• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

LOS ANGELES: Couple Tried For Killing "Gay Acting" Eight Year-Old Son

Potoooooooo

Contributor
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
7,004
Location
Floridas
Basic Beliefs
atheist
http://www.latimes.com/local/countygovernment/la-me-gabriel-fernandez-20140819-story.html#page=1



LAmurdercase.jpg


Before 8-year-old Gabriel Fernandez was allegedly beaten to death by his mother and her boyfriend, they doused him with pepper spray, forced him to eat his own vomit and locked him in a cabinet with a sock stuffed in his mouth to muffle his screams, according to court records made public Monday. Sworn grand jury testimony provided a graphic examination of the abuse that the Antelope Valley boy allegedly suffered before his death in May of 2013. The incident prompted calls for sweeping reforms to the troubled Los Angeles County foster-care system because child welfare workers failed to remove the boy. Officials have taken steps to fire two social workers and two supervisors, while others involved in the case received letters of warning or reprimand. Fernandez and Aguirre deliberately tortured the boy to death, hiding their tracks with forged doctor's notes and lies to authorities, Deputy Dist. Atty. Jonathan Hatami told the grand jury. "For eight straight months, he was abused, beaten and tortured more severely than many prisoners of war," Hatami said. The abuse worsened in the months leading up to Gabriel's death, according to testimony from two of his siblings, both of whom are minors. They said Gabriel was forced to eat cat feces, rotten spinach and his own vomit. He slept in a locked cabinet and wasn't let out to go to the bathroom. Fernandez and Aguirre called Gabriel gay, punished him when he played with dolls and forced him to wear girls' clothes to school, the siblings said.
Gabriel had written a suicide note, but child welfare authorities reportedly "dismissed" that information because the note contained "no specific plan" for him to kill himself.
 
What sort of punishment could you possibly give that would even come close to offering justice for the victim?
 
What sort of punishment could you possibly give that would even come close to offering justice for the victim?

I don't think any punishment would offer justice. A reform of the system would offer justice. Punishment is what they did to him. Punishment is bad, IMHO, and it's counterproductive to try to make punishment ever look justified. Just prevent these people from doing any more - lock them up - and then work on fixing the system for the other thousand kids who are suffering but not yet dead.
 
What sort of punishment could you possibly give that would even come close to offering justice for the victim?

I don't think any punishment would offer justice. A reform of the system would offer justice. Punishment is what they did to him. Punishment is bad, IMHO, and it's counterproductive to try to make punishment ever look justified. Just prevent these people from doing any more - lock them up - and then work on fixing the system for the other thousand kids who are suffering but not yet dead.
That's what I mean, though. I think the idea of trading years of a person's life for a crime isn't much justice. If the law allowed, there could be potentially sentences that could redress the harm. But this crime, these people. They did these things and probably got joy from it. Sometimes people act in rage and do ridiculously stupid and harmful things, but these two adults... this wasn't rage.
 
That's what I mean, though. I think the idea of trading years of a person's life for a crime isn't much justice.
To me, justice is creating peace and safety. The best justice in my opinion is to remove people like this from society. I don't need them to hurt or suffer or even repent. Just be removed.

Some people can be rehabilitated. This is good. They might repent. The awareness of their crime might make them suffer within and reform. And they can return to society and do good - or at least not do more bad. Other people cannot be rehabbed. They need to continue to be separated. That is enough for me. And it proves tpo the rest of society that this society does not condone punishing acts of revenge or self-righteously inflicted pain or hurt. For any reason. No reason is sufficient, society thinks you will ALWAYS be wrong if you inflict suffering or pain.

If the law allowed, there could be potentially sentences that could redress the harm. But this crime, these people. They did these things and probably got joy from it. Sometimes people act in rage and do ridiculously stupid and harmful things, but these two adults... this wasn't rage.

And for them, permanent separation from society to prevent their ever harming again. It is enough for justice - the making of a safe place for everyone else. That is justice.

IMHO.
 
What sort of punishment could you possibly give that would even come close to offering justice for the victim?
I truly understand the emotional behind what you are saying. There is nothing in the world that could be done to these two people that would approach "justice" for what they did to that child.

But I agree with Rhea - lock the two of them up forever so they can never hurt another child, then forget them. Work on the child protection system that failed Gabriel so horribly.
 
That's what I mean, though. I think the idea of trading years of a person's life for a crime isn't much justice.
I'm having trouble understanding your idea of justice. What concrete difference would you expect to observe in a world with more justice that isn't there in a world with less justice?

If the law allowed, there could be potentially sentences that could redress the harm.
How, in concrete terms, could a sentence redress a harm? Redress is relief/satisfaction/compensation, isn't it? None of these things can be provided to the dead, at our current level of technology. Also, it's not clear to me how much of a role punishment plays when it comes to providing these things to living victims, since the question of how to provide them would have to take into account the victim's psychology, financial status, etc. i.e. various factors that the perpetrator isn't necessarily capable of impacting, whether forced by law or not. I would expect trained experts in various areas to be better suited to redressing harm done to a victim.
 
I'm having trouble understanding your idea of justice. What concrete difference would you expect to observe in a world with more justice that isn't there in a world with less justice?
More community, less dual citizenship, the felons and the non-felons.

If the law allowed, there could be potentially sentences that could redress the harm.
How, in concrete terms, could a sentence redress a harm? Redress is relief/satisfaction/compensation, isn't it? None of these things can be provided to the dead, at our current level of technology.
For some cases of murder, if the killer can actually come to grips with the actual act and regret, honestly regret... not the I'm sorry I was caught sort of regret, what they did, I think the world gains a little.
Also, it's not clear to me how much of a role punishment plays when it comes to providing these things to living victims, since the question of how to provide them would have to take into account the victim's psychology, financial status, etc. i.e. various factors that the perpetrator isn't necessarily capable of impacting, whether forced by law or not. I would expect trained experts in various areas to be better suited to redressing harm done to a victim.
I'm not speaking specifically to the victim, but to the society.
 
I seen research that shows a "chemical high" in the brains of many people if someone they perceive as evil is punished severely. This couple would certainly qualify as evil to most and I could understand why some people would see them simply being punished with prison as lacking sufficient punishment.
 
I seen research that shows a "chemical high" in the brains of many people if someone they perceive as evil is punished severely. This couple would certainly qualify as evil to most and I could understand why some people would see them simply being punished with prison as lacking sufficient punishment.

Yes, I can see myself enjoying the chemical high from seeing them torn apart by a pack of wild animals.
 
I seen research that shows a "chemical high" in the brains of many people if someone they perceive as evil is punished severely.
The severity of the punishment isn't at issue here. It is whether justice, in any form, can be had with any punishment or sentence at all.
 
But I agree with Rhea - lock the two of them up forever so they can never hurt another child, then forget them. Work on the child protection system that failed Gabriel so horribly.
at that point... why? what's the purpose in that?
if you're going to "lock them up and forget them," just kill them outright - it's better than wasting money and lives on building a prison system for them to occupy.

i say reasonable (not gratuitous or cruel) inmate work programs are the way to go with these types: highway/city cleanup or doing dangerous/unpleasant jobs that may have a limited workforce pool.
 
To me, justice is creating peace and safety. The best justice in my opinion is to remove people like this from society. I don't need them to hurt or suffer or even repent. Just be removed.

Some people can be rehabilitated. This is good. They might repent. The awareness of their crime might make them suffer within and reform. And they can return to society and do good - or at least not do more bad. Other people cannot be rehabbed. They need to continue to be separated. That is enough for me. And it proves tpo the rest of society that this society does not condone punishing acts of revenge or self-righteously inflicted pain or hurt. For any reason. No reason is sufficient, society thinks you will ALWAYS be wrong if you inflict suffering or pain.

If the law allowed, there could be potentially sentences that could redress the harm. But this crime, these people. They did these things and probably got joy from it. Sometimes people act in rage and do ridiculously stupid and harmful things, but these two adults... this wasn't rage.

And for them, permanent separation from society to prevent their ever harming again. It is enough for justice - the making of a safe place for everyone else. That is justice.

IMHO.
Cases like this make me wish that "exile" was still a practical means of disposing of criminals. I know we don't have penal colonies anymore, but for the worst offenders -- such as these -- that seems like confucian justice: A couple of people act like uncivilized barbarians, perhaps we should release them back into the wild where they belong?
 
Cases like this make me wish that "exile" was still a practical means of disposing of criminals. I know we don't have penal colonies anymore, but for the worst offenders -- such as these -- that seems like confucian justice: A couple of people act like uncivilized barbarians, perhaps we should release them back into the wild where they belong?
i don't get why 'kill them and move on with your day' isn't an option.
 
But I agree with Rhea - lock the two of them up forever so they can never hurt another child, then forget them. Work on the child protection system that failed Gabriel so horribly.
at that point... why? what's the purpose in that?
if you're going to "lock them up and forget them," just kill them outright - it's better than wasting money and lives on building a prison system for them to occupy.

i say reasonable (not gratuitous or cruel) inmate work programs are the way to go with these types: highway/city cleanup or doing dangerous/unpleasant jobs that may have a limited workforce pool.

I am okay with killing people who are irredeemable. My only problem is in knowing when people are irredeemable. So I am satisfied with just locking away. That way, if there's an error, or a reversal/healing, you haven't left yourself unable to react appropriately (they'd be too dead).

My preference, then, is to make the death penalty optional. If a person knows they will never do good even from prison (providing something to live for), and they know they will never get out, and they'd prefer the death penalty, I say, "sure."
 
Cases like this make me wish that "exile" was still a practical means of disposing of criminals. I know we don't have penal colonies anymore, but for the worst offenders -- such as these -- that seems like confucian justice: A couple of people act like uncivilized barbarians, perhaps we should release them back into the wild where they belong?
i don't get why 'kill them and move on with your day' isn't an option.

For moral and practical reasons, I am opposed to the death penalty. I am, however, significantly less opposed to placing criminals in situations that cause their lives to end much faster than they otherwise would, especially if those situations involve quite a bit of suffering and hardship and maybe a character-building epiphany or two right before they are eaten alive by crocodiles.

It is the journey, not the destination, that makes all the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

at that point... why? what's the purpose in that?
if you're going to "lock them up and forget them," just kill them outright - it's better than wasting money and lives on building a prison system for them to occupy.

i say reasonable (not gratuitous or cruel) inmate work programs are the way to go with these types: highway/city cleanup or doing dangerous/unpleasant jobs that may have a limited workforce pool.

I am okay with killing people who are irredeemable. My only problem is in knowing when people are irredeemable. So I am satisfied with just locking away. That way, if there's an error, or a reversal/healing, you haven't left yourself unable to react appropriately (they'd be too dead).

My preference, then, is to make the death penalty optional. If a person knows they will never do good even from prison (providing something to live for), and they know they will never get out, and they'd prefer the death penalty, I say, "sure."

I would only add that they should also get to choose the method of execution from a limited set of options. I suspect a majority of people would prefer "death by firing squad" although I think death by guillotine might also be a popular option.

I honestly don't understand how we got roped into this "lethal injection" crap. What could be more cruel and unusual than strapping somebody to a table and pumping him full of a half dozen drugs just so he can feel the life slowly draining out of him?
 
I would only add that they should also get to choose the method of execution from a limited set of options. I suspect a majority of people would prefer "death by firing squad" although I think death by guillotine might also be a popular option.

I honestly don't understand how we got roped into this "lethal injection" crap. What could be more cruel and unusual than strapping somebody to a table and pumping him full of a half dozen drugs just so he can feel the life slowly draining out of him?

Agree completely. I don't get the injection, either. At least not without first just putting them into a coma, you know? Put them to sleep, THEN put them to death.
 
Back
Top Bottom