• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sick sick world what is wrong with people

www.haaretz.com

Israeli court acquits man of assaulting nun in Jerusalem's Old City

Security footage from the incident shows the suspect running behind the nun before pushing her to the ground and walking away. The woman's head can be seen hitting a stone structure on the ground before the man is seen returning, kicking her and fighting witnesses who intervened
www.haaretz.com www.haaretz.com

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
All the Two Foot Tommy mob showing they dont really care about women

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
All the Two Foot Tommy mob showing they dont really care about women

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Nor children
 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lindsay-clancy-trial-infanticide-9.7326513

Canada already has an infanticide law. If a mother kills her own child under the age of one while her mind is “disturbed” from birth, the charge can drop to a lesser offence with a maximum of five years.

CBC’s legal expert says the real problem is that Clancy’s two older children were past their first birthday, so the lesser charge of infanticide would not apply.

“That is a shortcoming in the Canadian law.”

This is their equivalent of the BBC by the way.
 
robp135 said:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lindsay-clancy-trial-infanticide-9.7326513

Canada already has an infanticide law. If a mother kills her own child under the age of one while her mind is “disturbed” from birth, the charge can drop to a lesser offence with a maximum of five years.

CBC’s legal expert says the real problem is that Clancy’s two older children were past their first birthday, so the lesser charge of infanticide would not apply.

“That is a shortcoming in the Canadian law.”

This is their equivalent of the BBC by the way.
Click to expand...
I haven’t followed much of this trial but are you disagreeing that there might be a gap in (Canadian) law? (Hypothetical obviously as this is not being tried in Canada).
I’d have thought logically it doesn’t necessarily matter how old her other children were, if she was suffering severe post-natal depression and had other psychotic diagnoses, within a year of giving birth to her youngest child then the charge of infanticide could apply to all of the children’s deaths?
(Note not commenting on whether or not that is the case as I don’t have enough knowledge of these particular events, but there is a logic that in theory it should apply).
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood but I read your post as somewhat mocking the CBC piece?
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I haven’t followed much of this trial but are you disagreeing that there might be a gap in (Canadian) law? (Hypothetical obviously as this is not being tried in Canada).
I’d have thought logically it doesn’t necessarily matter how old her other children were, if she was suffering severe post-natal depression and had other psychotic diagnoses, within a year of giving birth to her youngest child then the charge of infanticide could apply to all of the children’s deaths?
(Note not commenting on whether or not that is the case as I don’t have enough knowledge of these particular events, but there is a logic that in theory it should apply).
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood but I read your post as somewhat mocking the CBC piece?
Click to expand...

It’s an absolutely absurd law and it’s even make absurd to suggest it has shortcomings because you can’t get away with killing your older kids as well.
 
robp135 said:
It’s an absolutely absurd law and it’s even make absurd to suggest it has shortcomings because you can’t get away with killing your older kids as well.
Click to expand...

Could you define where the absurdity is for you? It might seem like a ludicrously obvious question, however I want to be sure I understand your direct POV before potentially making any comments/discussing.
 
thfcsteff said:
Could you define where the absurdity is for you? It might seem like a ludicrously obvious question, however I want to be sure I understand your direct POV before potentially making any comments/discussing.
Click to expand...

You can have blanket laws in place which can cover the extremely rare cases in which someone’s mental state means that are less culpable of a crime they have committed.

It’s absurd that they have carved out a special category which does not recognize the full humanity of a child under the age of one. To then argue that it needs to be extended to include older children is absolutely depraved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back