Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What on earth possesses people to do shit like this?
it's just... fucking evil. I can't even start to comprehend someone going
"hey hun, you know what we should do today? we should give the baby some herion. come on! It'll be great craic, I mean, what's the worst that could happen?!!"
some people should be drowned at birth
I... I mean, what was the goal, or the point, or the desired outcome??
People like that should be flayed and then drowned in vinegar.
If not that, then I don't have a clue.
Can't you just drop them off at the adoption centre or what-have-you rather than kill them>
It's probably a good thing I'm not Home Sec.
there are think cunts everywhere
The article implied that the police accepted that the couple had given it to stop the baby from crying, like a sedative.
and this couple are obviously stupid.
(I used to get worried even giving calpol to my kids when they were tiny.....but then when i contemplated that it is also anti inflamatory and lowers tempratures in fevers then I allowed myself to be swayed to use it)
is just a flaw not even in their humanity, but even basic animal instincts NOT TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN
so the baby was possibly addicted too. They might have given her methadone to stop her withdrawl symptoms.
Not that that's ok.
hadn't thought of that
social services not got their shit together then...
if (if I'm guessing correctly) 2 recovering heroin addicts are bringing up a baby that's born addicted
shit, I don't know anything about this sort of thing it's just my reaction to reading the story was 'nope, that's beyond any kind of comprehension'
Do you want them just to knock on doors and look for needles casually strewn about?
My guess is that medical professionals would've known they were addicts, but they doesn't mean they told social services.
it's very easy to assume social were in the know, but 'recovering addicts' haven't necessarily registered or been registered with the SS.
I'm biased - my mum used to be a probation service high up, and that department would get blamed for everything, ever, when jack straw was shitting himself over the failings of policies.
obviously nothing about this is OK but internet lynching somebody who has fucked up their life, and then fucked up somebody else's life and their own life again is deeply counterproductive.
The WTF? and "how could somebody do this?" responses are sensible and justified and right - but we need to reflect on how people end up like this in society. Addicts aren't necessarily "pure evil", nor do they deserve to be drowned in vinegar or whatever. Of course, you commit a crime, you deserve some sort of punishment, nobody would deny that, but casting the whole thing in terms of good/evil shows a terminal lack of empathy and understanding of society, doesn't help anybody else who may have got into a similar situation and wants out of it, and generally makes me feel as nauseous as the original incident does.
people aren't pure evil, and dividing the world up into evil and not-evil doesn't stop things like this ever happening again. distasteful as it is, people need to show a certain level of empathy and understanding in line with a desire for the law to work its course in proportion with the crime.
Couldn't you just hurl some abuse at me instead?
but they only really exist in movies
no one has actually confirmed that's why it was done.
You're saying there's no way that they didn't just do it because they're cruel? If there's proof, then I'll shut up, but how is it always society's fault? A lot of addicts have had children, but as pointed out above many will choose to give them up for adoption, instead of, oh, GIVING THEM A-CLASS DRUGS FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY. COME. ON.
as somebody pointed out above, this goes against human instincts. therefore, people aren't born to do things like this. if they are then there is something pathologically wrong with them and they deserve some sort of understanding from society (and I stress throughout that this doesn't mean that people get let off - I'm just strongly against the idea of labelling people as EVIL like its some inherent, irresolvable fact about their characters, it doesn't do anyone any favours other than to allow people to assuage their collective guilt about the failings of society).
It isn't confirmed that that's why they did it. But even if they were just doing it because they were cruel - then there is probably a reason for that that needs to be examined - again - people just don't turn on their babies, it's counter-instinctual (as is, incidentally, giving them up for adoption).
I think I presumed what seemed like the most likely and most compassionate interpretation of what happened, and even if I didn't, I think my argument about just passing people off as evil still stands.
I think they've reached a point where their understanding of right and wrong is so fucked they've forced a baby to abuse substances and killed it.
It's about choices. 'Society' the phantom menace has a lot to answer for, but there are a lot of people in a lot of bad situations. It's about choices, and how willing you are to simply stop caring about human life.
I'm sorry: when someone reaches this point, they deserve no deserving of understanding. Would you have them rehabbed (because a lawyer will defend them as under the influence of substances) and back out in eight years? Maybe they can have another baby and try really hard not to inject speed in its eye. Fingers c-c-c-crossed.
Even in situations where people have lost a lot of control of their own lives because of broader factors and "society" (from the sounds of it these parents weren't quite at that stage), there is a finality to the acts of the perpetrator that keeps them culpable, in full.
all this is why I made it clear in an earlier post:
"people need to show a certain level of empathy and understanding in line with a desire for the law to work its course in proportion with the crime."
What I'm talking about is not how these people should be punished because that is a matter for the courts. It is about how they should be thought about in society, how they should be judged in a non-legal sense of the word. Of course there is a finality in their acts that make them legally culpable, but by branding them as evil, by refusing to even consider a level of empathy or understanding (which certainly doesn't mean condoning their actions) you do nothing but, as I said before, assuage the collective responsibility of society to try to ensure things like this don't happen again.
I accept they are legally culpable, but by then saying they are guilty, ergo evil/cruel/it's a closed book, then it doesn't shed any light on us as human beings living in a society which includes people who seem to have dropped out of society; it doesn't help us to understand why people become cruel or fail in their social responsibilities.
legal culpability isn't the same as moral culpability, no matter what Cat is likely to argue in a moment.
2. i've never suggested or thought that they were. cheating on your gf shouldn't be a criminal offence. a signalman who forgets to divert a train isn't morally culpable, in most circumstances. duuuuuuuuuuuuuh.
3. don't use my real name unless you're addressing me directly
(working with all the facts, which we don't know)
Nobody has branded them as pure evil though, or suggested that they could be no other way. Certain acts are just evil. And as I've said, there's no reason why accepting this creates problems for understanding society.
that's ridiculously. acts are a chain of cause and effect. people don't just act out of some impulse that can be refined to the baseline of evil. Even with malice aforethought it is undoubtedly more complex than that.
And by refining it down to evil, you ignore the complexity of human experience that leads to an act that results in cruelty. You leave no space for even imagining misguided-but-good intention, you leave no space for any sort of external factors, you leave no space for mental illness, because evil by definition carries the concept of it being inherent rather than in any way socially, or even individually constructed.
it's impossible to just willingly do wrong. It must always be attributed to something else, and therefore blame is also.
So... we're untouchable? Absolved of blame for killing?
you're not absolved of blame for killing, it's just, that when you kill, there is a reason for it, and it's general a good idea to try and understand that reason rather than putting it down to the nefarious, ethereal, inherent and reductive label of "evil".
it's not that actions must always be attributed to something else, it's that they should be seen in connection to other things.
"i'll just willingly do wrong" for no reason. and to try and understand those reasons (which isn't the same as condoning them) I think is integral to living in a 21st century Western society, where we are beyond crude 'correction', retributive punishment or the rest of it. it's about recognising that there isn't a criminal "type" and about recognising how society can move in ways that help to lessen the liklihood of people doing wrong through greater collective understanding rather than repressive state intervention.
Before you were clearly seperating the courts' from society's attitudes but this seems to obfuscate that.
in that case, we agree. I thought you were intimating that because of the connection to other things they should be given less-harsh sentencing. I am completely off base from what you've been saying. I don't believe in evil people. I just believe in people who are given choices of right or wrong and pick 'wrong' while knowing they're doing it. From the micro to the macro level, they definitely exist. But your point is different.
because there are certainly some poeple who seem to have a compulsion to 'be evil' (whether or not they are victims of societal/environmental influence, rather than being born 'evil'). Serial killers are probably the best example I can think of - though obviously an extreme one
Oh wait, you were addressing him directly.
FALSE ALARM, EVERYONE.
obviously. A state of mind which is evil can render an act evil.
VINEGAR DROWNING COMMENCE
*writes down Tristan's name on 'lefties who will have eyes burned during revolution' list.*
You know how I feel about retributive justice. Obviously, we know very little about this case, but it's very difficult to recover from heroin addiction in this country and god only knows what brought them to this point in their lives. Everybody's a loser in this story, and I'd quite like to have a little cry now. So sad :(
of compassion from me mam in her job, but... baby killing is the point my head switches off.
Although that's awkward because I can't recall the lynch squad I've just sent out because Dave's phone will be on silent.
Social services are usually the first to blame, but really, what hope do people with this level of addiction have in being able to succesfully raise a child. (I do accept that there are thousands of junkie parents out there who manage to childrear without incident, but still..) And what are society's options? Child welfare is paramount, but once the child is born into the system, it's so hard to extricate them from it. Should we be talking children away from addict parents, and if so, how bad a mistake do they have to make to trigger that action. Should we be allowing them to be born at all (contraceptive implants are practically pushed onto female addicts as it is.)
First step would be in treating addiction as an illness and not a crime, but even then...
My heart is sad.
so short of a crystal ball, what can they do? CCTV in homes?
And the first to blame, the *first*, are the people who've done it, in any crime. After that, other factors can be assessed, and further blame allocated. But it came down to a choice of feeding baby methodone or not feeding baby methodone and they chose A.
I wonder if everyone would be as quick in defense if the parents had been alcoholics and giving the baby absinthe on several occasions.
And by that I mean that no, they wouldn't.
I was mainly just answering the many "OMG WHY WHY WHY?" posts at the beginning of the thread, and giving a possible reason why.
I'll add very quickly indeed that when I said 'everyone', I more meant my imaginary strawman liberals, not a specific person on this board.
Gist of it- I'd be equally sympathetic!
The problem with drawing the line between hopeless parenting anmd criminality is tricky. I'd personally sooner prosecute lazy parents who raise toxic fat children on little else than mcdonalds, because food addiction at parental level should not impair judgment in the way substances do.
the second someone injects heroin, they're risking their mind state. Again: a choice. I agree on overfeeding kids point, but you surely can't say that's less understandable than people making decisions under heroin. Unless they were injected at gunpoint, they put themselves there!
Now, I need to dash- shopping and then a burger king before catching my train ;)
i never said that they shouldn't feel the full force of the law. what I was getting at is that whether or not somebody is guilty, trying to have some understanding is far far more productive than retributive justice or branding.
the "evilness" or fecklessness of what they have done does mattter for lots of reasons. Your post seems to imply they acted in the way an ordinary addict would. That may not be the case. This question aside, being a drug addict doesn't absolve them of anything, in law or otherwise.
I don't think this affects our ability to understand society, and how people come to be drug addicts and fuck up their lives. It's just that killing a baby, or committing any serious crime is an inherent risk of that lifestyle, and the punishment and going to prison is part of the "fucking up" of their lives. Even if it was meant with no cruelty or malice, they've been extremely reckless and negligent. Which is only slightly less bad.
my point is that even extreme, reckless, negligent acts don't happen in a vacuum. I never suggested that they ought to be absolved of responsibility. Just that retributive justice, and the bandying about of words which are polarising, extremist, and suggesting inherent traits of character don't do anybody any favours when trying to understand what the rest of society's relationship to and involvement with this is. And it is only through some sort of engagement with society about why these sort of things happen (and the babies of addicts dying - though maybe not in such an horrific way - isn't uncommon), about why people become reckless or negligent or even cruel, that things like this can be prevented in future.
i suppose what I'm getting at essentially is it is the role of the court to do the justice bit, and the role of others to try and foster at least some sort of empathy. i'd rather live in a society that attempts to be compassionate than one that doles out its justice with no reference to our interconnectedness.
My point about the ordinary addict thing was that if they didn't act as most people in their situation would, then there's more of an onus on them (moral not legal), as it can't be explained away by their addiction, and so we're focusing again at them as individuals not the society/background.
Right. It's completely natural and I think admissible for people to be disgusted by things like this, in the banding about of "scum" and "what cunts" and whatnot. Our aim in doing that is not to "understand" as you want it to be; it's a natural (and admissible) reaction. Ordinary people - not the courts - need catharthis and closure.
Of course we need to fully understand what causes these tragic things to happen and to try to prevent them in future. But when it's a case of people *becoming* capable of these things (or of these things becoming characteristic of them), why should we hold back criticism? We can seperately assess and determine the reasons why they became capable of it and, at the same time, hold them fully to account. We can also discover what caused it in this broader sense and help prevent similar things *without* feeling any empathy to the characteristics which made them predisposed to do whatever it was they did. Empathy to what *gave* them those characteristics, sure. But even this is not necessary for any bettering of society plans.
Remember the law is there to serve *us*, and *our* values. "Justice" inevitably takes account of what it is to offend our morality even in entirely utilitarianistic culpability (this is different from merely "being offended" obviously. Here the baby was actually harmed, and in a way that is morally offensive). If we don't even allow our own morality to be offended, then what is the law upholding? 
I've not read anything to do with this though, so idk. Wish DiS has italics so I wouldn't have to *this* anymore.
 NB I'm not saying these are innate characteristics
It's preventative, of course. But murder is far more serious and sentenced harsher than reckless manslaughter, even where the actual acts are identical. If the purpose is to prevent unlawful killing, then this suggests some deaths are more "worth" preventing than others - the purposeful killings. So the extent of legal blameworthiness is based on the extent of moral blameworthiness, and retributive justice encompasses this.
and so sad.
looks like a beautiful baby.
Im a published author now!
I mean, there are people in the world who poison their own children to death with prescription narcotics but let's not lose sight of what really matters eh?
to stop them selling it or doing this sort of thing?
But yeah, what idiots.
not using the "E" word, but anyone who puts a baby's safety to the back of their minds, so that they can get off their faces in peace and quiet or whatever happened, should be severely punished.
I think most people have shown they feel just that- conflicted.
and throw the woolly liberals in with them
That's got to sting!
it stops crying. It's actually common and doesn't usually result in death if it's a tiny amount.
good old mum!
it's obviously still terrible and highlights how people should require a licence before they're allowed to have children. No wool on me buddy.
Bit more risqué then popping some brandy in its milk, probably more sensible then Louise Woodwarding the little fucker though, eh?