Internet Addicts Guilty Of Starving Baby To Death

:eek::mad:

This is awful. These two were more devoted to an online fake kid than to their very own child, their flesh and blood. It is just so tragic and it makes me angry. It is a sad commentary on culture today. People are always "connected," must have cell phones glued to their ears, must be gaming, must be texting, must carry around devices so they can have "connections" to the Net and others not present, all the while ignoring real people around them and not interacting with said people. It is so sad and indicates that we have taken this way to isolate ourselves with technology to a whole new level, a step down and in the wrong direction.

"Internet Addicts Guilty Of Starving Baby To Death

SKorean Internet Addicts Convicted Of Abandoning 3-month-old Daughter Who Starved To Death

(AP) SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - A South Korean couple were convicted Friday of abandoning their newborn daughter, who starved to death while they addictively played an online game raising a virtual child."...

Entire article here: cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/28/ap/asia/main6527258.shtml

How did they only get two years? And why should the mother's sentence for such a serious crime be suspended due to pregnancy? It doesn't seem likely it would be safe for the authorities to let her look after the baby, and there must be some kind of prison facilities for serious criminals who are pregnant (otherwise getting pregnant would be a get-out-of-jail card).

I know this is judgemental and I'm not the judge but this just makes me so angry.:mad:

In Britain at least, starving a baby to death by this kind of gross negligence would be at least manslaughter (max. life), and possibly even murder by omission (min. c. 15 years to life) through indirect intent (virtual certainty of something happening) to cause serious harm.

I can't believe this. That poor baby.

[quote="kingal86, post:2, topic:200104"]
How did they only get two years?

[/quote]

Only the man did, the wife got a suspended sentence.

Probably the sentence is light because they didn't maliciously starve it, and because the baby was too small to even know it was alive. Still, 2 years in a jail is a long time.

[quote="flyingfish, post:3, topic:200104"]
Only the man did, the wife got a suspended sentence.

Probably the sentence is light because they didn't maliciously starve it, and because the baby was too small to even know it was alive. Still, 2 years in a jail is a long time.

[/quote]

In my opinion, the baby being so young, helpless and dependent on them means they should serve much longer, even if there was no malice. Some persistent shoplifters get longer sentences than they did.

[quote="kingal86, post:4, topic:200104"]
In my opinion, the baby being so young, helpless and dependent on them means they should serve much longer, even if there was no malice. Some persistent shoplifters get longer sentences than they did.

[/quote]

Well, shoplifters take someone else's property. The couple neglected their own baby, rather than someone else's baby. Probably on account of that as well as they baby not being aware of being alive yet their sentences were light. That young, a baby is not much different from a fetus.

People who kill babies, depriving the baby of a full life, should get longer, not less. And they do get much higher maximum terms (or even life without parole) when convicted of murder (at least in Britain).

Causing the death of person completely dependent on you is infinitely more significant that stealing someone else's property. Are you trying to excuse infanticide by bringing up the foetus thing (presumably from a pro-choice perspective)?

[quote="kingal86, post:6, topic:200104"]
People who kill babies, depriving the baby of a full life, should get longer, not less. And they do get much higher maximum terms (or even life without parole) when convicted of murder (at least in Britain).

Causing the death of person completely dependent on you is infinitely more significant that stealing someone else's property. Are you trying to excuse infanticide by bringing up the foetus thing (presumably from a pro-choice perspective)?

[/quote]

I'm just speculating about why the guy got 2 years and the woman got a suspended sentence, and what kind of a thought process led to such a sentence.

But of course it is just speculation, as I don't know Korean law.

I guess. I just couldn't understand the sentence, and I don't know South Korean law. Presumably they were convicted of a more minor charge like child cruelty.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.