On 13 Nov 97, Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> was found to have commented thusly:
This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for child care activities.
Obviously, but this isn`t the point in question.
I'd say it was entirely the question (or perhaps you can tell me the specific question you are addressing). She was in court because there are certain people in this world whether it is appropriate to be physical in any manner--even when attempting to be (medically) helpful--with an infant, small child, perhaps even a minor.
I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year olds and less should be licensed. The requirements for the license would be minimal. It just merely shows that you understand that babies less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take care of themselves.
Wrong, there is no justification for licensing whatsoever, I suggest parents taking on carers for their children agree a responsibility distribution for the welfare of the child, and have the good sense not to employ inept unqualified childcare staff. The parents are much to blame in the death of the child, particularly in this case because they were both qualified doctors and did not notice the child was unwell. I can see a motivation for wanting better regulation, but it is attacking the situation in the wrong way, more laws never help. A voluntary organisation for childcare workers, admission to which depended on fulfilling the requirements you outline above for your licence idea, would be useful, concerned parents could simple ensure their chosen applicant was a member of the organisation before hiring them. Mandatory licensing is wrong.
Don't get me wrong...I am no socialist who is saying that govt is there to do everything for us. You didn't read in any of my messages that I took away the ultimate responsibility from the parents, who are the last word in securing the best interests of their children. I currently live in a society which might be an anarchist's dream in certain respects: there is virtually no licensing whatsoever of the things you take for granted: child care, operating a motor vehicle. (Actually there is a licensing system for drivers, but a law is only a law if it is enforced, and since enforcement is virtually nil or at the least haphazard). I will support a mandatory licensing scheme for child care as long as the govt involves itself with licensing other less important matters that themselves supposedly require licensing: such as the practice of medicine or the practice of law or the practice of plumbing. Licensing--in my eyes, is but a simple barrier to leap yet tough enough to show that you are serious about getting into this business. I care less that barbers & surgeons & physicians & various other bloodletters, as well as the guy who knows that shit runs downhill and Friday is payday (the common electrician's joke about plumbers) are licensed than that someone (or some nongovt organization) has taken the first step for me and is willing to endorse the smiling face at my door who is to be entrusted with my spawn. Throw out ALL licensing schemes and then I'll consider de-regulation of barriers to child killers and molesters.
The licensing procedure might also be a way of checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and small children.
No, this is of no value, I don`t have the right temperament to deal with children, I am too easily made angry by them, this does not indicate I would harm a child, I simply have the sense to recognise I am not suited to caring for children. I do not see anyway how such a character judgement might be made, and by who?
I was overreaching when I said that the licensing procedure would involve a psychoanalysis or something like that. The licensing procedure would only involve a simple test wherein you are asked questions about baby care and how you might respond to certain situations. It might not even flunk the test-taker who said "If I see an incessantly screaming baby, I am most like to throw it through the wall." The licensing procedure would be a way of informing or reminding someone about to undertake this task just what their liabilities are if something goes wrong and they were ignorant of the things they should have done. In this case, the "check" on temperment is an inquiry into "how much do you really understand about what you are going to do?" The licensing of medicine and law and plumbing is really nothing but an acknowledgement that you know how to conform to standard practice and are aware of the heresies of tradition and convention. You might undertake to do something radical and unacceptable to your colleagues or the standards set by your professional society, but you are warned that you assume the blame if something goes wrong.
What about the judge? His first purpose is to make sure the law is followed, especially with respect to trial procedure. But with the law is JUSTICE! It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of these sacred occasions is justice.
And justice cannot be served when an appointed official can overturn or reduce a conviction, only an appeal should do this. Sure, if the jurors had ignored proper procedure it is the duty of the judge to declare a mistrial, that is entirely different from reducing a charge and basically letting a convicted felon go free.
Are you saying wisdom and justice can only be had when we put the decision to a larger number of people, presuming an appellate court is not itself the purview of a SINGLE appellate court justice? Some anarchist on this list must have mentioned the principle of AMERICAN justice: it is better to let nine guilty men go free than let one innocent man go to prison. For better or worse, that is the American way. You will note that an American judge (Roy Bean excepted) can overturn a guilty verdict, but not an acquittal. It is rarely done anyway, since CNN's cameras are not in every courtroom and few foreign nationals get led in chains to American docks. Do I think justice was done? How the hell should I know!? I was not in the courtroom, although I do admit to having made a judgement (guilty of involuntary manslaughter; I correct an earlier statement where I said 'voluntary manslaughter'). The burden of this entire matter is now on the judge's shoulders, and if there is a God, may this God show as much mercy to the judge as he showed to Woodward. (The parents can go to hell.)
I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just to get a fix on cultural differences.
The opinion is generally very simplistic, most people think she didn`t do anything, and ask most people if she shook the child and they will say she didn`t, even though Woodward herself doesn`t deny doing so.
The answer to the poll question probably is meant to reflect: "did she shake the child TO DEATH?" and the masses are probably replying in this light.
Most people don`t have any defined opinion on the judicial aspect of the case as regards the actions of the judge, other than to be pleased he freed her. The UK media spin has been very favourable to the Woodwards. I also think there is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that the defendant was convicted by the jury because of her traditional British "stiff upper lip" reserve, wheras the Eappen family knew just how to play the court with the usual American "Victim impact statement" designed to be emotive and persuasive to the judge in gaining a high sentence, of course in this case it had little effect.
Despite what foreign nationals might believe, 99.9% of American judges (i.e., those not in the United States Supreme Court and in the federal court system) make it their duty to insulate themselves from public pressure on these matters. Most of them truly don't give a damn what the American public thinks about them or that they may be reversed on appeal, assuming the judge truly believes in what he/she is doing. I think the judge in the Woodward case saw through all the public relations campaigning and press offensive. He knows how media-intensive the open American criminal and civil justice has become, especially if he has been on the bench 10 or more years, and he knows that the baby is dead and cannot be resurrected and he wants to see Woodward understand what happened and realize if she had any responsibility and also important, whether she is remoresful if she is to shoulder some of the blame. I suspect he looked for all these things, and figured that Woodward has been sufficiently punished, truly guilty or not. As for Americans not quite impressed with the "stiff upper lip": I know quite a few Englishmen here who think that the reserved one is me. I think "the stiff upper lip" is something the British tourism industry likes to promote, and that Prince Charles is told to maintain despite it going against his nature.
I don`t know if you have seen a well publicised British trial (cameras aren`t allowed into court rooms here so many never get to be high profile), but although the system is much the same as regards proper procedure, the atmosphere is entirely different. Something like the Eappen victim statement would make a UK jury sick, and probably encourage an aquittal.
I wasn't privy to the media blitz in the states (I can't even get CNN International here!) during the trial, but I rather suspect this crap also sickens quite a few Americans. Not every black person in America wanted to set OJ free just because he was 'a bruh thuh goin' agin' the system.' And not every white guy wanted to hang the double murderer either. I know in the end however, that a British jury would set their minds on the case of an American defendant, not voting innocent just 'cause the parents want to preen before the national press (and make book deals), and not voting guilty just cause American culture, if it exists, turns their stomach. Mitch Halloran Research Biochemist/C programmer/Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch@duzen.com.tr