Have you see the movie "Changeling" something like child abduction?
I watched it today. I was thinking "How would the authorities react in the present day (the movie is set in the 1920s) if a mother called them to say she be at work and when she came back her 9 year-old son was missing...?"
In my feelings, this mother would be the one to cope the most jail-time while the actual kidnapper/murderer would get a tap on the hand.
Isn't the civilisation going slightly backwards when parents are made the culprits but the definite criminals cannot be named for their "safety"?
Answers: I'm not sure how they would react now. It would be interesting - wouldn't they put out an Amber Alert? Be exceptionally suspicious of the mother, but still investigate?
"In my opinion, this mother would be the one to cope the most jail-time while the actual kidnapper/murderer would get a tap on the mitt."
I highly doubt this. She didn't do anything wrong and wasn't under suspicion - they would be hard pressed to find any evidence to convict her of anything. Let's look at recent examples...did Shawn Hornbeck's parents walk to jail? And you're now saying child murderers don't catch harsh jail sentences any more? While some aspects of sentencing are lenient, I'm betting it would be a life span sentence for this. Again on the Shawn Hornbeck example, the criminal Devlin kidnapped two kids, didn't murder anybody, and is serving 3 life sentences.
"Isn't the civilisation going slightly backwards when parents are made the culprits but the real criminals cannot be name for their "safety"?"
Show me an example of this and I might agree. The only criminals who can't be named are those under age (even within the US they sometimes are named) and those where naming them would identify the victim. Source(s): The murderers in the Jamie Bulger skin were not sent to Australia, that is a myth. They are still in the UK. Yes, they are living lower than new identities. However, that is because they be minors at the time of the crime and they are now considered rehabilitated. It was an extraordinary case and in attendance has been a lot of criticism, but it happen due to their young ages at the time of committing the crime; there were ethical/human rights issues more or less jailing ones so young for life. Note they are released on a "energy licence" so if are considered to be a danger to the public they go straight back to intern.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/bul…
It really is a unique case.
Related Questions:
Is near a psychic or someone that can see the adjectives who can relate me if im pregnant or not?
My Boyfriend and I . (:?
How can i supply a dub to my sons birth warrant?
In my feelings, this mother would be the one to cope the most jail-time while the actual kidnapper/murderer would get a tap on the hand.
Isn't the civilisation going slightly backwards when parents are made the culprits but the definite criminals cannot be named for their "safety"?
Answers: I'm not sure how they would react now. It would be interesting - wouldn't they put out an Amber Alert? Be exceptionally suspicious of the mother, but still investigate?
"In my opinion, this mother would be the one to cope the most jail-time while the actual kidnapper/murderer would get a tap on the mitt."
I highly doubt this. She didn't do anything wrong and wasn't under suspicion - they would be hard pressed to find any evidence to convict her of anything. Let's look at recent examples...did Shawn Hornbeck's parents walk to jail? And you're now saying child murderers don't catch harsh jail sentences any more? While some aspects of sentencing are lenient, I'm betting it would be a life span sentence for this. Again on the Shawn Hornbeck example, the criminal Devlin kidnapped two kids, didn't murder anybody, and is serving 3 life sentences.
"Isn't the civilisation going slightly backwards when parents are made the culprits but the real criminals cannot be name for their "safety"?"
Show me an example of this and I might agree. The only criminals who can't be named are those under age (even within the US they sometimes are named) and those where naming them would identify the victim. Source(s): The murderers in the Jamie Bulger skin were not sent to Australia, that is a myth. They are still in the UK. Yes, they are living lower than new identities. However, that is because they be minors at the time of the crime and they are now considered rehabilitated. It was an extraordinary case and in attendance has been a lot of criticism, but it happen due to their young ages at the time of committing the crime; there were ethical/human rights issues more or less jailing ones so young for life. Note they are released on a "energy licence" so if are considered to be a danger to the public they go straight back to intern.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/bul…
It really is a unique case.
Related Questions: