security prisons and those that closer mimic the outside world are better options. HOWEVER: IF it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they did in fact willingly let that child die, waste away to nothing, even if it serves no purpose, for such a heinous crime I would demand long term incarceration in a work program facility (so their labor could recoup some of the losses.) this would allow them chances to appeal if any facts were missed or new evidence arises, keep them from causing harm, and serve my irrational need for punitive action due to the heinous nature of the crime. If it can not be proven conclusively, I would advocate a shorter sentence, mandatory life long therapy and parole, etc.

And there is the problem. As a human being I want revenge, I want satisfaction for a heinous thing. That’s normal. But- I also know that isnpointless and wrong. I know that the nature of a crime or how we feel about the severity shouldn’t influence the way we meter our justice or the value of a life, that you can’t bank a life against another, or sum a human up even by their worst deed. Likely why I didn’t go in to a career in criminal justice. I don’t like walking in ambiguity, even if ambiguity is a facet of the universe. But there is danger, real danger in allowing our emotions and circumstances to shape who and how we value rights or human lives. There is a danger in quick conclusion, and operating where we can’t be certain as though we have absolute answers. You can’t give back a life. Convicted of murder, locked up for life or killed- and if later we were wrong, who gets locked up or killed for throwing away that life? Where is that justice? Or just the cost of doing business?

When is an innocent human life an acceptable cost? The law makes few provisions outside of covering its ability to operate. Private citizens don’t have many cases where they can be exonerated for the intentional ruination or death of a human being who did no wrong, or less wrong than thought. So I dunnoh man. I just know that when there is a mob calling for the gallows, or demanding swift and proportional retribution, I wouldn’t be standing with them. It’s a ducked up sad situation. No one will win or profit, but every effort feasible should be made so as little loss as possible takes place. The particulars will work themselves out through the trial. Maybe with the evidence and arguments laid before me I’d have a more solid opinion, but above are my guides for “justice” as much as it can be done, in the current world at least.

*unfollows comments*

Too much for you unklethan I see lol politics are always fun

And you have proven my point about a comment section being no forum for this topic.