Jump to content


Photo

Has Anyone Heard This Rather Disturbing Story?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 will

will

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 June 2008 - 12:17 PM

Has anyone heard wind of a baby (6-9 Mts) being thrown from a third floor window yesterday in Chesham?

I know it is a very bizarre question but a rumour I heard yesterday. Of course the Bucks Exaggerator would never report on such things as it does not fall within the quaint little stories that it publishes. Just like so many other things that occur in the area.

#2 147

147

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:amersham

Posted 11 June 2008 - 03:00 PM

Has anyone heard wind of a baby (6-9 Mts) being thrown from a third floor window yesterday in Chesham?I know it is a very bizarre question but a rumour I heard yesterday.† Of course the Bucks Exaggerator would never report on such things as it does not fall within the quaint little stories that it publishes. Just like so many other things that occur in the area.

Allegedly a male beat his partner up then thew the baby at her from a first floor window.

#3 struthie

struthie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 June 2008 - 04:58 PM

I heard this yesterday but didn't think it could be true :(

#4 Paul Capewell

Paul Capewell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • Location:Amersham

Posted 11 June 2008 - 05:27 PM

When people say they have 'heard' it, do they mean word of mouth? I personally haven't heard anything (and I do tend to hear Chesham 'gossip' in my line of work!). Hope it's not quite true though :(

#5 struthie

struthie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 12 June 2008 - 07:03 AM

Got a text message from one of my old colleagues at Tesco.

#6 Eaton

Eaton

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,490 posts
  • Location:Milk Hall Barns, Latimer Road
  • Interests:Animals, Birds, Reading, Crosswords, Suduko and Cross Stitch

Posted 12 June 2008 - 10:13 AM

It's on the front page of the Amersham Examiner.
Mel and Co

#7 Kiff

Kiff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 02:29 PM

http://www.buckingha...rged_wit_1.html

#8 a t o m i c

a t o m i c

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 02:49 PM

http://www.mirror.co...89520-20603843/

If convicted, he should be detained indefinitely.

#9 will

will

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 03:31 PM

Yes I saw the front of the papert today, so, reluctantly I take back my comments about the Exaggerator. It doesnt take away from the fact that they dont report all that goes on around here.

Regardless of the above, lets hope he is put away indefinitely and the little one makes a speedy recovery.

#10 roob_the_doob

roob_the_doob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 12 June 2008 - 10:29 PM

If convicted, he should be detained indefinitely.

If guilty, surely?

There's a lot of jumping to conclusions here, even supposing he did "throw the baby from the window". Maybe he's a nasty piece of work, or maybe he's mentally ill. If the latter, he should have our sympathy, not our condemnation.

#11 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 June 2008 - 07:55 AM

Exactly,will have to wait and see the outcome.He could have dropped her by accident and people jump to conclusions.

#12 a t o m i c

a t o m i c

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 12:34 PM

If guilty, surely?

There's a lot of jumping to conclusions here, even supposing he did "throw the baby from the window". Maybe he's a nasty piece of work, or maybe he's mentally ill. If the latter, he should have our sympathy, not our condemnation.


We never know if someone is actually GUILTY, so the best we can manage is whether they get convicted. On your second point, whether the mentally ill have any insight into their conditions or not, violence like this against a defenceless child would render their own rights absolutely secondary.

#13 hjb

hjb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 13 June 2008 - 01:49 PM

We never know if someone is actually GUILTY, so the best we can manage is whether they get convicted. On your second point, whether the mentally ill have any insight into their conditions or not, violence like this against a defenceless child would render their own rights absolutely secondary.


You have recently argued your point about civil liberties quite forcefully, intelligently and eloquently. So I am a bit surprised that you now wish to deny the alleged offender his basic human right (ie punishment after conviction). Even if a safe conviction is achieved then do you want to deny the alleged offender any chance of rehabilitation?

I cant quite see the point you are making in your last sentence. Do you mean to relieve a mentally ill person (who is guilty of a crime) of his/her rights or downgrade them or something else? Are you talking about imprisonment/treatment or locking up indefinately?

If I have read your posts correctly then your view is not fair.

#14 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,195 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 13 June 2008 - 06:42 PM

If guilty, surely?Maybe he's a nasty piece of work, or maybe he's mentally ill. If the latter, he should have our sympathy, not our condemnation.

Sympathy and treatment do not (and should not) necessarily preclude detainment and possibly punishment.


We never know if someone is actually GUILTY, so the best we can manage is whether they get convicted.

True.

whether the mentally ill have any insight into their conditions or not, violence like this against a defenceless child would render their own rights absolutely secondary.

Yes, but even a convicted criminal or someone detained under the mental health act has rights - not that you're denying that, though some people would.

So I am a bit surprised that you now wish to deny the alleged offender his basic human right (ie punishment after conviction). Even if a safe conviction is achieved then do you want to deny the alleged offender any chance of rehabilitation?

I cant quite see the point you are making in your last sentence. Do you mean to relieve a mentally ill person (who is guilty of a crime) of his/her rights or downgrade them or something else? Are you talking about imprisonment/treatment or locking up indefinately?

If I have read your posts correctly then your view is not fair.

What a lot of confusion there is. I confess I am baffled by the above. Are you saying punishment is a human right? And how would that deny them rehabilitation? (I realise that in practice the two do not always go together, but that's a different point.) And Roob's suggestion of sympathy for rather than condemnation of the mentally ill doesn't sound like removing or downgrading their human rights. I must have got the wrong end of the stick, so please could you clarify. Thanks.

#15 a t o m i c

a t o m i c

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 14 June 2008 - 03:07 PM

You have recently argued your point about civil liberties quite forcefully, intelligently and eloquently. So I am a bit surprised that you now wish to deny the alleged offender his basic human right (ie punishment after conviction). Even if a safe conviction is achieved then do you want to deny the alleged offender any chance of rehabilitation?

I cant quite see the point you are making in your last sentence. Do you mean to relieve a mentally ill person (who is guilty of a crime) of his/her rights or downgrade them or something else? Are you talking about imprisonment/treatment or locking up indefinately?

If I have read your posts correctly then your view is not fair.


How - exactly - can one be rehabilitated from an act of violence against another person? I don't believe, personally, that the criminal justice system as we know it is designed to rehabilitate those convicted, it seems rather designed to PUNISH them instead. Whether or not that's the correct approach I'd rather not delve into, but how does 10 years in prison rehabilitate anyone for anything? It's a strange notion that it could rehabilittate the armed robber and rapist alike, isn't it?

And CAN a mentally ill person be guilty of a crime? If such a person was found guilty of attempting to murder a baby and it was found that a simple drug treatment could 'cure' their condition, would they not sill be detained in a secure hospital?

#16 roob_the_doob

roob_the_doob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 14 June 2008 - 04:04 PM

How - exactly - can one be rehabilitated from an act of violence against another person? I don't believe, personally, that the criminal justice system as we know it is designed to rehabilitate those convicted, it seems rather designed to PUNISH them instead. Whether or not that's the correct approach I'd rather not delve into, but how does 10 years in prison rehabilitate anyone for anything? It's a strange notion that it could rehabilittate the armed robber and rapist alike, isn't it?

And CAN a mentally ill person be guilty of a crime? If such a person was found guilty of attempting to murder a baby and it was found that a simple drug treatment could 'cure' their condition, would they not sill be detained in a secure hospital?

That's why we have trial by jury and sentencing by a judge, rather than mob rule urged on by the media.

Someone suffering from a severe acute psychotic episode (which in those susceptible might be brought on by e.g. bereavement, loss of employment, other stressful life episodes) can very easily be judged to be not responsible for their actions. Yes, they might be detained indefinitely, but if they recovered following treatment then indefinitely might (and perhaps should) not be very long. I would hope that the judicial response would be governed by the facts of the case and medical reports, rather than by the desire of certain sections of the public to exact retribution.

Whatever else the criminal justice system is about, I hope we can agree that retribution (as opposed to punishment) is not one of its functions?

#17 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,195 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 14 June 2008 - 09:56 PM

That's why we have trial by jury and sentencing by a judge, rather than mob rule urged on by the media.... Whatever else the criminal justice system is about, I hope we can agree that retribution (as opposed to punishment) is not one of its functions?

Sadly, much of the media peddles the retribution line more strongly. What can one do?

#18 a t o m i c

a t o m i c

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 14 June 2008 - 10:22 PM

Sadly, much of the media peddles the retribution line more strongly. What can one do?


This is because most people see the justice system in moral terms.

#19 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,195 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 14 June 2008 - 10:30 PM

This is because most people see the justice system in moral terms.

Well, we're emotional beings (most of us!), so it's hard to avoid, even though the judicial system should strive to be objective.

#20 roob_the_doob

roob_the_doob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 15 June 2008 - 02:54 AM

This is because most people see the justice system in moral terms.

What is moral about retribution?

#21 struthie

struthie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 June 2008 - 07:07 AM

Last night I was told that the baby has died.

#22 a t o m i c

a t o m i c

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 15 June 2008 - 03:11 PM

What is moral about retribution?


retribution |rɛtrɪˌbjuːʃ(ə)n|
noun
punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved : settlers drove the Navajo out of Arizona in retribution for their

Last night I was told that the baby has died.


That's absolutely awful news.

#23 Paul Capewell

Paul Capewell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • Location:Amersham

Posted 15 June 2008 - 03:31 PM

settlers drove the Navajo out of Arizona in retribution


Haha, bad example!

#24 roob_the_doob

roob_the_doob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 15 June 2008 - 09:19 PM

retribution |rɛtrɪˌbjuːʃ(ə)n|
noun
punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved

It doesn't say anything about it actually being morally right.

In any case, that's just one of several possible definitions, and I believe that particular one is a technical meaning that applies to the consequences of not fulfilling a contract. Here are some other definitions gleaned from 30secs googling:

the act of taking revenge

something given or exacted in recompense

punishment or vengeance for evil deeds

The act of retaliating

A salary paid to a person for his services

The distribution of rewards and punishments

But to be clear, I'll rephrase my original statement: I hope we can all agree that vengeance is not one of the functions of the criminal justice system.

#25 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,195 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 15 June 2008 - 09:25 PM

retribution |rɛtrɪˌbjuːʃ(ə)n|
noun
punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved

Spookily apt, Amazon has just emailed me a recommendation for "Retribution". :blink: (Lest anyone think it's because I've have a thirst for books of a vengeful and violent nature, it's actually a Warhammer book, arising from a previous Warhammer book I bought for my son.)

#26 a t o m i c

a t o m i c

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:02 AM

It doesn't say anything about it actually being morally right.


...that would depend on one's morality, surely? I think it's fair to point out that the English legal system is inherently moral, based as it is on centuries of Chrisitian tradition.

#27 Speedy

Speedy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:39 AM

First i've heard of it, i must get out more.

#28 hjb

hjb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 20 June 2008 - 08:19 PM

What a lot of confusion there is.


What I meant to say was 'humane punishment after conviction'.

I think it is article 3 or 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibits inhumane punishment whilst in detention. I was seeking clarification from atomic, why he (Iím assuming atomic is a male - apologies if not) would advocate indefinite detention. In my opinion, indefinite detention (ie not giving a prisoner a date of release) would be an inhumane punishment.

I was just probing how, wanting the Government to indefinitely detain someone, sits with his opinion on the Government becoming too intrusive in our lives.

As far as rehabilitation; I believe you can rehabilitate offenders (or at the very least, give them the chance to rehabilitate). Itís rather a closed view to suggest that no violent offenders can be rehabilitated. (I think atomic expressed a view against rehabilitation). In its simplest form; we all learn from the mistakes we make in our lifetime. (I'm not suggesting that crimes committed are mistakes.) So if we change our behaviour, as a result of the consequences of our mistakes, then that has to be rehabilitation of some sort.

Having re-read the post, I think it may come across as an attack on atomic. I can assure you that this is not the case.

#29 struthie

struthie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 June 2008 - 08:52 PM

Have now heard baby is still in hospital but improving thank goodness.

#30 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 21 June 2008 - 10:02 AM

Yes thats what I heard to.