dad takes an iron and burns a child

[manu1959]

what should his punishment be?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Maybe he should have "child abuser" seared into his forehead with a hot poker.

 

[manu1959]

Maybe he should have "child abuser" seared into his forehead with a hot poker.

you were trying to be funny huh?.....if you were the judge would that be your sentence then? branding the guy then setting him free?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

you were trying to be funny huh?.....if you were the judge would that be your sentence then? branding the guy then setting him free?

"Branding," that's the word I was looking for. Thanks Manny.

 

[manu1959]

"Branding," that's the word I was looking for. Thanks Manny.

welcome you olde hag....seriously what would your sentence the dude to....guess what he got?

 

[MissileMan]

welcome you olde hag....seriously what would your sentence the dude to....guess what he got?

Probation and anger management courses?

 

[manu1959]

Probation and anger management courses?

really?....does he get to see his son any more?...you are joking right?

 

[MissileMan]

really?....does he get to see his son any more?...you are joking right?

Not my suggestion, a guess as to what he really got.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I would guess either the mother or the state got sole custody of the kid and the guy got sent to prison for 5-10 years for assault with a deadly weapon/child abuse and is eligible for parole in three years.

 

[manu1959]

Not my suggestion, a guess as to what he really got.

5-10

 

[no1tovote4]

what should his punishment be?

Limb removal and incarceration.

 

[Nuc]

Limb removal and incarceration.

I wonder if "limb removal" would qualify as "cruel and unusual".

Do any of our constitutional scholars know when and why that particular language is used?

 

[no1tovote4]

I wonder if "limb removal" would qualify as "cruel and unusual".

Do any of our constitutional scholars know when and why that particular language is used?

The legal definition:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cruel+and+unusual+punishment

And historical context:

http://www.albany.edu/~grn92/jp09.html

The legislative intent of the 8th Amendment of the Constitution is open to much debate. A number of legal scholars and historians argue that it is a fallacy to believe that the phrase "cruel and unusual," lifted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, was included in that Bill of Rights specifically to exclude barbarous bodily punishments.(2) It is quite certain that this could not have been the intent of the framers of the English Bill of Rights, since barbarous punishments were used for at least another hundred years after 1689. What is clear is that their intent was to forbid the abuse of governmental power. This was the preoccupation of the English in the 17th century. As such, the phrase could apply to any kind of punishment at all, and the phrase "cruel and unusual" may be taken to mean something closer to "arbitrary and capricious" (more akin to the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process).

 

[Nuc]

The legal definition:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cruel+and+unusual+punishment

And historical context:

http://www.albany.edu/~grn92/jp09.html

Thanks for the definition. It appears active cruelty (torture etc.) is not OK, whereas passive cruelty (sensory deprivation) is OK. I wonder if other passive forms of punishment fall under this definition. For example what happened to Jeff Dahmer. The prison left him unsupervised with savages. Was that cruel and unusual, or just neglectful.

Anyway it seems that removal of limbs would definitely fall under the definition of "cruel and unusual".

 

[no1tovote4]

Thanks for the definition. It appears active cruelty (torture etc.) is not OK, whereas passive cruelty (sensory deprivation) is OK. I wonder if other passive forms of punishment fall under this definition. For example what happened to Jeff Dahmer. The prison left him unsupervised with savages. Was that cruel and unusual, or just neglectful.

Anyway it seems that removal of limbs would definitely fall under the definition of "cruel and unusual".

That depends on what the times dictate. In the historical context, ending physical punishment was never the goal of this Amendment. Does the punishment fit the crime?

 

[Bonnie]

what should his punishment be?

Assuming this was a purposeful iron burning and not an accident,
I would hope first the child would be taken away immediately to the guardianship of another relative, the mother, grandparents, aunt..etc
Then I would hope for due process to be given to the father by way of investigation and a trial for assualting a minor, and wantful child endagerment, if found guilty a jail sentence fitting such a verdict.....

 

[manu1959]

Assuming this was a purposeful iron burning and not an accident,
I would hope first the child would be taken away immediately to the guardianship of another relative, the mother, grandparents, aunt..etc
Then I would hope for due process to be given to the father by way of investigation and a trial for assualting a minor, and wantful child endagerment, if found guilty a jail sentence fitting such a verdict.....

it was on the news....can't find a link to the story yet

dad used the iron to burn the child on purpose as punishment.

the father got 5-10

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The prosecutor asked for less. The judge rejected the original sentence as too lenient.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Part of the reason for the small sentence was because everyone wanted to avoid forcing the child to testify in open court about it.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Manny, was my guess at the sentence right? I guessed that he lost custody and got 5-10 years with parole in three years.