|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Javeayah Harris Investigation Takes Another Horrific Turn
Authorities recover the four-year-old’s remains, announce new charges against both parents and reveal allegations of an extensive effort to destroy evidence.
15 comments
Penalty… something involving an ant hill.
Is anyone thinking of Javeayah’s new-born brother whom you want to orphan of both parents and in a most gruesome way?
Is anyone considering pre-partum syndrome in the mother?
This is a real test for principled versus opportunistic capital-punishment opponents.
And a real test for prevention-oriented versus demagogue penalty reform proponents.
In my view, which I hope someone takes seriously and resists the facile temptation to insult me, the real problem is tough sentences for non-homicidal crimes.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the poor child had been left alone to play with the tire swing; it malfunctioned and fell on her; and she lost consciouness.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the frightened parents feared LWOP, which is dispensed like candy by some judges fearing a “let-them-loose Bruce” label, decided to conceal the event instead.
This does NOT excuse child neglect; but if the law for promptly-remedied child neglect gave a proportionately short and genuinely reformative sentence (such as attending parenting classes), PERHAPS parents would not have the impulse to dissolve a previously-pampered (judging by the photos of her cute clothes and well-braided hair) 4-year old’s body in acid.
After all, Susan Smith INTENTIONALLY drowned two boys younger than Javaeyah and pushed the car back into the lake as the boys stretched their arms toward their mother for rescue; but Susan Smith did NOT get the death penalty.
Heck! Perhaps Susan Smith herself had remorse and would have dove after the boys and swam with them back to safety if the laws took into account remorse and efforts at mitigation after a crime began.
PERHAPS rapists and ATTEMPTED-rapists would be less likely to murder their victims (and thus avoid detection) if the penalty for even ATTEMPTED, non-consummated rape were not BASICALLY equal to the penalty for homicidal rape.
Please think, God forbid, if you were the parent of a daughter targeted by a would-be rapist, would you rather have your daughter alive and her attacker reformed or your daughter murdered and her attacker executed?
Hopefully the death penalty is on the table.
Is anyone thinking of Javeayah’s new-born brother whom you want to orphan of both parents and in a most gruesome way?
Is anyone considering pre-partum syndrome in the mother?
This is a real test for principled versus opportunistic capital-punishment opponents.
And a real test for prevention-oriented versus demagogue penalty reform proponents.
In my view, which I hope someone takes seriously and resists the facile temptation to insult me, the real problem is tough sentences for non-homicidal crimes.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the poor child had been left alone to play with the tire swing; it malfunctioned and fell on her; and she lost consciouness.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the frightened parents feared LWOP, which is dispensed like candy by some judges fearing a “let-them-loose Bruce” label, decided to conceal the event instead.
This does NOT excuse child neglect; but if the law for promptly-remedied child neglect gave a proportionately short and genuinely reformative sentence (such as attending parenting classes), PERHAPS parents would not have the impulse to dissolve a previously-pampered (judging by the photos of her cute clothes and well-braided hair) 4-year old’s body in acid.
After all, Susan Smith INTENTIONALLY drowned two boys younger than Javaeyah and pushed the car back into the lake as the boys stretched their arms toward their mother for rescue; but Susan Smith did NOT get the death penalty.
Heck! Perhaps Susan Smith herself had remorse and would have dove after the boys and swam with them back to safety if the laws took into account remorse and efforts at mitigation after a crime began.
PERHAPS rapists and ATTEMPTED-rapists would be less likely to murder their victims (and thus avoid detection) if the penalty for even ATTEMPTED, non-consummated rape were not BASICALLY equal to the penalty for homicidal rape.
Please think, God forbid, if you were the parent of a daughter targeted by a would-be rapist, would you rather have your daughter alive and her attacker reformed or your daughter murdered and her attacker executed?
Do wood chippers have an extra slow setting?
or some sort of corrosive chemical slowly poured….
Is anyone thinking of Javeayah’s new-born brother whom you want to orphan of both parents and in a most gruesome way?
Is anyone considering pre-partum syndrome in the mother?
This is a real test for principled versus opportunistic capital-punishment opponents.
And a real test for prevention-oriented versus demagogue penalty reform proponents.
In my view, which I hope someone takes seriously and resists the facile temptation to insult me, the real problem is tough sentences for non-homicidal crimes.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the poor child had been left alone to play with the tire swing; it malfunctioned and fell on her; and she lost consciouness.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the frightened parents feared LWOP, which is dispensed like candy by some judges fearing a “let-them-loose Bruce” label, decided to conceal the event instead.
This does NOT excuse child neglect; but if the law for promptly-remedied child neglect gave a proportionately short and genuinely reformative sentence (such as attending parenting classes), PERHAPS parents would not have the impulse to dissolve a previously-pampered (judging by the photos of her cute clothes and well-braided hair) 4-year old’s body in acid.
After all, Susan Smith INTENTIONALLY drowned two boys younger than Javaeyah and pushed the car back into the lake as the boys stretched their arms toward their mother for rescue; but Susan Smith did NOT get the death penalty.
Heck! Perhaps Susan Smith herself had remorse and would have dove after the boys and swam with them back to safety if the laws took into account remorse and efforts at mitigation after a crime began.
PERHAPS rapists and ATTEMPTED-rapists would be less likely to murder their victims (and thus avoid detection) if the penalty for even ATTEMPTED, non-consummated rape were not BASICALLY equal to the penalty for homicidal rape.
Please think, God forbid, if you were the parent of a daughter targeted by a would-be rapist, would you rather have your daughter alive and her attacker reformed or your daughter murdered and her attacker executed?
good gracious, please stop already.
Stop?!? I told you that is the principled preventionists against the guillotine glorifiers.
To stop now is to let the guillotine glorifiers win,
Is anyone thinking of Javeayah’s new-born brother whom you want to orphan of both parents and in a most gruesome way?
Is anyone considering pre-partum syndrome in the mother?
This is a real test for principled versus opportunistic capital-punishment opponents.
And a real test for prevention-oriented versus demagogue penalty reform proponents.
In my view, which I hope someone takes seriously and resists the facile temptation to insult me, the real problem is tough sentences for non-homicidal crimes.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the poor child had been left alone to play with the tire swing; it malfunctioned and fell on her; and she lost consciouness.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the frightened parents feared LWOP, which is dispensed like candy by some judges fearing a “let-them-loose Bruce” label, decided to conceal the event instead.
This does NOT excuse child neglect; but if the law for promptly-remedied child neglect gave a proportionately short and genuinely reformative sentence (such as attending parenting classes), PERHAPS parents would not have the impulse to dissolve a previously-pampered (judging by the photos of her cute clothes and well-braided hair) 4-year old’s body in acid.
After all, Susan Smith INTENTIONALLY drowned two boys younger than Javaeyah and pushed the car back into the lake as the boys stretched their arms toward their mother for rescue; but Susan Smith did NOT get the death penalty.
Heck! Perhaps Susan Smith herself had remorse and would have dove after the boys and swam with them back to safety if the laws took into account remorse and efforts at mitigation after a crime began.
PERHAPS rapists and ATTEMPTED-rapists would be less likely to murder their victims (and thus avoid detection) if the penalty for even ATTEMPTED, non-consummated rape were not BASICALLY equal to the penalty for homicidal rape.
Please think, God forbid, if you were the parent of a daughter targeted by a would-be rapist, would you rather have your daughter alive and her attacker reformed or your daughter murdered and her attacker executed?
Are you thinking of Javeayah’s new-born brother whom you want to orphan of both parents and in a most gruesome way?
Is anyone considering pre-partum syndrome in the mother?
This is a real test for principled versus opportunistic capital-punishment opponents.
And a real test for prevention-oriented versus demagogue penalty reform proponents.
In my view, which I hope someone takes seriously and resists the facile temptation to insult me, the real problem is tough sentences for non-homicidal crimes.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the poor child had been left alone to play with the tire swing; it malfunctioned and fell on her; and she lost consciouness.
Perhaps, and ONLY PERHAPS, the frightened parents feared LWOP, which is dispensed like candy by some judges fearing a “let-them-loose Bruce” label, decided to conceal the event instead.
This does NOT excuse child neglect; but if the law for promptly-remedied child neglect gave a proportionately short and genuinely reformative sentence (such as attending parenting classes), PERHAPS parents would not have the impulse to dissolve a previously-pampered (judging by the photos of her cute clothes and well-braided hair) 4-year old’s body in acid.
After all, Susan Smith INTENTIONALLY drowned two boys younger than Javaeyah and pushed the car back into the lake as the boys stretched their arms toward their mother for rescue; but Susan Smith did NOT get the death penalty.
Heck! Perhaps Susan Smith herself had remorse and would have dove after the boys and swam with them back to safety if the laws took into account remorse and efforts at mitigation after a crime began.
PERHAPS rapists and ATTEMPTED-rapists would be less likely to murder their victims (and thus avoid detection) if the penalty for even ATTEMPTED, non-consummated rape were not BASICALLY equal to the penalty for homicidal rape.
Please think, God forbid, if you were the parent of a daughter targeted by a would-be rapist, would you rather have your daughter alive and her attacker reformed or your daughter murdered and her attacker executed?
As always, thank God for other calm responses and for my replies to them. Here is a recent one of mine:?
@DeeMAVERICK2 , you are correct under PRESENT laws. I want the laws to be changed to allow people to step back from the start of a bad situation before it gets too late.
PERHAPS there can be a law that a mother suffering hormonal disturbances in a second pregnancy may TEMPORARILY surrender custody of the first child UNTIL the mother is physically and mentally stabilized. And that should not be a strike against the mother or go into her records or be used against her in the future.
Just some ideas which may be developped.
But capital punishment solves nothing and prevents nothing.
Thank God, some are debating this calmly. Here is my reply to one of them:
?@Optimistic1919 , thank you much for your care and civility.
Jesus Christ, in whom I believe without equivocation or hesitation, often spoke in metaphors and parables. And in that particular passage to which you allude, Jesus Christ said the culprit should tie a rock around his own neck.
A betrayer of Jesus Christ, Judas Iscariot, did commit suicide.
But I am sure Jesus Christ preferred, and DID predict, the response of another betrayer of Jesus Christ: Simeon-Peter, who wept bitterly after the rooster crowed thrice; and St. Peter became the rock over which the Church of Jesus Christ was built.
I admire laws which really do encourage life over criminalization and retribution.
A prime example are the laws allowing a mother or other parent to leave an unwanted newborn at a church or hospital, etc., and not face consequences for abandoning a newborn.
We should be encouraging such laws instead of pushing capital punishment on a parturient woman who MIGHT have been suffering a hormonal imbalance of a second pregnancy when her first-born got injured and died. That woman MIGHT still become a good mother to her second child, even from prison.
Even in the Old Testament, God commands us to choose life.
Continue the optimism your chosen handle name reflects. And God bless.
NOT excusing or defending the parents’ but demanding PREVENTIVE laws:
?@EbbNYC141 , but “abandonment charge” is precisely the problem.
Why should it be crime to acknowledge that you’re unable to properly care for your child during a period of high stress for you?
And why should you be forced to make a permanent decision in that high-stress period.
Hospitals do not take healthy children in. There are not enough beds, doctors, or nurses, for children who are sick as it is.
Even affordable child, high-quality, safe child care is reportedly hard to come by.
And what if “someone’s home” turns out to more unsafe and hurts the child more.
The safety valves for the parents should legalized, regulated, TEMPORARY, and available for those who have families and those who do not.
Sadly, insults were eventually hurled at me; but here is one of my replies to one of them:
? @electrictroy2010 , actually, and the verbatim confession is NOT out yet, they appear to have confessed to homicide by child abuse, NOT murder.
Huge difference.
South Carolina’s homicide-by-child-abuse statute is so broad (and I am NOT a lawyer, only better than most according to the TRANSCRIBED assessment of me by at least one federal judge) as to encompass failing to get timely medical help.
I do NOT claim to know what physically happened; but an accident followed by failure to seek medical help would be within the definition of SC’s homicide-by-child-abuse statute.
Murder requires malice afore-thought. I do NOT see that they “confessed” to THAT.
Why are you insulting me for thinking of ways to prevent deaths by giving some latitude to parents after an accident which LOOKS LIKE neglect so they can try to remedy it promptly and efficiently without fear of prosecution?
Remember “shaken baby syndrome”? How many parents were wrongly incarcerated for that?
And how many siblings of supposedly “shaken babies” were deprived of their biological parents due to overbroad statutory definitions, over-diagnosis, and/or rogue prosecutions?
Again, I am NOT saying any of that happened here. I am insisting that capital punishment of parents is NOT the way to protect siblings of children lost due to parental errors.