On 11 Nov 97, Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk> was found to have commented thusly:
Apparently shaking a baby to death is a lesser crime than opposing government fascism and having a continuing interest in chemistry.
Apparently so, I must say in this particular case I see a cause for an aquittal based on reasonable doubt, but I`m not a juror so I didn`t see all the evidence so my opinion is not really valid. The general principle
The question is why she shook the baby at all. If you have a sick baby, you call the emergency medical services, period! And especially if the child is not your own. This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for child care activities. 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. The licensing procedure might also be a way of checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and small children. I frankly think the 19 year-old is guilty of negligent homicide (that is, causing the death of the baby because of ignorance of proper baby care). I could go on and on about my idea of proper parenting (and baby care), but I don't think the people on this list would like the drift.
It makes a mockery of the judicial system that a judge can overturn a verdict like Zobel has done in the Woodward case, sure, allow her to appeal, but giving an appointed official the power to decide a verdict makes me sick, and a sentence of 279 days for manslaughter is a joke.
Having lived on the outside of America now for some time, I know that those who are not Americans have a hard time figuring out our justice system. But although each state has its own set of penal codes, they are pretty much uniform in their agreement about trial procedure regarding disposition of felonies. I think there is a reasonable argument that the prosecution should be interested in justice or in being a representative of The People of the State of ...: does the prosecutor really believe that the accused committed the crime, or is there a district attorney election coming up and this murder rap has to go down soon? 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. In California--from where I come and a state which often leads in setting standards of jurisprudence--the judge has the absolute right to overturn a guilty verdict or modify it in some way rather than let it go to an appellate court and make those guys mad. The judge in this case never overturned the verdict (an action appealable in any case) but said she was guilty of the crime of shaking the baby to death, but not intentionally. Since the 19 year old doesn't deny shaking or "rough handling" the baby, there is no reasonable doubt. In my state, she is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. I also would have sentenced her to receive instruction on how to be a better parent and how to "chill out" whenever a baby cries. gawdhelpusall, but one day this woman may be a mother! I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just to get a fix on cultural differences. Mitch Halloran Research Biochemist/C programmer/Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch@duzen.com.tr