Woman guilty of killing 4 year-old son she thought was gay

[FreeThinker]

I don't know what to say beyond expressing my love and compassion for this poor child and my contempt for and disgust with the kind of thinking that leads to these kinds of heinous and horrifying acts. Of course, there are those who follow he who spoke of love who will simply put their hands over their ears and refuse to hear about where their thinking leads. They will claim that they aren't like that. But then, beating disobedient children-- not just spanking, but beating children--is a new fad among conservative "Christians", so this shouldn't come as a surprise. How sad and how infuriating. Extreme punishments for not conforming are more and more common among the religious right and it may be time to publicly shame these people. Not just the people, but the "preachers" and "ministers" who gin them up and egg them on.

Do conservative Christians have no shame? Oh, I forgot. They're forgiven.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/zachary-dutro-boggess-letter_n_5106891.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[DesDownunder]

[...]

Do conservative Christians have no shame? Oh, I forgot. They're forgiven.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/zachary-dutro-boggess-letter_n_5106891.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Part of the psychology of the Christian religion has been to combine fear (of God), sex as a sin, sin as interpreted from their bible, with forgiveness.

So long as the followers repent, then forgiveness is theirs for the asking. The problem is not just that sin is endemic to the religion, it is a tool to exert priestly authority on behalf of their god. This amounts to an escape clause to break the commandments of god, and the laws of society. Thus do what you like, and you can be forgiven.

So if you have been indoctrinated into thinking that it is a sin to be gay and you extend that to include your irrational concept that your child may be gay, then in your psychosis, your religious engendered psychosis, you may imagine that you will be forgiven for killing your child.

Clearly this demonstrates not being able to understand the difference between the unreal and reality, and that is insanity; an insanity fostered by the religious practises of the stupid for the ignorant.

[Chris James]

I agree with what's been said so far, Christian fundamentalism has contributed to the national attitude and hysteria about children and this cruel treatment of perceived gayness. A woman like this is mentally ill and the cause of her illness is the Bible.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/12/515641/study-40-percent-of-homeless-youth-are-lgbt-family-rejection-is-leading-cause/

Rejecting children for their sexual orientation is nothing new in this country or many others, killing them before they are old enough to espouse their sexuality is a sickness. Parents like this woman lack good judgment and perhaps she didn't like the role of single mother in the first place. I am all for sterilizing someone like her. She should never be allowed to give birth again.

The vast numbers of gay homeless youth speaks to the intolerance of parents for the rights and responsibilities of child rearing. The fact is many states do have laws on the books about a parent's responsibility for their minor children and yet they are not enforced. Child abuse is one of the items law enforcement fails to prosecute, until a child dies.

A youngster forced out on the street by parents because he/she is gay is a crime. The only time the legal system becomes involved is when the child is picked up for committing a crime. Even then the parents are brought to court to witness the child being sentenced to a juvenile institution and perhaps forced to pay a fine. None of that will endear the child to the family and the initial issues are not resolved.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/05/can-parents-kick-teens-out-of-their-home.html

A parent is legally responsible for a child's education, and that ceases when the child it thrown out of the house. They are responsible for food, clothing and shelter, all of this mandated by law, and yet that is not the issue when a child commits a crime. Most of these egregious crimes are vagrancy, theft to feed themselves, and of course, solicitation.

But even though Jesus commanded his followers to feed the hungry and poor, and love thy neighbor, none of this applies to the Christians who cast out their children and condemn them for being gay. Fundamentalists operate in a vacuum that doesn't allow them to see beyond their personal needs and desires. In that world there is no room for independent thought beyond the cherry picking verses they follow in the Bible. Meanwhile, keep that 40% in mind, they certainly won't.

While all this litigation is going on about gay discrimination I would like to see a minor child bringing legal charges up against the parents make national headlines. A good lawyer could file either a criminal or civil suit or both. Sue for millions if the parents are wealthy, and especially if they are fundamentalist. It would be nice to see that story in the news instead of some sick bitch killing her kid because of her delusions.

[Nigel Gordon]

There is an offense in Common Law, of incitement to commit a felony. As it is in Common Law, unless the USA has legislated it out of existence, it should still apply in the USA. Could it be argued that a Fundamentalist Church are inciting its members to commit a felony when they mistreat a child because of that child's sexuality?

[Cole Parker]

Sounds like it to me, although I'd have to see the language they used to promote this practice. Perhaps she merely interpreted it that way.

C

[DesDownunder]

[...]

I would also avoid suggesting that the murdering mother is mental as it will, ultimately, get her off or lessen the charges and punishment. If the US is like Britain then there'll be different laws for women as here they usually either get off or are dealt with much more leniently. Their mental state is usually the most used excuse which, to my mind, says quite a lot about women and in so doing dismisses the fact that many of them are just as vicious and homicidal as men and are certainly very much more devious and vindictive.

Regardless of a court's findings and punishment, it has to be pointed out that there are two victims here, the mother, and the child. My opinion is that the mother was driven to a mental state of not being able to relate to reality by her exposure to a particularly intolerant and irrational religion.

Should this be regarded as an extenuating circumstance for a lighter sentence for the mother? Consideration of any punishment is going to vary from one person to another. Clearly a mix of punishment and rehabilitation in a psychiatric institution would be appropriate. The worst part of the rehabilitation would be that the mother would eventually have to face the fact that what she did was beyond heinous. She would have to live with that knowledge for the rest of her life, which a court may well determine should be in the institution (for the criminally insane.)

If it isn't obvious, I admit that I do not approve of capital punishment. I would however approve of shutting down the religion, but I guess that it is protected by the First Amendment. The fault with giving religion the right to freedom of speech is that it permits the religion to incite insanity. The religion should therefore, be held as a contributing factor to the mental state of the mother, but that should only be used in moderating her sentence to be served in a maximum security psychiatric institution. Any action taken against the religion would have to be separate prosecution, and would I think, be a very difficult undertaking.

[Nigel Gordon]

Incitement was an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It was an inchoate offence. It consisted of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime.

It was abolished in England and Wales on 1 October 2008 when Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 came into force, replacing it with three new statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime. The common law is now only relevant to offences committed before that date.

Incitement remains an offence in New Zealand.

^{The above is from Wikipedia, as you can see Incitement was part of Common Law, as the United States is a Common Law Jurisdiction it makes use of the Common Law of England and Wales prior to the declaration of Independence. So unless it has been specifically replaced by legislation (as it has by the Serious Crime Act 2007 in England & Wales) it would still be part of the Common Law of the United States..}

^{WiseGEEK states:}

^{Incitement is a crime that occurs when one person tries to motivate another to commit an offense. There are several ways that this may be done, including through inflammatory speeches and by using threats. The list of offenses that a person can be incited to commit is even longer, including acts such as terrorist attacks, rape, and theft. It should be understood that a person can be convicted of inciting others even if those individuals do not actually commit crimes}

So it might be possible to go after the religious right even if no crime is committed.

[Marius]

The mother was given a life sentence (minimum of 25 years) and the boyfriend was sentenced to 12.5 years.

[The Pecman]

Horrible, horrible, horrible story. Elsewhere, there's a discussion going on about the pros and cons of the death penalty. I concede that the United States is one of the few in the world left who has capital punishment, but Jesus H. Christ, I don't want a woman like this to live after a crime this heinous.