Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:


Sometimes not having toxicology confirmation =/= drug not taken. Knowing that, the jury is going to give some weight to those text messages.

It's like the text messages speak to intent, or something? I dunno. Jack McCoy can only teach me so much.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Despite Patel's claim that she gave birth to a stillborn child, prosecutors argued that Patel gave birth to a live fetus and charged her with child neglect. Prosecutors also claimed that Patel ordered abortion-inducing drugs online and tried to terminate her pregnancy, but a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.

The prosecution made claims they can't prove and yet the woman goes to jail without evidence? Wow...This country is screwed.

Not without evidence. Without a smoking gun, perhaps, but when you are on record trying to buy poison to kill somebody and then three days later your intended victim turns up dead in a dumpster, that is evidence that you were responsible.

Off topic:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This morning I scolded my students for not sending me the work they had to do, and told them I would give those that did not send it 0 out fo 20 grades. That was an April's fool, they had no assignment to send me. It took them a few seconds to realize it though, and that was real fun.

It was funny to you, because you were abusing your position of power to entertain yourself at their expense by threatening them with punishment when they had done nothing wrong. Don't do that.

Without a toxicology confirmation that text message is worth a pile of poo.

Again... depends on the medication. One common one that she may use would be:
Cytotec, which by the time the authorities is able to draw samples from her, it's not detectable.

There's other ways via hormone overload, and if pro-athletes would know, those aren't as detectable as you'd think.

These discussions is kind of moot without seeing the court documents. Does anyone know if they're made public yet?

 cincydooley wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Sometimes not having toxicology confirmation =/= drug not taken. Knowing that, the jury is going to give some weight to those text messages.

It's like the text messages speak to intent, or something? I dunno. Jack McCoy can only teach me so much.

More than intent in this case, she claimed the pills tasted like gak in a text to her friend.

 CptJake wrote:
More than intent in this case, she claimed the pills tasted like gak in a text to her friend.

Self incrimination, making the prosecution's job easy since time immemorial


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Again... depends on the medication. One common one that she may use would be:
Cytotec, which by the time the authorities is able to draw samples from her, it's not detectable.

There's other ways via hormone overload, and if pro-athletes would know, those aren't as detectable as you'd think.

These discussions is kind of moot without seeing the court documents. Does anyone know if they're made public yet?

Not yet, but those are something I am interested in reading, and may do something to alleviate the signal to noise ratio

 CptJake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/purvi_patel_feticide_why_did_the_pathologist_use_the_discredited_lung_float.html
here is a much more informative article...

IMO, the only way this lady gets convicted is by a bigoted jury. With national attention this case will be appealed rather quickly.

Interesting how the article spends so much time on the float test, even after stating:

Prahlow supplemented the evidence from the float test with other findings, testifying that the lungs looked full of air when he removed the fetus’s chest plate during the autopsy, that the air sacs in the lung tissue looked expanded when he looked at them under a microscope, and that the weight of the lungs—approximately 21 grams—was consistent with a live birth. Prahlow also testified that, according to his analysis, blood had started flowing to the lungs, which would have only happened after the baby had taken a breath.

You would think they would have spent effort refuting the rest as well. It sounds like a lot more than float test results were presented.

I wonder what the defense expert witness presented to refute all of it.

I'd really like to know that too in regards to the defense. I also didn't read that far cause I'm at work. All that stuff sounds pretty convincing though...I will have to read more.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'd really like to know that too in regards to the defense. I also didn't read that far cause I'm at work. All that stuff sounds pretty convincing though...I will have to read more.

So you bring the article up, make an inflammatory comment based on it, and then admit you didn't even read the whole thing?

 CptJake wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?

I will take this as a yes. Woah. Mind blown.
To answer your question, the 20 years in prison.

How long of a sentence should a person get for killing their kid (which, in the end, is what this lady did)? What would you consider reasonable?

What factors do you consider? Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?

It seems like there must be a large psychological component to her crime. I would prefer to see her committed to long term psychological care rather than prison. And oddly enough, I think smothering a three year old is much worse because a person would have to overcome several mental barriers to murder a talking child slowly than to discard a newborn they have not formed any attachment to. Not saying killing a newborn is fine or even a mild crime, but I would think it would be 'easier' for the perpetrator than killing a much less passive child with a developed ability to communicate.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?

I will take this as a yes. Woah. Mind blown.
To answer your question, the 20 years in prison.

How long of a sentence should a person get for killing their kid (which, in the end, is what this lady did)? What would you consider reasonable?

What factors do you consider? Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?

It seems like there must be a large psychological component to her crime. I would prefer to see her committed to long term psychological care rather than prison. And oddly enough, I think smothering a three year old is much worse because a person would have to overcome several mental barriers to murder a talking child slowly than to discard a newborn they have not formed any attachment to. Not saying killing a newborn is fine or even a mild crime, but I would think it would be 'easier' for the perpetrator than killing a much less passive child with a developed ability to communicate.

I'll play Devil's Advocate with this one, if you don't mind.

So, dumping a new born into a dumpster is not as bad (and assumedly should net you a shorter sentence) than smothering your 3 year old. But what if it isn't your 3 year old, what if it is some 3 year old you don't know and are not attached/bonded to? Do we then go with the lighter sentence in that case because it is the killing of a kid you are bonded to that is more wrong?

The (probably not very well made) point is, either killing a child is wrong in the eyes of the law, or it is not. The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.

As for psych ward instead of prison? I'm not for that. I'm for psych help while in prison,but believe the punishment component of prison is a good thing.

I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or not. I said killing the three year old, any three year old, would take more sinister intent because they can put up a fight, scream or beg. A newborn is unaware and almost passive enough for a person to mentally categorize him or her as a nonhuman thing, like a pet. Not defending the killing of newborns, but explaining why I see murdering a three year old, particularly by smothering, as a more extreme act than discarding a newborn.

Killing a child is wrong, but there are various degrees of murder, and even manslaughter. Throwing a possibly-not-even-viable newborn in a dumpster takes less premeditation and malice than smothering a child who is likely screaming and thrashing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You edited your post. I'll recheck my reply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I said committed for a reason. The psych ward of a prison would be fine. She comes across as unhinged rather than simply callous.

Lung float test...

Did they also check to see if the defendant weighs as much as a duck while they were at it?

 d-usa wrote:
Lung float test...

Did they also check to see if the defendant weighs as much as a duck while they were at it?

That was not one of the tests listed in that article, but we don't have court records yet.

The court phrenologist testified that she had the skull shape of a shamless murderess.

 CptJake wrote:
The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.

The age does though. You can abort up until the foetus reach a certain age, and not after.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.

The age does though. You can abort up until the foetus reach a certain age, and not after.

Or cut it from someone's stomach if you're in Colorado, apparently.

Cincy considering that woman can serve up to 170? or so years in prison... you'll have to elaborate.

 cincydooley wrote:
Or cut it from someone's stomach if you're in Colorado, apparently.

But who would do that? Who wants an already digested foetus? That would be like pre-digested dumplings!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Cincy considering that woman can serve up to 170? or so years in prison... you'll have to elaborate.

I just have a significant problem that she can't be charged for the murder of that infant. But that's a different thread.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.

The age does though. You can abort up until the foetus reach a certain age, and not after.

You are not understanding what I typed, nor seemingly how I attempted to apply it to this case. By 'age' I mean time outside of mommy, as in it was born and born alive. It would appear this one was chucked into a dumpster just minutes old. I was comparing that to a 3 year old in my example. It could have been born after a 9 month full term pregnancy, or as in this particular case, born prematurely.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The ease the perp has in committing the crime should have little to no bearing on it, and neither should the age.

The age does though. You can abort up until the foetus reach a certain age, and not after.

Or cut it from someone's stomach if you're in Colorado, apparently.

Although now the green bay police are saying you can use their parking lot for Craigslist transactions from that case.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Although now the green bay police are saying you can use their parking lot for Craigslist transactions from that case.

I don't think that's terribly uncommon. I know the fire station and police station in my township offer the same protections.

I think it's a good choice regardless.

Meeting for craigslist deals should always be in brightly lit, public spaces.

Even for those "massages" they offer on craigslist?

The same sides will line up for and against abortion. Of course, both sides will claim the facts in this case will favour their own political point of view. Nothing will be achieved, of course, because the debate essentially can't be won, and it can't even really be compromised on.

But if anyone wants to actually look at how we might avoid these kinds of nasty situations in the future, just read this sentence from the opening article;
"Patel comes from a conservative Hindu family that looks down on sex outside marriage, and the pregnancy was a result of an affair Patel had with her co-worker."

No amount of public shame or moral disapproval stops people having sex. You just don't override basic biological imperatives. But the shame and secrecy leads to people taking unnecessary risks, especially pregnancy.

I don't think we can ever resolve the balance between women's rights and the protection of the unborn.... but we can certainly drastically cut the number of instances in which those issues clash, by breaking down these ridiculous sex taboos.

Well said Sebster.

I'm sure that this case was compounded by Indianan social taboos as well as by her upbringing and family life.

 CptJake wrote:
By 'age' I mean time outside of mommy

That seems very, very arbitrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
No amount of public shame or moral disapproval stops people having sex.

Yeah, that is something I never understood, and that I just cannot wrap my head around.

 sebster wrote:
You just don't override basic biological imperatives.

I seem to do that well enough.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
By 'age' I mean time outside of mommy

That seems very, very arbitrary.

Why/How?

My birthday is the day I was born, not the day conceived. And in the context of what I was talking about, minutes old compared to 3 years old, it makes perfect sense and is not arbitrary at all.

 CptJake wrote:
Why/How?

Because I do not see any link between being outside of one's mother womb and it being okay to kill or not.
I am pretty sure the reason why it is okay to kill an early foetus is that we consider that it is not developed enough to have gain consciousness. And the time it takes before reaching consciousness will obviously be measured starting from conception, not when the baby is born. So, we usually count from being born because it is easier and the difference is negligible once the child reach 1/2 years. But before that, the difference matters.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Why/How?

Because I do not see any link between being outside of one's mother womb and it being okay to kill or not.
I am pretty sure the reason why it is okay to kill an early foetus is that we consider that it is not developed enough to have gain consciousness. And the time it takes before reaching consciousness will obviously be measured starting from conception, not when the baby is born. So, we usually count from being born because it is easier and the difference is negligible once the child reach 1/2 years. But before that, the difference matters.

Again, you are (now I am sure willfully) ignoring the context of my comment. In this case, baby was born prematurely and dumped. For the elements of this case and the charges used in this case it makes sense.

I've made ZERO comments on abortion, when I feel it may be okay, when I feel it may not be, at what point in a pregnancy it is/could be/should be legal.

 CptJake wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?

I will take this as a yes. Woah. Mind blown.
To answer your question, the 20 years in prison.

How long of a sentence should a person get for killing their kid (which, in the end, is what this lady did)? What would you consider reasonable?

What factors do you consider? Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?

I'd say yes. A newborn isn't as developed as a three year old, and I wouldn't say as self aware as a three year old.

 CptJake wrote:
I've made ZERO comments on abortion, when I feel it may be okay, when I feel it may not be, at what point in a pregnancy it is/could be/should be legal.

For the same reasons that aborting after one week is considered differently than aborting after 9 month, killing a 3 month early premature minutes-old baby is considered differently than killing a three years old baby.