Man kills his daughter. Only gets 60 days!

[On Guard for Thee]

How many other ways can an adult take advantage of teenagers or kill them in Canada but only get a slap on the wrists ? Let's see...they can have lots of consensual sex with underage children as long as they are not in a position of trust or authority, and don't otherwise harm them. Or they can just assault and kill them "by accident". Maybe it's just me, but it seems that fugitive sex offenders have it better in Canada than minor children !

Is there a statement anywhere in all that nonsense?

[cybercoma]

Ask bush_cheney how many states allow schools to beat children with weapons, i.e., paddles or canes.

[Big Guy]

I trust our judicial system. It is not perfect but I cannot give an example of a better one in a democracy.

The prosecution was given full opportunity to present its case. The defence was given full opportunity to present its case. There was a multitude of witnesses as to the character of the accused including members of the family.

The judge took into consideration the age of the defendant, background and chances of repeating the crime.

The nature of the crime was considered with testimony from qualified experts in the field. The judge was familiar with his options of sentencing and made that 60 day decision. So be it.

I was not there to see all of the testimony and evidence so I trust the decision of the judge.

I am glad that I did not have to make that decision.

Just my opinion.

[Argus]

I trust our judicial system. It is not perfect but I cannot give an example of a better one in a democracy.

The UK seems to have a nice a nice system which is far more efficient. Criminals are often sentenced within days or at most, a few weeks of arrest.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ask bush_cheney how many states allow schools to beat children with weapons, i.e., paddles or canes.

I'd be interested to know that. I though they outlawed that a while back but who knows?

[Wilber]

Does anyone think 60 days in jail is an appropriate sentence for not doing housework properly? Apparently it is for killing someone not doing housework properly. Future defence attorneys are going to have a field day with this precedent.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Wilber

[cybercoma]

Sorry, but you're ignoring the fact that the death was accidental and the family testified that his imprisonment would create undue hardship. Those are important factors as far as the precedent goes.

Edited May 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[Boges]

Sorry, but you're ignoring the fact that the death was accidental and the family testified that his imprisonment would create undue hardship. Those are important factors as far as the precedent goes.

Wouldn't any breadwinner being imprisoned cause "undue hardship"? Dozens of people backed this guy up? He has 2 children living abroad. You telling me that others couldn't assist this family?

A DUI conviction could cause a family undue hardship.

[GostHacked]

Wouldn't any breadwinner being imprisoned cause "undue hardship"? Dozens of people backed this guy up? He has 2 children living abroad. You telling me that others couldn't assist this family?

Accident or not, a person is dead and he should do some time. And purposefully hauling off and hitting someone causing death is not an accident. I get and understand heat of the moment stuff, but if you get to that stage then something triggered it. Self control is needed when disciplining children.

A DUI conviction could cause a family undue hardship.

Like this? Not sure how relevant this would be but, I]ll give it a shot.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/texas-teenager-affluenza-escapes-jail-second-time

A Texas teenager who avoided prison after a psychologist described him as suffering from "affluenza" has been ordered by a judge to attend an undisclosed rehabilitation facility.

Ethan Couch was given ten years' probation last December for killing four people and seriously injuring two while driving drunk. On Wednesday, district judge Jean Boyd again did not issue any jail time and assigned him to the centre in a court hearing that was closed to the media.

The sentence handed out by Boyd last year outraged the victims' families and the case attracted national attention after a psychologist called by the defence testified that the teenager had "affluenza", indicating that his behavioural problems were influenced by a troubled upbringing in a wealthy family where privilege prevented him from grasping the consequences of his actions.

Only thing is he is not a breadwinner, and just a kid.

[Wilber]

Sorry, but you're ignoring the fact that the death was accidental and the family testified that his imprisonment would create undue hardship. Those are important factors as far as the precedent goes.

Oh, but the doing of poor house work was intentional so the penalty didn't create undue hardship.

[cybercoma]

Wouldn't any breadwinner being imprisoned cause "undue hardship"? Dozens of people backed this guy up? He has 2 children living abroad. You telling me that others couldn't assist this family?

A DUI conviction could cause a family undue hardship.

It's always a sentencing consideration.

[cybercoma]

Oh, but the doing of poor house work was intentional so the penalty didn't create undue hardship.

It's not illegal for parents to slap their kids. It's also not reasonable to expect that slapping someone would rupture an artery in their neck and kill them. You can get as emotional as you want about this, but the victim's family asked the courts to be lenient on him.

[cybercoma]

Accident or not, a person is dead and he should do some time. And purposefully hauling off and hitting someone causing death is not an accident. I get and understand heat of the moment stuff, but if you get to that stage then something triggered it. Self control is needed when disciplining children.

Like I said above, parents are allowed to slap their children and it's not a reasonable expectation that it would cause death. He was not tried for second-degree murder. He was tried and convicted of manslaughter.

What happened does not fit the definition of murder. For the act to be murder, the father had to intend on causing death or intend on causing bodily harm sufficient enough that a reasonable person would expect that it could cause death. That's simply not the case here. Otherwise, every time a woman slaps a man that harasses her, she would be attempting murder. For it to be murder, it has to be something that is likely to cause death according to the criminal code. Slapping your kid is not something a reasonable person would argue is likely to cause death. It couldn't even be classified as criminal negligence causing death, since he did not show "wanton disregard for the lives of others" because slapping someone isn't something that would typically cause death.

Like this? Not sure how relevant this would be but, I]ll give it a shot.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/texas-teenager-affluenza-escapes-jail-second-time

Only thing is he is not a breadwinner, and just a kid.

That affluenza argument was ridiculous. We're talking about a father who is the provider for the family. He pays the bills and puts food on the table. Him going to prison would adversely affect the family's ability to support itself, since he was the one supporting it. Were it a first degree murder, their argument about undue hardship would be irrelevant. Where this was an accident, he has had no previous criminal record, and he poses no threat to anyone, it is a viable argument that the hardship faced by a family that already lost a loved one should be considered. Domestic situations are not as cut and dry as people who react emotionally to newspaper articles would like them to be. It's appropriate for the judge to consider all of these things given the circumstances that we know about this case. Edited May 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Oh, but the doing of poor house work was intentional so the penalty didn't create undue hardship.

Accidents happen. I hope of your sake that there are people who are capable of showing you more compassion than you're able to muster for others if it ever happens to you. Edited May 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

Accidents happen. I hope of your sake that there are people who are capable of showing you more compassion than you're able to muster for others if it ever happens to you.

If you hit someone in the head there is a reasonable chance of causing serious damage. It is not the same as a swat on the ass .

[cybercoma]

That's not true at all. The fact of the matter is a death is not a reasonable expectation for a slap across the face. That's why he was tried for manslaughter and not murder.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's why he slapped her twice. Once wasn't good enough it seems.

[Wilber]

That's not true at all. The fact of the matter is a death is not a reasonable expectation for a slap across the face. That's why he was tried for manslaughter and not murder.

I agree with the charge, I think the sentence is an insult to the dead girl's memory. Her life was worth 60 days, served 2 days a week. Pitiful.

[Spiderfish]

You can get as emotional as you want about this, but the victim's family asked the courts to be lenient on him.

Imagine that...the victim's family (aka...his family) asked for leniency. Go figure.

[Wilber]

Imagine that...the victim's family (aka...his family) asked for leniency. Go figure.

Ya and he was so remorseful he pleaded not guilty.

[cybercoma]

I agree with the charge, I think the sentence is an insult to the dead girl's memory. Her life was worth 60 days, served 2 days a week. Pitiful.

Insulting to who? The victim's family?

[cybercoma]

Imagine that...the victim's family (aka...his family) asked for leniency. Go figure.

In all cases, the courts consider the hardship that sentencing will cause to innocent people when why render their decisions. Like it or not, it's just.

[Boges]

Of course the family had his back. They didn't want to get slapped.

[Wilber]

Insulting to who? The victim's family?

No, they are as insulting as the father.

[GostHacked]

Like I said above, parents are allowed to slap their children and it's not a reasonable expectation that it would cause death. He was not tried for second-degree murder. He was tried and convicted of manslaughter.

You need to hit someone quite hard to cause that kind of damage. Throw child abuse on top of the manslaughter charge. Probably not the first time he hit her.

We're talking about a father who is the provider for the family.

Is your only argument against him going to jail is because he is the breadwinner of the family?