• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Justice has not been served....

Status
Not open for further replies.
These bastards deserved life in prison, imo, as well as the lawyers defending them.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/cpress/20040705/ca_pr_on_na/boys_in_cages

Two brothers frequently kept caged and tethered in their family home over 13 years reacted bitterly Monday after their adoptive parents were sentenced to nine months in jail for treatment the judge said was horrendous but well-intentioned.

The boys, who were adopted as toddlers and raised in nearby Blackstock, said their parents deserved longer terms and complained the judge appeared to blame them in part for their ordeal.

"I don't feel (justice) has been served," said one boy, 17, as he stood shoulder to shoulder with his 18-year-old brother.

"I feel they should get more time."

The teens were rescued from their home three years ago in a case that horrified police and child-care workers, who found them after a tip from a relative.

Although the boys went to school, home regularly became a house of horrors on evenings and weekends at the hands of the couple they believed were their parents.

When investigators visited the ramshackle two-storey farmhouse northeast of Toronto, one boy was found in a makeshift cage that was padlocked and strapped to a wall.

After school, the boys were tied to their beds, sometimes handcuffed. At one time, one brother was forced to sleep in a dog cage. They were kept in diapers because they couldn't get to the washroom, subjected to rectal examinations and regularly beaten with a variety of household implements.

Court heard the boys lived in such fear that they ate their own feces to hide evidence of accidents and, deprived of water, felt compelled to drink their own urine.

Ontario Court Judge Donald Halikowski blasted the couple's "ill-informed system of discipline" as demeaning and damaging to the boys.

However, Halikowski said their behaviour was "underscored by good intentions," and that there was no evidence the parents were sadistic.

Rather, he said, they were out of their depth when it came to handling boys. The defence said the boys suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome and attention deficit disorder, diagnoses disputed by the Crown.

"There is no doubt they were difficult to raise," said Halikowski, although he added their treatment of the boys was "beyond comprehension."

He sentenced the couple to nine months for assault with a weapon, nine months for forcible confinement, and one month for failing to provide the necessaries of life. The terms all run concurrently, meaning they could be eligible for day parole in less than three months. They will also be on probation for three years.

The couple, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the boys, had pleaded guilty in January to the three charges.

On bail since their arrest three years ago, the two didn't speak as they were handcuffed and taken into custody after sentencing.

The defence called the sentence fair and balanced and, despite the evidence, suggested the abuse was not as frequent as child-welfare officials alleged.

"To suggest, as was the theory, that this abusive conduct took place every day for 12 or 13 years was a far-fetched fantasy. That was not the reality," said lawyer Alex Sosna.

"These children were tethered, these children were abused periodically, but not systematically on a daily basis."

Disappointed Crown attorney Soula Olver, who had called for penitentiary terms of up to eight years, refused to comment but said an appeal is under consideration.

Even close relatives of the couple denounced the sentence as too lenient given the judge's description of the boys' treatment as "near torture."

"What is (the judge) saying to the boys?" said their maternal grandfather.

"This really bothers me. It really does."

Olver had earlier contrasted the couple's treatment of the boys with the kind and loving care they gave their biological son, their grandchildren and even neighbourhood kids.

Child welfare workers rejected Halikowski's suggestion that the discovery of the boys may have caused them more emotional damage than the abuse from their parents.

"We are disappointed," said Wanda Secord of the Durham Children's Aid Society.

"We had hoped for a stronger sentence."

Court heard earlier the woman, 43, and her husband, 51, went to Saskatchewan in the late 1980s to adopt her sister's children because she was dying of substance abuse and couldn't care for them.

The younger brother has denounced his adoptive mother as a "stupid bitch" and said he didn't have a childhood "because of her stupidness."

The older boy has said the "unbearable" crib incidents continue to haunt him.

Both are in separate foster care and going to high school.


I litterally hope they both get killed in prison.
 

DCharlie

And even i am moderately surprised
WTF??? NINE MONTHS? Probably only 3-4 months tops?!?!

If they had mistreated two fluffy cute dogs, the couple would have got more than f*cking 9 months!
 

Trevelyon

Member
The Promised One said:
"I litterally hope they both get killed in prison."

Ryan_OReilly.jpg


"I can have that arranged."
 
DCharlie said:
WTF??? NINE MONTHS? Probably only 3-4 months tops?!?!

If they had mistreated two fluffy cute dogs, the couple would have got more than f*cking 9 months!

Yup. Makes one want to bust out on them, Punisher style.

Since I hear that the career inmates in jail absolutely hate child molesters, I really hope that the word gets out to their fellow inmates as to their crimes.
 

Socreges

Banned
Aren't judges supposed to be intelligent? Isn't it supposed to be difficult to get such a high position? How the fuck could he get it so terribly wrong?
 

=W=

Member
The younger brother has denounced his adoptive mother as a "stupid bitch" and said he didn't have a childhood "because of her stupidness."
hahahahaha

Seriously, what a stupid judge. This makes me sick. :(
 

darscot

Member
Sentence seems light, but I think people are jumping off the deep end here a little. These two boys clearly had problems. Thes two people clearly got in over there head when trying to raise them. Allot of people here have no idea how hard it is to raise a child let alone a pair with fetal alcohol. Is it wrong to lock up a kid yes. Is it wrong to lock up a kid because your so frustrated with them your afraid your going to beat them senseless. Yes but it's better then beating them. None of us have the facts maybe there are a few things missing here.
 
darscot said:
Sentence seems light, but I think people are jumping off the deep end here a little. These two boys clearly had problems. Thes two people clearly got in over there head when trying to raise them. Allot of people here have no idea how hard it is to raise a child let alone a pair with fetal alcohol. Is it wrong to lock up a kid yes. Is it wrong to lock up a kid because your so frustrated with them your afraid your going to beat them senseless. Yes but it's better then beating them. None of us have the facts maybe there are a few things missing here.

I have an uncle with FAS, and it in no way constitutes this type of treatment. Is special care needed? Certainly, but it's nowhere near like taking care of someone who has Down Syndrome.

These parents need a severe beating.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
darscot said:
Sentence seems light, but I think people are jumping off the deep end here a little. These two boys clearly had problems. Thes two people clearly got in over there head when trying to raise them. Allot of people here have no idea how hard it is to raise a child let alone a pair with fetal alcohol. Is it wrong to lock up a kid yes. Is it wrong to lock up a kid because your so frustrated with them your afraid your going to beat them senseless. Yes but it's better then beating them. None of us have the facts maybe there are a few things missing here.

You're missing an "i" in your tag.
 

darscot

Member
My main point is it's hard to know were to draw the line when a parent does somethign with a child's best intentions in mind. Also I did say that the sentence did seem light. The article did make it clear that these parents were not sadistic. I think thats the key point as to why they got off so easy.

Basically it is wrong to lock a kid up and punish them.
Is it wrong to lock them up if there say a junkie and "abuse" them untill they straighten there shit out.

My tag is missing an I because it's suppose to be a joke. Referencing the fact that I spell like shit and type even worse?
 
darscot said:
Sentence seems light, but I think people are jumping off the deep end here a little. These two boys clearly had problems. Thes two people clearly got in over there head when trying to raise them. Allot of people here have no idea how hard it is to raise a child let alone a pair with fetal alcohol. Is it wrong to lock up a kid yes. Is it wrong to lock up a kid because your so frustrated with them your afraid your going to beat them senseless. Yes but it's better then beating them. None of us have the facts maybe there are a few things missing here.

Well granted the fact the boys had fetal alcohol syndrome does raise a few questions, such as their mental state and memories (which would both not be in top form ... evident by the bodily waste eating). But nevertheless, it doesn't justify what those two did. I mean so the kids were f***ed up because their real mother was foolish, doesn't mean they deserve to be abused and chained up.
 

Socreges

Banned
My main point is it's hard to know were to draw the line when a parent does somethign with a child's best intentions in mind. Also I did say that the sentence did seem light. The article did make it clear that these parents were not sadistic. I think thats the key point as to why they got off so easy.
That was a paraphrase of the judge. But what difference does that make? They still often locked up two human beings, beat them, and deprived them of food and water (to the point where they'd eat and drink their own excrement).
Basically it is wrong to lock a kid up and punish them.
Is it wrong to lock them up if there say a junkie and "abuse" them untill they straighten there shit out.
These aren't junkies. These are two children with FAS. You can't excuse gross incompetence and abuse by pointing to the subjects. The parents should have forfeited possession if they couldn't handle them.
 

darscot

Member
I'm not saying what they did was right! I'm just saying mabye were not getting all the info. The junkie was just another example that I could see this kind of thing happening. And allot of people would say that's ok. I'm not, I'm just saying there are some facts missing here.

It never said that they ate there own excement due to hunger. It said they ate them in an attempt to hide them.
 

Socreges

Banned
darscot said:
I'm not saying what they did was right! I'm just saying mabye were not getting all the info. The junkie was just another example that I could see this kind of thing happening. And allot of people would say that's ok. I'm not, I'm just saying there are some facts missing here.
Of course there are. Now let's see you actually apply that to the situation. Explain how we could possibly excuse such terrible negligence and abuse.
It never said that they ate there own excement due to hunger. It said they ate them in an attempt to hide them.
Fine. DRANK their own excrement. World of a difference!
 

darscot

Member
Socreges said:
Explain how we could possibly excuse such terrible negligence and abuse.

We can't that's my whole point how could a judge excuse this if these were the facts. That's why I suspect a great deal of what were reading here isn't the truth. If it was the truth no normal human being could excuse it with a 9 months sentence.

People really need to control, their emotions.

I miss read the drank thing I didnt realise they drank them do to thirst. I thought it just said they tried to hide them.
 

Socreges

Banned
The evidence:

5:39 pm
My main point is it's hard to know were to draw the line when a parent does somethign with a child's best intentions in mind.
6:10 pm
I'm just saying mabye were not getting all the info.
6:27 pm
that's my whole point how could a judge excuse this if these were the facts. That's why I suspect a great deal of what were reading here isn't the truth.

All rise for the honourable Judge Socreges!

Socreges: Yes, thank you. Please sit. Has the jury reached a verdict?

Jury: Yes we have, your honour.

On the charge of withholding consistency in a formal argument, we find the defendant, darscot, otherwise known as Idot Member, guilty.

_1089017_oj_ap300.jpg


Furthermore, on the charge of neglecting and abusing logic, we find the defendent, darscot, guilty.

biz_breastimplants.jpg


Socreges: I hereby sentence you to life with crippling stupidity. Bailiff, take him away!!

ph10,23,1ojtrial2.jpg
 

darscot

Member
None of us have the facts maybe there are a few things missing here.

You missed this one at 5:28

Not sure what is so inconsistent. I think you should take more of what I said out of context and add a few more pictures of OJ. Plus try and use my Tag a few more times. Your only about the 10000`s guy to use it when they can`t come up wiht anything else to go with.
 

Socreges

Banned
darscot said:
None of us have the facts maybe there are a few things missing here.

You missed this one at 5:28
Same as this: "I'm just saying mabye were not getting all the info" which I did not miss.
Not sure what is so inconsistent. I think you should take more of what I said out of context and add a few more pictures of OJ.
I took nothing out of context. My main point was that you're conveniently shaping your argument around our replies. It's baffling.
Plus try and use my Tag a few more times. Your only about the 10000`s guy to use it when they can`t come up wiht anything else to go with.
Please, I used it once.

Anything else? Your tag was a minor touch on the entire scheme. You'd have a point with Willco, but not me.
 

darscot

Member
Now I understand when I show consistency and say the same thing over again it dosen`t count. I guess it makes sense when you tryin to show inconsistency. I guess you have to or you wouldn`t make any sense. I have had the same point from start to finnish and your right I rephased ever post.
 

Socreges

Banned
Listen. I don't have a clue what you just said, so I'm just going to try and express myself as well as possible.
We can't that's my whole point how could a judge excuse this if these were the facts. That's why I suspect a great deal of what were reading here isn't the truth. If it was the truth no normal human being could excuse it with a 9 months sentence.
You said nothing to that effect before. You did say, however, that maybe there are things we DON'T know. People reply that, despite this possible exclusion, we can still condemn the judge for not giving a harsh enough sentence based on what we are given. You then say, as if you had been saying it all along, that perhaps what we DO know is, in fact, wrong. That is an entirely different premise - understand that - it has not been your "whole point".

If you don't get it by now, you are never going to. kthxbye
 

darscot

Member
This is my point as I guess the handfull of post just can`t make it clear to you. I do not belive that we have all the facts and the information written in the article here may not be the facts.
 

MASB

Member
darscot said:
Sentence seems light, but I think people are jumping off the deep end here a little. These two boys clearly had problems. Thes two people clearly got in over there head when trying to raise them. Allot of people here have no idea how hard it is to raise a child let alone a pair with fetal alcohol. Is it wrong to lock up a kid yes. Is it wrong to lock up a kid because your so frustrated with them your afraid your going to beat them senseless. Yes but it's better then beating them. None of us have the facts maybe there are a few things missing here.
I don't care what problems the boys had. If what the boys say about the conditions (plus what the cops found) is anything like the truth, then the parents should have given up custody. There's no excuse for it whatsoever. Good intentions? The road to Hell is paved with those. :p

I think, however many years the parents abused the boys, they should serve at least that many years in prison. That's as 'fair' as you can be considering the boys can't get those years back.

As far as headlines go, this has not been a good week for Canadian justice. I read that in BC, a stripper was stabbed in her breast, rupturing her implant by two other strippers. Why did they stab her? "She was acting uppity." Their sentence? One was let off completely and the other was given 1 year probation. I wonder what the heck the judge said... "She was uppity? Well stabbing's alright then!" :p :p
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
There is no situation that ever makes it okay or legal to chain up kids in cages whenever they're home and deprive them of food and water, and for 13 years to boot. Anyone trying to justify this is just off their rocker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom