- Sep 21, 2004
- 46,562
- 52,879
- AFL Club
- GWS
Of course.
Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt II
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Banned
- #977
Now speculate on why she hasn’t recieved any....
- Sep 21, 2004
- 46,562
- 52,879
- AFL Club
- GWS
You want me to speculate?
- Banned
- #979
Infanticide is a crime that under Victoria law can only apply to a woman.
So woman kills her baby while depressed in the aftermath of the birth = slap on the wrist. Man kills his baby because he's enraged that it won't stop crying = murder, or at the very least manslaughter. How fair.
- Sep 21, 2004
- 46,562
- 52,879
- AFL Club
- GWS
Why speculate, when you can read what the judge said.
Poor infant doesn't get a chance, meanwhile the mum has got good rehab prospects after smothering her infant child, and serving 12 months jail, is this real life? Is equality being upheld through our laws and sentencing here? 5 years maximum for killing your own child, just because your a woman with mental illness, that's disgusting.
- Feb 16, 2012
- 5,855
- 10,726
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Portland Trailblazers
She should have got 12 months just for trying to blame an African guy. That was a hate crime.
Parents murdering their kids should get more years, not less.
Parents murdering their kids should get more years, not less.
It can only apply to women because the condition they have is connected to the birth of a baby. Unless men are giving birth now then that precludes them from any issue related to that.
If there are mental health issues involved then your reasoning is simply unfair, as horrible as the crime is.
- Banned
- #986
- Feb 16, 2012
- 5,855
- 10,726
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Portland Trailblazers
I'd think pretty much every child killer has some mental health issues, but it only seems to be women who can use that (or drug abuse) to get them off. If her mental health is that poor that she'd kill her own kid, shouldn't she be locked away as a threat to the community? Maybe her mental health issues will make her kill another baby and blame it on Africans.
Don't you worry you will get used to it, he can't handle people having the freedom of speech he just stands on his front porch yelling racist, homophobe etc etc
Men can also be diagnosed with postnatal depression.
The point is that there is a law available only to women that basically rules the life of a child to be worthless and almost completely excuses the mother's actions.
Last edited:
quotemokc
Brownlow Medallist
You mean abortion?
- Apr 30, 2010
- 5,562
- 4,521
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Golden State Warriors
Absolutely ******* rustled by that.
Victoria is unique in being the only place that expands Infanticide beyond 12 months. If you look at the vast majority of infanticide cases the age of the victim has been nowhere near that 12 month threshold.
This was not a breastfeeding newborn/infant. This was a walking, talking, giggling toddler.
Put simply this situation was not in the spirit of infanticide and that law with that 24 month threshold in Victoria needs to change. This was a get out of jail card.
Victoria is unique in being the only place that expands Infanticide beyond 12 months. If you look at the vast majority of infanticide cases the age of the victim has been nowhere near that 12 month threshold.
This was not a breastfeeding newborn/infant. This was a walking, talking, giggling toddler.
Put simply this situation was not in the spirit of infanticide and that law with that 24 month threshold in Victoria needs to change. This was a get out of jail card.
- Apr 30, 2010
- 5,562
- 4,521
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Golden State Warriors
Here are a couple of posts from the Crime board thread on this incident.
They are regarding the changes in the law from 12-24 months.
_________________
The Victoria Law Reform Commission are scum for this.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...-to-be-extended/2005/09/04/1125772409378.html
"MOTHERS who kill their children younger than two may be able to avoid a murder conviction by using the defence of infanticide, under changes soon to be introduced in State Parliament.
At present only mothers who kill within 12 months of the birth of their child can use the defence, which applies when the mother is suffering a mental disturbance resulting from childbirth or lactation.
Increasing the age of victims to two is in line with a recommendation from the Victorian Law Reform Commission.
But the Government has rejected the commission's push to enable women who also kill children other than their most recently born to rely on the defence.
Mr Hulls said it was not appropriate to extend the defence.
"I do accept the situation when a woman kills her newborn as being a very unique form of offending that does require a distinctive legal response, but I believe there should be tight limits on this response," Mr Hulls told The Age yesterday.
"The Government does not believe it is appropriate for the law to be seen to condone a killing of other children.
"Under the commission's recommendations, a woman could rely on infanticide having killed a 10-year-old or even a 16-year-old.
"If you agree with the LRC logic, then infanticide could apply to killing anyone as a result of post-natal depression … Why limit it to a child of the family?
"It broadens out the law to such an extent that it's not relating to the distinctive response that's required for post-natal depression. I think infanticide does recognise the unique relationship between a woman and the newborn. The LRC proposal extends beyond that unique relationship and I have concerns about that, and the Government will not legislate in line with it."
Stunning those extremists actually even pushed for that. I notice Hull mentions the word "newborn" when discussing infanticide. I do not believe anywhere from the 12-24 month range should be considered for that and the Victorian parliament should cop some heat if this case goes that way. Why they caved in on extending from 12-24 months is beyond me. Even 12 months goes well beyond the realm of a child being a newborn and there really lacks a reason to bump it up further.
Just ******* sad that some would push for a law that would allow a mother with PND to hypothetically murder a 6 week old, 10 year old, and 16 year old and then walk free with no custodial sentence(no woman has been jailed for infanticide in Victoria). The lack of will to protect children by some who I can assume to be of an extremist ideology within the Victorian Law Reform Commission at that time is baffling.
__________________
They are regarding the changes in the law from 12-24 months.
_________________
The Victoria Law Reform Commission are scum for this.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...-to-be-extended/2005/09/04/1125772409378.html
"MOTHERS who kill their children younger than two may be able to avoid a murder conviction by using the defence of infanticide, under changes soon to be introduced in State Parliament.
At present only mothers who kill within 12 months of the birth of their child can use the defence, which applies when the mother is suffering a mental disturbance resulting from childbirth or lactation.
Increasing the age of victims to two is in line with a recommendation from the Victorian Law Reform Commission.
But the Government has rejected the commission's push to enable women who also kill children other than their most recently born to rely on the defence.
Mr Hulls said it was not appropriate to extend the defence.
"I do accept the situation when a woman kills her newborn as being a very unique form of offending that does require a distinctive legal response, but I believe there should be tight limits on this response," Mr Hulls told The Age yesterday.
"The Government does not believe it is appropriate for the law to be seen to condone a killing of other children.
"Under the commission's recommendations, a woman could rely on infanticide having killed a 10-year-old or even a 16-year-old.
"If you agree with the LRC logic, then infanticide could apply to killing anyone as a result of post-natal depression … Why limit it to a child of the family?
"It broadens out the law to such an extent that it's not relating to the distinctive response that's required for post-natal depression. I think infanticide does recognise the unique relationship between a woman and the newborn. The LRC proposal extends beyond that unique relationship and I have concerns about that, and the Government will not legislate in line with it."
Stunning those extremists actually even pushed for that. I notice Hull mentions the word "newborn" when discussing infanticide. I do not believe anywhere from the 12-24 month range should be considered for that and the Victorian parliament should cop some heat if this case goes that way. Why they caved in on extending from 12-24 months is beyond me. Even 12 months goes well beyond the realm of a child being a newborn and there really lacks a reason to bump it up further.
Just ******* sad that some would push for a law that would allow a mother with PND to hypothetically murder a 6 week old, 10 year old, and 16 year old and then walk free with no custodial sentence(no woman has been jailed for infanticide in Victoria). The lack of will to protect children by some who I can assume to be of an extremist ideology within the Victorian Law Reform Commission at that time is baffling.
__________________
Last edited:
- Apr 30, 2010
- 5,562
- 4,521
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Golden State Warriors
The other post on it.
______________________
EDIT link for the report.
http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/FinalReport.pdf
Chapter 6 starts at page 253. This deserves its own thread but it is stunning it its stupidity.
I will state that I would NEVER want infanticide to be extended to men. But just look at their arguments.
"6.30 There was strong opposition to extending infanticide to include biological or non-biological fathers because men are the most common perpetrators of child abuse."
WRONG.
"Australian Institute of Criminology research on child killings has shown that where a child was killed by a parent that parent was most likely to be the father."
WRONG.
It is well known that if a child is more likely to be killed by their biological mother than their biological father.
"It was argued that the largest proportion of killings occurred within the first 12 month period and almost all child killings by mothers occurred where the child was five years old or younger. The vast majority of child killings occurred in the first two years. Most of those consulted were of the view that some kind of age limit should be set, but there were a variety of views as to whether this should be the existing limit of 12 months, two years or five years. 6.40 There was general agreement, however, that the law should allow infanticide to be used in cases where older children are killed owing to a disturbance caused by the birth of a younger child."
So the vast majority of children under 2 are killed by their mothers(actually true though they do not word it in that passage) and the Commission uses this to argue for extending infanticide. Yet the argument against fathers being able to use infanticide involved two false claims of being "the most common perpetrators of child abuse." and "where a child was killed by a parent that parent was most likely to be the father".
So the majority of abuse against children under two is done by mothers(logical as majority carers in most instances) yet an area where fathers are in the heavy minority as perpetrators the argument for not extending it to them is a false claim that they are "the most common perpetrators of child abuse."
Anyone see a contradiction in their logic there.
What a joke that this report is what resulted in changing the law from 12-24 months(the only place in the world that has done this as far as I know).
More gems.
"A variety of views were expressed about the current age limit for infanticide. During the roundtable discussions the difficulties of setting an age limit were discussed. The medical profession is itself divided on this issue."
"6.41 The Commission has sought the views of experts on the appropriate upper age limit for infanticide. The literature suggests that the vast majority of child killing by mothers occurs within the first 12 months of the child’s birth. However, because there are cases where, due to mental disturbance, mothers kill children Infanticide 267 who are older than 12 months it was felt that extending the age might ensure that all the deserving cases are given access to infanticide. Based on expert opinion and the statistics on child killing, the Commission believes the upper limit should be extended to two years. The Commission agrees that it is unjust that a woman who, due to a disturbance of mind, killed more than one child, can rely on infanticide for one child but not the other. The Commission recommends the law should be changed to rectify this anomaly."
Children do not ******* matter. How people could push the rights of adult women so far ahead of those of their children is despicable.
A just society should protect its most vulnerable. Young children are significantly more vulnerable than their adult mothers.
________________________
______________________
EDIT link for the report.
http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/FinalReport.pdf
Chapter 6 starts at page 253. This deserves its own thread but it is stunning it its stupidity.
I will state that I would NEVER want infanticide to be extended to men. But just look at their arguments.
"6.30 There was strong opposition to extending infanticide to include biological or non-biological fathers because men are the most common perpetrators of child abuse."
WRONG.
"Australian Institute of Criminology research on child killings has shown that where a child was killed by a parent that parent was most likely to be the father."
WRONG.
It is well known that if a child is more likely to be killed by their biological mother than their biological father.
"It was argued that the largest proportion of killings occurred within the first 12 month period and almost all child killings by mothers occurred where the child was five years old or younger. The vast majority of child killings occurred in the first two years. Most of those consulted were of the view that some kind of age limit should be set, but there were a variety of views as to whether this should be the existing limit of 12 months, two years or five years. 6.40 There was general agreement, however, that the law should allow infanticide to be used in cases where older children are killed owing to a disturbance caused by the birth of a younger child."
So the vast majority of children under 2 are killed by their mothers(actually true though they do not word it in that passage) and the Commission uses this to argue for extending infanticide. Yet the argument against fathers being able to use infanticide involved two false claims of being "the most common perpetrators of child abuse." and "where a child was killed by a parent that parent was most likely to be the father".
So the majority of abuse against children under two is done by mothers(logical as majority carers in most instances) yet an area where fathers are in the heavy minority as perpetrators the argument for not extending it to them is a false claim that they are "the most common perpetrators of child abuse."
Anyone see a contradiction in their logic there.
What a joke that this report is what resulted in changing the law from 12-24 months(the only place in the world that has done this as far as I know).
More gems.
"A variety of views were expressed about the current age limit for infanticide. During the roundtable discussions the difficulties of setting an age limit were discussed. The medical profession is itself divided on this issue."
"6.41 The Commission has sought the views of experts on the appropriate upper age limit for infanticide. The literature suggests that the vast majority of child killing by mothers occurs within the first 12 months of the child’s birth. However, because there are cases where, due to mental disturbance, mothers kill children Infanticide 267 who are older than 12 months it was felt that extending the age might ensure that all the deserving cases are given access to infanticide. Based on expert opinion and the statistics on child killing, the Commission believes the upper limit should be extended to two years. The Commission agrees that it is unjust that a woman who, due to a disturbance of mind, killed more than one child, can rely on infanticide for one child but not the other. The Commission recommends the law should be changed to rectify this anomaly."
Children do not ******* matter. How people could push the rights of adult women so far ahead of those of their children is despicable.
A just society should protect its most vulnerable. Young children are significantly more vulnerable than their adult mothers.
________________________
Last edited:
- Apr 30, 2010
- 5,562
- 4,521
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Golden State Warriors
An assumption can be made that feminists may have been part of that law reform commission report considering they make false claims to justify the offence not applying to men and even want a woman who murders a bunch of her teenage children to be able to use the offence of infanticide for those murders if she kills a baby at the same time (while impacted by PND).
Last edited:
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,882
- 56,888
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #995
It's fairly common for women to go through a postpartum depression, from mild to severe and it's recognised, something men won't get if hormones factor in.
This case seems really odd/inconsistent to me though because there are women in jail now doing life for infanticide, one where she was convicted with no body therefore, no ascertainable cause of death, only an assumption that the baby was disposed of soon after the mother left the hospital alone (no apparent support) with her baby.
Edit: They may have got convictions on murder actually rather than infanticide. That may explain it. Too busy to check now, sorry.
Last edited:
1 in 10 fathers are also diagnosed with postnatal depression. If a father, who is clinically depressed in the wake of the birth, kills his baby because its incessant crying is driving him crazy, he wouldn't get away with it.
This woman claimed that her baby was possessed... yet she was of sane enough mind to realise that what she had done was wrong and concocted an elaborate lie that fooled the police to the point where they put out a public plea for help. It seems to me that she just could not handle the responsibility of having a child and so decided to murder her. And she got away with it.
- Apr 30, 2010
- 5,562
- 4,521
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Golden State Warriors
If I recall correctly medics attended to the child a week or so before she commited the murder. Likely from her smothering the child then as well but not resulting in death. She had a chance at a cry for help and did not take it.
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,882
- 56,888
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #998
It doesn't seem to come as easily but men need to ask for help if they need it too and that help should always be there for them. I agree with you, this case reads as if justice hasn't been served.
Yeh thats crazy, it needs to change, currently it doesn't reflect what all of us think would for murdering your own toddler. The dog who threw his 4 year old off a bridge got 32 years jail. Both cases would involve mental health, obviously. Does anyone think 32 years jail for that dog is excessive? Probably not one person would. Justice not even close to being served here.
Yep. Then that must mean Lex Lazry is party to the feminist plots do you think? Or you could get a grip flea.
- Status
Similar threads
