Man kills his daughter. Only gets 60 days!

[Spiderfish]

Actually if you think of it and other similar weaknesses, it's not. In a way.

Take for example someone who has a very weak immune system and who gets sick a lot. That person has to take special precautions to ensure that they stay healthy at all times. Or someone who has severe allergies.

So what you're trying to say is that people who may possibly have a low tolerance for physical violence and abuse should ensure they wash the floors correctly when asked or risk the consequence of possible death. Got it.

[TimG]

That's wrong. The mandatory minimum sentences are being opposed because the violate people's fundamental legal rights, in particular the right to have the circumstances of your case heard and a decision made with regards to those circumstances not some pre-determined legislation that can't possibly account for all circumstances.

Yet the courts have no problems with mandatory minimums for murder (life with no parole for 10 or 25 years). Why are the "circumstances" so important in other types of crimes but not murder?

And in this case, why is the accidental killing of his daughter less deserving of punishment that a drunk driver who kills someone? Is it because the courts are racist and think the lives of women and children of people from patriarchal cultures are less important?

Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So what you're trying to say is that people who may possibly have a low tolerance for physical violence and abuse should ensure they wash the floors correctly when asked or risk the consequence of possible death. Got it.

If you slapped someone across the face, would you expect them to die from it? Scratch that. Would any reasonable person expect slapping your kid to kill them? The answer is of course not. How many times has this kind of thing killed a person in this way? It's not blaming the victim to say that the circumstances of her death were highly unusual.

[cybercoma]

Yet the courts have no problems with mandatory minimums for murder (life with no parole for 10 or 25 years). Why are the "circumstances" so important in other types of crimes but not murder?

And in this case, why is the accidental killing of his daughter less deserving of punishment that a drunk driver who kills someone? Is it because the courts are racist and think the lives of women and children of people from patriarchal cultures are less important?

Yes the courts are racist.

You seem really interested in having an actual discussion. Maybe if you didn't frame your questions rhetorically we could talk.

Edited May 23, 2014 by cybercoma

[Spiderfish]

If you slapped someone across the face, would you expect them to die from it? Scratch that. Would any reasonable person expect slapping your kid to kill them?

Do you really think that a simple slap to the face would kill anyone, regardless of abnormal physiology? It had to be a slap with sufficient force to cause a violent reaction capable of introducing a risk of death.

Unfortunate...yes. Accident...no. This guy clearly lost control of his emotions and struck her violently in anger. I have no doubt he is remorseful, but he killed her and all the remorse in the world doesn't change that.

[TimG]

Unfortunate...yes. Accident...no. This guy clearly lost control of his emotions and struck her violently in anger. I have no doubt he is remorseful, but he killed her and all the remorse in the world doesn't change that.

Yep.. A guy who drives drunk never intended to hurt anyone - but still faces much stiffer penalties because the crime is not politically correct.

[Spiderfish]

You seem really interested in having an actual discussion. Maybe if you didn't frame your questions rhetorically we could talk.

Actually, I thought he had a relevant point. How is this different than someone who drives drunk and kills someone? A drunk driver knows that what they are doing is wrong, but does not get into the car intending to kill someone. Drunk drivers are almost always remorseful after the fact. Would your opinion be different if this guy hopped in his car drunk and accidentally backed over his kid pulling out of the driveway?

[WWWTT]

So what you're trying to say is that people who may possibly have a low tolerance for physical violence and abuse should ensure they wash the floors correctly when asked or risk the consequence of possible death. Got it.

I bear no responsibility for whatever goes on in your head.

Whatever conclusion you come to, is your business.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Yep.. A guy who drives drunk never intended to hurt anyone

False!

If you are impaired, so is your judgement.

I'm sure if the father was impaired when he struck his daughter, the judge would have given this guy a harsher penalty.

WWWTT

[Spiderfish]

I bear no responsibility for whatever goes on in your head.

Whatever conclusion you come to, is your business.

WWWTT

Is that not what you are trying to say??

You are comparing her theoretically weak neck with a food allergy, and stating that those with food allergies need to be careful or their consumption and take special precautions to avoid a life threatening reaction. Tell me...what precaution should this girl have taken to avoid being physically assaulted and having her artery ruptured?

[WWWTT]

Is that not what you are trying to say??

You are comparing her theoretically weak neck with a food allergy, and stating that those with food allergies need to be careful or their consumption and take special precautions to avoid a life threatening reaction. Tell me...what precaution should this girl have taken to avoid being physically assaulted and having her artery ruptured?

Like I said before, I bear no responsibility for whatever ideas pop up in your head.

I should also add that I will not entertain the random thoughts/images that pop up in your head.

WWWTT

[Spiderfish]

False!

If you are impaired, so is your judgement.

I'm sure if the father was impaired when he struck his daughter, the judge would have given this guy a harsher penalty.

WWWTT

It is reasonable to conclude that his anger impaired his judgement. He likely wouldn't have hit her so hard, or not at all had he not lost control of his rational judgement.

[Spiderfish]

Like I said before, I bear no responsibility for whatever ideas pop up in your head.

I should also add that I will not entertain the random thoughts/images that pop up in your head.

WWWTT

So, you are refuting your analogy?

[cybercoma]

Do you really think that a simple slap to the face would kill anyone, regardless of abnormal physiology? It had to be a slap with sufficient force to cause a violent reaction capable of introducing a risk of death.

Unfortunate...yes. Accident...no. This guy clearly lost control of his emotions and struck her violently in anger. I have no doubt he is remorseful, but he killed her and all the remorse in the world doesn't change that.

try again. Do you think you could muster up enough force to kill someone with a slap? Do you think people get into bare knuckle fist fights expecting to kill the other person? The slap was certainly the catalyst that resulted in her death, but no reasonable person could have expected a slap, no matter how hard, to kill a person.

[Spiderfish]

try again. Do you think you could muster up enough force to kill someone with a slap? Do you think people get into bare knuckle fist fights expecting to kill the other person? The slap was certainly the catalyst that resulted in her death, but no reasonable person could have expected a slap, no matter how hard, to kill a person.

I think both our viewpoints are correct. I agree that a slap would normally not result in death. I would also believe that in all probability, it was not a normal slap as it would have to be delivered with enough force to promote a violent motion of her neck capable of causing her fatal injury.

I have given this some thought, and although I don't completely agree with your position, I understand what you are saying. If it was a freak accident as has been suggested, a good analogy could be to that of a shaken baby death. These cases are typically tragic in nature, as new parents can be incapable of dealing with the frustration of not knowing how to care for an inconsolable baby. Their actions after the fact are immediately understood as wrong, however are difficult to control during their highly emotional reaction. The obvious difference here is that the guy was 74 years old and the kid was 13. He should be able to control his anger, and definitely should know that assaulting his daughter is clearly crossing a line.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Spiderfish

[monty16]

This seems to be his mo...

This isn't about me, unless you are trying to get into the personal attack business. I'll watch for that.

[Argus]

I think both our viewpoints are correct. I agree that a slap would normally not result in death. I would also believe that in all probability, it was not a normal slap as it would have to be delivered with enough force to promote a violent motion of her neck capable of causing her fatal injury.

I would tend to agree were it not for the fact the judgement mate note of the fact he didn't hit her hard enough to leave any kind of mark or bruise.

[Spiderfish]

I would tend to agree were it not for the fact the judgement mate note of the fact he didn't hit her hard enough to leave any kind of mark or bruise.

Do you have a link? I've not read the judgement, only the link to the story in the OP which states:

An autopsy later concluded that the force of the blows likely caused her neck to twist in such a way that she ruptured an artery, cutting off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain.

[Spiderfish]

This isn't about me, unless you are trying to get into the personal attack business. I'll watch for that.

No, it's all about stupid, backwoods Americans who can't comprehend basic social concepts. We got the message, thanks.

[TimG]

I would tend to agree were it not for the fact the judgement mate note of the fact he didn't hit her hard enough to leave any kind of mark or bruise.

I am not up on my CSI. Can you cause a bruise on a dead body? Doesn't the fact that she died immediately preclude judgement based on things like the existence of marks on her body? Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[dre]

This idiot should rot in jail.

You are responsible for the consequences once you decide to hit someone. 2 years that the crown was asking for is too lenient.

Thats not true INTENT is a more important factor than consequences. In this case, it seems unlikely that murder was his intent because slapping someone generally has an extremely low chance of resulting in death. As far as INTENT goes this is a garden variety assault case.

Dont get me wrong at all... The guys a scumbag, but to charge someone with homicide you either have to show theres intent to kill, or that the act in question was likely to cause death.

60 Days is a pretty reasonable sentence for a person with no criminal record (thats an assumption) who slaps another person in the head/face. I would actually imagine thats a relatively heavy sentence if you compare to other cases where a person is charged with that act.

Edited May 23, 2014 by dre

[cybercoma]

I am not up on my CSI. Can you cause a bruise on a dead body? Doesn't the fact that she died immediately preclude judgement based on things like the existence of marks on her body?

She wasn't dead when he slapped her and in any case you can cause bruising shortly after death as well. It looks slightly different (more yellowish in colour), but a trained coroner would be well-versed in dating bruises and would certainly include it in a report where a girl died from being physically assaulted.

[cybercoma]

60 Days is a pretty reasonable sentence for a person with no criminal record (thats an assumption) who slaps another person in the head/face. I would actually imagine thats a relatively heavy sentence if you compare to other cases where a person is charged with that act.

He had no previous record and there were other confounding issues. For instance, he was the sole provider for the family, so imprisonment would have caused them hardship. As a result he's not even serving 60 consecutive days in prison. He's serving an intermittent sentence where he only has to be in jail on certain days of the week. In addition, the girl was his daughter. Where the death was accidental and certainly not his intention, nor would a reasonable person expect someone to die from a slap (no matter how forceful), he has to live with the fact that he killed his child. There's also the case that he is not a threat to others. Aside from it not being his intention to kill, the reason he struck her is that he was punishing his child (whether or not we agree with his reasons for striking her is irrelevant). He does not have a history of violence and the circumstances of this case do not suggest that he's a danger to anyone else in society. All of these things are considered when sentencing.

[Boges]

I understand that this was an accident by someone with no record of violence. What bothers me is that the man's culture was used as a contributing factor in the sentence.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-man-who-killed-teen-daughter-with-slap-gets-60-days-in-jail/article18774321/

The case also focused on cultural practices in some immigrant communities. A family friend testified that a slap on the face or buttocks isn’t viewed as a violent act in their community (Mr. Sidime emigrated to Canada from Guinea). The judge agreed that cultural differences could not be ruled out in the case.

The same theme was taken up by Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, a Conservative senator and advocate for victims’ rights, who addressed the question of cultural values in an interview with a Montreal radio station on Wednesday.

“I don’t know Guinean society, but you can see there is a gap between this culture and Quebec’s,” Mr. Boisvenu told 98.5 FM.

He said hitting a child is a form of violence “and justice must always render exemplary sentences,” noting that the Harper government had invested money to sensitize ethnic communities.

So this case is seen as different than if the exact same thing happened in a family where such corporal punishment wasn't common place?

Russel Peters jokes about it in his act where "beatings" were routine in his household. Quite frankly until recently corporal punishment was commonplace in almost all households. But we see that CAS's will step in if corporal punishment is suspected. To the point where it's realistic to fear authorities if a child has a bruise for non-corporal punishment related reasons.

I think the culture should be irrelevant. I'm not calling for the book to be thrown at this man, but if this was a white male and a woman he was in a relationship with, I suspect the book would have been thrown at him.

Also the argument that this family would be worse off if he was thrown in jail doesn't wash. How many lives are ruined by a simple Drunk Driving conviction because that person needs a license to make a living? You're telling me a family and a community as large as this one (2 dozen people turned up at his sentencing) wouldn't be able to assist this family?

Edited May 23, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

CAS doesn't automatically step in. Parents are allowed to hit their children. It's not illegal. In fact, teachers are allowed to hit children, even though as a rule they don't anymore. And as I've been saying, death is not an outcome one would reasonably expect from slapping someone across the face. http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0510-e.htm