Music1 min ago
6year old boy slashed to death..........
26 Answers
Horrible. A 6year old boy was slashed to death in his bed, by a man looking after him, while his father was working nights. The father found his sons body the next morning in his bed.....he had been slashed around the body and back. The "person" who committed this dreadful acy is now been held under the Mental Health act-i presume this means he wont be eligible to stand trial for murder - absolutely disgusting.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Louisebabe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
oh no! havent seen any news today yet so this is the first ive heard of it. How awful. Im presuming he has to be assessed for his degree of mental illness before they decide if he can stand trial or not. But im sure the parent would not have put this person in charge of his son if he had for a second doubted him. I believe he should be made to stand trial on that presumption but i suppose as with everything else we have to wait and find out "more" before we can make judgement. It has knocked me sick, my heart goes out to the family
Which bit disgusts you Louisebabe... the murder itself, or that the suspect won't stand trial? Sorry, I mean it's obvious that the murder disgusts you, I just mean were you also expressing disgust at the liklehood that he won't stand trial?
With Ward-Minter around, I'm just not going to comment. I come to this site to discuss and debate, but I can see this turning into another slanging match. Pity Louisebabe - looked like an interesting thread.
january bug have i rattled your cage for some reason?? And how prey-tell is this a slanging match all because i have expressed an opinion about a child killer.
As you have stated with me around it probably is best if you don't comment.
Louisebabe regarding standing trial. Basically it doesn't matter how mad somebody is it will still be down to the crown to determine whether the baddie "knows the quality of the act" If the crown can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the baddie knew what he was doing was wrong at the time, regardless of madness, he can stand trial.
All that aside though, if he is clinically proven as mad he will serve life in a mental institution with the likes of Brady, Neilson, Parkes et al. In this softty softty country I doubt there is much difference between prison and a home for the mentally ill, what with Human Rights and all that.
Well, after what went on in a similarly sensitive thread in news this week, I think I should be allowed to express my disapointment at the way things are going.
I suppose it wasn't entirely necessary, mfewell, no - you're right. But at the same time, it seems unfair that even the most fearless of ABers end up afraid to express an opinion when certain others are around. Perhaps it's a taste of my own medicine, who knows.
Didn't mean to cause a problem though... apologise if I have. Please read my previous answer without my second para, and consider me not a part of this, or any similarly sensitive discussion.
Ok, I don't know any feud / diasagreement stuff so I'm not joining in.
Suffice it to say that I don't believe torturing people would do anything other than bring our society down to their level. Also that the Human Rights Act keeps on being used as a red herring. There is a right to a fair trial. But we've had that in principle since Magna Carta in 1215. I think those who haven't read the human rights act should be automatically disbarred from using it over simplistically.
As for this particular case it is sub judice and so we don't know much. The insanity rules are based on the McNaghton rules from the 19th century (not the human rights act.) If he is ruled to have committed the act but be unfit for trial he will be committed to a secure mental hospital - such as Broadmoor until such time he is fit to stand trial.
These places are a punishment. They are not holiday camps and prisons including these hospitals are hugely unpleasant places to be. I speak as someone who has spent time in all sorts of detention facilities (on a professional basis - not as an inmate)
If there is no trial then I'm sure that will be an added blow for the family but it doesn't mean the perpetrator will walk free.
january bug 3 comments after you promised not too eh? typical woman.
Lillabet where exactly have I mentioned that the Human Rights Act determines a persons insanity?? I think you are pretty much saying the same thing as me, but hey ho. Oh and by the way I think either article 9 or 10 of European Convention on Human Rights mentions something aboout freedom of expression.
Not bad eh for someone who should be "debarred" from using it simplistically. Oh my god I haven't even done a google search!!!!
Further I seem to recall the Magna Carta stating "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions... except by the lawful judgement of his peers." (O Level History, a long long time ago) Wasn't the whole purpose of these medieval "rights" just a con to disparage the growing power of the Kings???? How this fits in to insanity issues I do not know.
Alas you are clearly better read than me and no doubt with you obnoxious tone will futher undermine whatever I have to say. At least ******* will be on your side. X
The Stars were Bowie, Elvis and The Beach Boys but thats a different matter I suppose.
Well janbuggy. I just hate it when folk say "look at my reply" "Read my question properly" blah blah bloody blah. But have I not posted a proper answer on here only to be rebutted by some sociology student and yourself??? And what the hell is that comment about "promise" My god woman it is a figure of speech. If you are trying to insult me with intellect you will have a long way to go dear. Call me paranoid but then again don't cause I may take it the wrong way and curl up in a ball and cry.
Bullying???? Jesus you want to join the forces woman. Instill some discipline into your wayward mouth.
My god has Ward-Minter got a sense of humour????
However Louisebabe, if you keep getting emails that just seem to contain vendettas against me may I apologise on behalf of my lesser counterparts and myself. Besides Corrie has just started and I am sad, so there.
Ward-Minter.. what word was starred out? If you answered that and I missed it, I apologise. I was interested in your answer, and curious to know what the last word was. I don't really want this arguement to go any further, and even if not engaging in direct debate with you, I'd still like to get understand the debate I'm reading. Please could you just tell me what word was starred out? Thank you in advance.
i think it was ******** that was starred out. Mildly amusing methinks.
Spinchimp, I am glad you have fallen in love with me. However, if you think it is prejudice to be against child killers perhaps our politics will never meet. As a parent I can trufully say (without any bravado whatsoever) if anyone laid a hand on my kids in a "wrong" manner I would make them eat their own genitalia whilst I pin their eyes open with razor blades. I will then make them drink small of amounts of hydrocoric acid slowly to ensure a slow and painful death. If this makes me prejudice God help us all. I suppose you would sit around a table and discuss their "issues".
Prejudice against kiddy killers, I ask ya????????
I know that was for spinchimp, but for the record, I hope that people who actually are paedophiles all burn in hell. What I want first, is proof - at a fair trial. People accused of paedophilia deserve nothing but the presumption of innocense. People who are proved guilty are a different matter. I also would prefer that any torture was left to the devil himself to carry out. In my opinion, if we start with "an eye for an eye", it's just a very risky road to go down.
I'm sure if I ever have kids, I'll have similar thoughts to those expressed above, and would equally passionately want to defend or avenge my children. However, I hope that, for the sake of my children, I wouldn't carry out those sort of acts, as that would leave them not only the victims of molestation, but also in a one parent family, as children who only see their mother once a month... in prison.
As I said in a previous post - I have no problem with people holding a view based on the facts. My problem is with people who have a knee jerk reaction before the facts are established. We do not know anything about this case so none of us can pontificate. If it turns out to be that this killing was carried out by someone who knew what they were doing - then the full force of the law should be brought to bear on them, and I hope they get a very long time in jail (and if it was my child I would want to get my own hands on them and cause them great harm). If they are mentally ill and did not know what they were doing ( and this concept has been around for a very long time -its not a new woolly liberal idea) I can see no purpose in punishing them - they should be taken out of circulation for as long as they remain a danger.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.