Dad gets life after cocaine kills infant

Wow this story is really sad. I think that father gets what he deserves.
 
Actually, I did a search for the number of people who die per annum (including babies, I presume) from food allergies, with the intent of waving the thousands in your faces as an indicator of risk. But I couldn't--it's only about 125/year (according to Wiki).

On the other hand...deaths from smoking-related (read: second-hand smoke) COPD may be a whole lot higher. So...*Arnold Schwarzenegger voice*...I'll be back...lol
 
KStoner6tb said:
qwe said:
>>That kind of underminds the purpose of laws, don't you think??>>

his point was that whether its peanut butter or tylenol or cocaine, it was the same sort of mistake, the same sort of intent, the same sort of accident. the only reason cocaine should come into play is if you want to charge the man with cocaine possession.
Click to expand...
That's not true because tylenol or peanut butter are not against the law. You can go back to the car wreck scenario. If you simply get into a (true)accident, and kill someone, there will be zero legal action taken. On the other hand, if it's proven that you broke any law which contributed to the accident(whether it be DWI, wreckless driving, etc) there will be some sort of consequence.

The fact that something is against the law has to bare some weight in the justification of his punnishment. Dosen't that seem like part of the reason for laws after all??

Second point besides the whole parenting deal is whether he deserved the punnishment dealt out; and yes, life is a lengthy sentence. But at least he's still breathing on this earth.
Click to expand...
sorry, i just don't share your desire to have society harm people when it isn't necessary

this guy is a cocaine user who experienced a freak accident

thats all
 
tobala said:
Actually, I did a search for the number of people who die per annum (including babies, I presume) from food allergies, with the intent of waving the thousands in your faces as an indicator of risk. But I couldn't--it's only about 125/year (according to Wiki).

On the other hand...deaths from smoking-related (read: second-hand smoke) COPD may be a whole lot higher. So...*Arnold Schwarzenegger voice*...I'll be back...lol
Click to expand...

LOL hey at least you're being honest; not giving some ballooned number expecting us not to actually check up on it!! Most smoking related deaths are hard to prove. Most people who die related to smoking, are not sudden, acute 'incidents.' Most are contributed to long-term exposure to smoke; which helps make it hard to compare.
 
KStoner6tb said:
Maybe you should call up your state senator and ask him that question; as he would have a more detailed, elaborative answer than me.

Why would congress pass certain laws such as NEGLIGENT homicide?? Don't you believe this man acted in a negligent manner?? Christ am I missing something here??
Click to expand...
State senator? I was asking why YOU feel that way. And yeah I undestand the need for such laws, there needs to be some sort of deterent from such deaths occuring, but I still fail to see why in this paticular case why this man should be sentenced to life in prison. Judges are meant to be able use there discretion otherwise there would simply be mandatory sentences for every crime and life when this a. this man is'nt a threat b. has been punished enough already and c. will NEVER make such a mistake again seems entirely unnecessary.

Btw Senators pass such laws in your country?
 
Wayne Gale said:
State senator? I was asking why YOU feel that way. And yeah I undestand the need for such laws, there needs to be some sort of deterent from such deaths occuring, but I still fail to see why in this paticular case why this man should be sentenced to life in prison. Judges are meant to be able use there discretion otherwise there would simply be mandatory sentences for every crime and life when this a. this man is'nt a threat b. has been punished enough already and c. will NEVER make such a mistake again seems entirely unnecessary.

Btw Senators pass such laws in your country?
Click to expand...

If you would have actually read all my posts, I said the life sentence was a little steep. Also, notice how I said CONGRESS passes the laws. Said to call you senator or state rep. if you want a detailed description of the law. Pay a little more attention there
 
The guy had SIX other charges related to cocaine...it's not like he wasn't given the opportunity to realize that maybe he should clean up his act.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a (recovering) addict and I understand how all logic and sensible thinking goes out the fucking window when you're in the grips of the selfish disease. But addiction is a disease that can be treated should the addict choose to. This man chose not to and now his son died as a result of his selfish choice.

If he had only hurt himself and was being given a harsh sentence then I'd argue in his favor. But the reality is, a human being (an infant no less) has been robbed of an opportunity to live. To LIVE.

Anyone on here who is an addict KNOWS that even the most severe of consequences does not guarantee that one is going to stop using. Feel remorse maybe, but stop using? Nope.

That said, sure, having to deal with having killed your own child is a punishment in and of itself. But who's to say that that's really going to keep him from using again and putting yet another innocent person's life at risk?
 
eon_blue said:
But who's to say that that's really going to keep him from using again and putting yet another innocent person's life at risk?
Click to expand...

Some people on this thread believe that it was such a FREAK accident, that hell, it would never happen again:\ . But we shouldn't imprison the man, and take that chance right?
 
^^^^ Lots of parents lose children by doing foolish things. Reproval should be balanced by compassion.
 
lorxlor said:
Well if the baby was teething...maybe he thought cocaine on the baby's gums would be wonderful idea...and make it stop crying.
Click to expand...


Obviously it wasnt such a wonderful idea. I despise how some parents would give their babies alcohol and other drugs to shut them up. Those type of people are second class and dont deserve to have kids.
 
This kind of thing just makes me wish there were reasonable methods of establishing criteria in privileges to reproduce
 
I dont think many of the people, if any, really understand what he was prosecuted for. He was not prosecuted for MURDER, he was convicted of felony murder! Felony murder is when someone dies during or as a result of a felony crime. For instance, if you rob a bank and someone has a heart-attack and dies, that is felony murder. If you hit someone and kill them with a stolen car, that is felony murder. In this case he was dealing/possessing/whatever cocaine (all felonies) and due to this his son ingested some cocaine and died. This is felony murder and I think I may have convicted him as well if I were on the jury. Of course I would have to hear all the details first, but it seems as if the elements of the crime (felony murder) were all present. I am not saying that I am certain he should have been prosecuted for this crime. But that is not what a jury decides, a jury simply decides if the evidence is enough to show that he committed the crime, not to consider extenuating circumstances, that is the judge's job during sentencing.
 
Perhaps his sentence is a bit harsh, and most likely the baby didn't even die from the cocaine, but this dad should have damn well known better. Keep your children and your cocaine very separate!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top