Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I'm also very happy that he's been found guilty!  A three month old
    baby is just about as innocent as one gets.  And the think that the
    child's own father did this; someone who she should have been bonding
    with and learning to trust completely.  To be put through all that 
    hell for the only 3 months she was on earth makes me cry.  I wonder
    though, how could the mother not realize this?  

    I agree with you....I hope that S.O.B. rots in prison.  

 I was disappointed with the verdict. I had hoped for 1st degree murder.

 The Doctah

    His fellow inmates will surely make his life hell in prison.
    
    Estelle

    re:  .4
    
    One can only hope!

    re: .5
    
    You can pretty well bet on it.  Like any social systems, prisons
    have a "pecking order" and child abusers are down around the bottom
    of that order with rapists and snitches.
    
    To be honest, a part of me wants him to suffer.  But a larger part
    of me would prefer to see a true rehabilitation take place.  It
    seems to me that it might better serve the world if this individual
    so thoroughly repented that, upon parole, he dedicated the rest of
    his life to working with those groups who try to prevent this sort
    of thing from happening in the first place.
    
    Steve

    re .6
    
    It would seem that except for you, the others feel he got off too
    easily.  
    
    How about executing him?  A man beats on a child, and then winds
    up killing (him/her?) has he given up his right to life?
    
    Rob
    

    Re .5, .6, I can't help but wonder whether being a parent influences
    how strongly someone might feel about this.
    
    I have to admit that if somebody were to beat my child to death,
    I wouldn't feel they had a right to rehabilitation.  I would want
    them dead.
    
    Lorna
    

    Another death penalty rat hole?
    
    Will anybody join me in praying for Mrs. Azar? May she find the
    strength somehow to live through this. As a mother, I greive for
    her. Killing David Azar is no consolation for this horrendous act.
    
    Kate
    

    I'd love to pray for Mrs. Azar but I first need to understand why
    she didn't see what was happening to her little girl.  Didn't she
    take her daughter to her scheduled 'well baby' checkups?  Didn't
    she ever see a bruise?  Was she gone for 3 months?  I always know
    what my son's body looks like.
    
    Anna
    

    	I don't want to head down another varmithole but....
    
    	The child was three months old. He had a broken leg, 2 broken
    ribs, multiple severe bruises and a crushed skull. Some of the injuries
    could be considered accidents for very active 1 year olds, but a
    three month old??? Give me a break. The guy got off easy. He's
    fortunate to live in the most liberalized state in the US, otherwise
    they'd have his butt on Death Row.
    
    	Ken

    According to news reports David Azar valued his sons more then his
    daughter.  He then took it to the extreme and physically abused her
    resulting in her death.
    
    According to scuttlebut I heard David exhibited unusual behaviors in
    high school.
    
    I don't think we are in a position to judge how these events occurred
    and/or if he is such a terrible person that he should die.  
    
    Abuse of women and children has been going on for a long time....why?
    what needs to change?  IMHO the death penalty does not deter these
    crimes, the attitudes and characters are predetermined long before the
    act occurs.
    
    Mrs. Azar has my prayers....I don't need to understand why she didn't
    see...she probably did...but the actions were explained away.  
    
    The crime was horrendous...I acknowledge that.
    
    I would hope that if this crime were to have any positive effect on
    people it would be the realization that valuing male children over
    female is wrong and that child abuse is not the right or privilege of
    the parent.

    re: .10
    
    <.... but I first need to understand why
    <she didn't see what was happening to her little girl.  Didn't she
    <take her daughter to her scheduled 'well baby' checkups?  Didn't
    <she ever see a bruise?  Was she gone for 3 months?  
    
    She testified that she did question her husband on two occasions about
    bruises, and he said the baby had fallen, or the older brother had
    jumped on her.  We know what testimony revealed about bruises on her
    body when she died, but we don't know anything (at least I don't) about
    the extent of visible bruises before the day she died.
    
    But more to the point, I think we need to tread cautiously and be very
    sensitive to the situation of the mother when we ask these kinds of
    questions.  Why do some mothers try so hard to look the other way when
    fathers abuse their daughters sexually?  Why don't women who are being
    abused themselves leave their abuser immediately? 
    
    If she suspected, or if she had reason to suspect but didn't, what he
    was doing, then I'd be the last to excuse her inaction.  But we don't
    know what was going on before that day.  Maybe she asked about the only 
    visible injuries.  Maybe she was torn between believing her husband and not
    believing him.  Maybe she hadn't gotten to the point where she couldn't
    hope any longer it wasn't true. Maybe she, too, was terrified of the
    man and didn't know how to get help.
    
    I know I'm being very charitable in allowing room for explanations for
    her inaction.  But given the _potential_ for the terrifying powerlessness
    of a woman in her position, and the lack of information, I think
    allowing slack for her is in order.  This pain will be with her the
    rest of her life.  She's going to have to explain to her sons that
    their father is in jail because he killed their sister.
    
    The answer won't come from blaming her.  The answer will come from
    addressing the powerlessness of women in her position.
    
    Susan

     
    re .12
    
    You said it!!
    
    >valuing male children over female children is wrong.
    
    Until society realizes this and we correct it in our way of thinking
    and our actions, I think that this type of abuse will continue.
    This baby did not have a chance of life. I hoope someone abuses
    him in jail.
    
    Desryn.
    

Re. .13   I don't agree entirely that we need to address the
    "powerlessness" of woman in this situation.  I don't believe she
    was powerless.  I believe that her actions could have saved the
    child.  With the sort of abuse that baby went through, even without
    visible bruises she had to cry from the pain more than a normal,
    even colicy baby cries.  If she suspected he was abusing her then
    he should not have been left alone with her.
    
    I do understand, all too well, how powerless a woman feels in an
    abusive environment.  That is how she feels, what she believes, 
    not necessarily true though.  Though I know all the arguments for
    why a woman stays in a situation like that, when a child is being
    abused I say she is just as guilty for permitting it.  This is assuming
    that it is constant abuse and not just a single incident that occurs
    when she is not there with the child.  Both parents have a
    responsibility to the child.  Just because one parent turns his
    back on that responsibility doesn't give the second parent the right
    to do the same.
    
    I say she desparately needs help and 15 years for him is not nearly
    severe enough.  I vote for the death penalty for anyone who kills
    a child.
    
    Kathy

    RE:.15
    
    Hindsight is 20/20. Abused and "powerless" women often rationalize
    things. They have to for survival. I doubt she even considered the
    possibility of death. The Azar's family lives 1 town away from
    Corporate Headquarters. They probably have friends who work here.
    I would ask you all to speak carefully even if you don't understand
    how or why Mrs. Azar would or could "let" this happen. You may be
    adding fuel to the fire.
    
    Kate
    

    re .15
    
	<I believe that her actions could have saved the
    	<child. 
    
    One of my points about this specific case is that we don't really know
    what was visible, how much pain the baby indicated, what the mother may have
    done that wasn't brought out in testimony (after all, _she_ wasn't on
    trial), or anything. 
    
    Unless we do, I think conclusions like the above are inappropriate and
    unfair.
    
    Susan

    It makes me very sad to see people wishing harm to David Azar in
    this note. I think this is evil. Until people cease to hate like this, 
    people will die at the hands of others.
      
    May God be with David Azar and with us all.
    
    Eileen

    
    > sad to see people wishing harm to David Azar.....
    
    David Azar wished harm and DID HARM to little defenseless Geneva
    Azar, and he should pay for his actions. That's why we have a justice
    system. If I go into a store and shoplift or whatever, I expect to
    pay for that crime.
    LET HARM BEFALL HIM!!
    The Bible said.."an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".
    
    Desryn.
    

    re .18, you've got to admit that murdering your own child when it's
    only 3 months old *is* a pretty big sin.  Most of us may have sinned
    but I don't think most of us have sinned to that degree.
    
    The guy is either completely deranged or he's an unspeakably cruel
    person with no moral values or any concept of right and wrong.  Or,
    he's a combination of both.  I don't see where he has any rights
    as an individual at this point, or any value to society.  Nor, do
    I think he's worth bothering to try to rehabilitate.

    Lorna
    

    Um, was that the bible or the Code of Hamurabi?
    
    DougO

    re: .19
    
    � Azar. . .should pay for his actions. That's why we have a justice
    � system. 
    
    And pay he will.  The fact that some here feel he should be executed
    or be made to serve a longer sentence indicates to me that our system
    of justice is, at best imperfect (i.e. many feel that the verdict
    and sentence don't serve justice).  But it seems to me that there's 
    more at stake than simply retribution.  I think the overall purpose
    of a system of laws is to make a society a better place for all people 
    to live.
    
    While I certainly share the sense of horror at the act that's been
    committed, I would, if at all possible, like to see some future
    good come out of this.  
    
    re: .20
    
    � The guy is either completely deranged or he's an unspeakably cruel
    � person with no moral values or any concept of right and wrong.  Or,
    � he's a combination of both.  
    
    Perhaps.  What is "completely deranged"?  I believe it's easy, in
    our anger, to relegate this person to the point of sub-human.  But
    I think it's important to remember that none of us sat in the court-
    room; we weren't jurors personally charged with deciding the fate
    of this person after hearing all the testimony.  I think that it's
    of at least some significance that the conviction was for second
    degree murder; it says that those who were there agreed that Azar,
    while meaning to do harm, did *not* mean to kill his child.
    
    � I don't see where he has. . .any value to society.  Nor, do I think 
    � he's worth bothering to try to rehabilitate.
    
    Let me ask this question:  If a truely repentant and rehabilitated
    David Azar could emerge from prison some years hence and, through
    working with abuse prevention groups, prevent others from committing
    such an act, would not our society be better served, especially
    those innocents who might otherwise become victims?
    
    Steve

    Were I a betting person, I'd be willing to bet that: 1. David Azar
    was an abused child, or that some kind of abuse was perpetrated 
    by his father on someone else in the family  2.Women were not valued
    in David's family  3. David has a screw or two loose, to begin with.
    
    Rehabilitation efforts with child abusers and abusers of women have
    thus far been doomed mostly to failure. Unfortunately, while
    the society doesn't actually say "Aw, heck it's only women and kids,
    smack 'em around a little", there is a *serious* double message about
    such stuff. 
    
    While most men don't quote the (humorist, I believe) who said "Women
    are like gongs; they should be struck regularly", there *is* the
    idea that women who get too uppity are "asking for it". And children
    are still seen as property by many folks, unfortunately. The
    combination, in this case, was deadly.
    
    I have absolutely no idea what David Azar's wife was going through.
    This society still values the presence of a man in a woman's life
    over anything else, and many women are not cognizant of their options.
    If there's blame to assess, let's put it right where it belongs, on
    David Azar. To focus on the wife is to blur the fact that a *man* killed 
    a girl child apparently *because* she was famale.The crime is on *his*
    head. Let it be there.
    
    
    --DE
    

    If David Azar could be rehabilitated and help others when he came
    out, then I guess I'd probably support it.  However, statistics
    use to show (don't know what they currently show, but I doubt it's
    changed much) that it's a very, very low percentage of people who
    actually do become rehabilitated.  As far as abuse prevention, it
    is my opinion that abusers don't stand up and identify themselves
    beforehand.  And the majority of abusers don't even acknowledge
    they are abusers.  And abuse fosters more abuse.
    
    I don't consider myself a violent person.  However when it comes
    to woman and child abuse I could support violence.  I think this
    is a very sensitive topic.  No, we weren't there in the courtroom,
    or in his home to know what goes on.  So most of us are probably
    speaking about our feelings around abuse in general.  
    
    How many of you, and I don't actually mean for you to reply here,
    were ever abused?  How many of you know someone abused?  How many
    of you know of a child that was abused?  And how many of you personally
    know a child that was killed through abuse?
    
    Where you fall into the above set of questions I am sure influences
    how you feel.  I was abused.  My mother/sisters/brothers were abused.
    I've worked at shelters for abused.  And I know a child who was
    killed by abuse because our justice system returned the child to
    the home because the parent "showed improvement".
                                                     
    No, I don't consider myself an expert at it.  But I've seen more
    than the average person.   You can feel very strongly about something,
    but I'm sure those feelings will only grow stronger when it has
    personally affected you.
    
    No matter how you look at it, there is too much child abuse going
    on in this world!  I personally don't believe the penalty is severe
    enough to really make people think twice.  What difference does
    it make if you meant the child harm, but didn't mean to kill her,
    but did?  The result is still the same.  The child is dead.  She
    lost her life - probably 70 years of life.  He got 15 years.  No
    matter how rehabilitated he becomes, it won't bring back her life.

 The chances are that David Azar will be real popular in prison. He will
undoubtedly be the object of considerable physical abuse. He will be raped
repeatedly by a number of inmates. He will be beaten severely. He will deal
with other criminals and criminally insane individuals almost exclusively for
the next five to seven years (at least). After this time, he will be considered
to have paid his debt to society, and they will simply open the door one day.

 To expect or even believe that this type of treatment will "rehabilitate"
him is rather unreasonable, I would think. He will be filled with hatred and 
rage, since that is all he has seen since he lost his cool with his only 
daughter. Upon his release, he will be shunned by his fanily and friends.

 To some, the prospect of his abuse is titillating, even comforting, knowing
that he will "get his." On the other hand, what good does this type of
punishment do if the guy is just going to be released- without any sort of
rehabilitation?

 I personally would be in favor of seeing him remain in prison until he died,
or seeing capital punishment used in his case. I would prefer that he was
not released into society ever again. I suppose that it is possible that
the jail experience would be sufficient negative motivation to prevent him
from ever doing this sort of thing again, but I wouldn't risk my kids on him.

 The whole crime and punishment situation bothers me, and I remain dissatisfied
with the current system and any other system I have heard of. The fact
remains that violence occurs entirely too often- and I don't know what to do
about it.

 The Doctah

    Excuse my abstance, I was on vaction. But after reading the 25 replies
    before this, I can reply this way
    
    I hope in my life this guy never makes parole. What did/can a three
    month old child do to make a parent any parent break bones? whether
    they be arms, legs, ribs, whatever! what can a child do that it
    is that bad?? nothing in my mind warrents that kind of abuse from
    a parent to a child, to another parent, or from a child ro another
    child, or a parent(it can be done).
     
      A child of this age can just about coo, gurgle, cry, smile. They
    can't even say where it hurts, or who hurt them. but by the obivious
    reaction she had towards her father, I am GUESSING that he was the
    guilty party! 
    
     I hope he rots in prision, and whoever said it eye for eye tooth
    for an tooth life for life, I hope someone swings him by his ankles
    and has head meet a wall!
    
    Lets just say that
    He deserves no rehab. I wouldn't listen to him if he was freed!
    I guarantee you that certain people are planning revenge if he wlks
    the street again.
    
    As for Susan: My hearts does go out for her, to loose her only
    daughter,having to raise 2 boys alone, and to deal with the fact
    that her ex is a murder of her daughter, the publicity that goes
    with her last name, it will take a long time for her and I wish
    heer path of recovery one of which will be successful, and may she
    find many little joys and comforts along the way for she has endured
    what most women only drema of in nightmares!
                                                            
    
    
    Lise

    RE: .19 'The Bible says "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."'
    
    According to Biblical scholarship, that law referred to the fact that
    some people wanted to kill a person who harmed the eye or tooth of
    another person. The law was trying to LESSEN the punishment!
    
    Eileen
    

    re .26
    
    Lise,
    
    I may have missed something, but you said 
    
    -it was obvious by her response to her father
    
    Did the child scream when the father was near or what?
    
    Virginia

    RE: Mark Levesque's and others' comments.
    
    Yes, it's hard to rehabilitate hardened criminals, and, yes, what
    happens in prison is abusive and not rehabilitative. And, no, 
    nothing we can do now will help Geneva Azar, including hurting
    her father. And, yes, I do know people who have been abused.
    
    We now know that people who abuse were abused. People who
    are not taught impulse control do not learn impulse control.
    
    Although I have what I consider to be good impulse control,
    I know that I personally unconsciously take my minor angers 
    out on those closest to me and those whose relationships to me 
    are the most solid. I don't think it's right. I do it much less 
    since I became conscious of it. I stop as soon as I realize it. 
    I also see this pattern in others who are close to me. I believe 
    we all unconsciously take our anger out on those who will not 
    or cannot retaliate. I don't think we can remove evil from ourselves
    until we first realize that it's there.
    
    I believe that David Azar's worst punishment by far is that his 
    daughter died a cruel death and he is responsible. Guilt is the
    most painful state of mind I have ever experienced. To those
    who say that he is too sick to feel guilty, I would say that
    that, too, is a very severe deprivation. Imagine being so
    sick that you couldn't feel guilty about doing harm to a
    child? 
    
    To Mark Levesque: I think that horrors like the death of 
    Geneva Azar can only be prevented by large injections of
    love into the world. And, for the good of both the murderer
    and the rest of us, by keeping people without impulse control 
    in a situation where they cannot easily harm other people.
    
    People won't stop hurting each other until they no longer want to 
    and until they understand and can control their own impulses. This is
    what works in my relationship to myself and in my relationships
    to others.
    
    I believe that no amount of hate of criminals or punishment of wrong 
    doers will help. We've tried that for centuries now. There cannot
    be a world without evil and pain if we continue to want to hurt
    others. It is just too awful to hurt someone. I get depressed
    just hearing someone wish harm to someone else. It diminishes me.
    When I hear people saying they want to hurt murderers, I feel
    the spirit of murder getting stronger. Only love, understanding,
    and forgiveness work or do any good.
    
    
    Eileen
    
    
    

   For those that missed the article,
    According to the Middlesex paper that was following the story, 
    Geneava would start wimpering and
    crying, and/or get real quiet when he (the father)entered the room. 
    The paper said something to the sort that when the 
    father entered the room and went over to her she would 
    start to fuss, or get real quiet.
     To me this shows that Geneava was telling us that her father was
    guilty of hurting her.
    
    Lise
     

>    I believe that David Azar's worst punishment by far is that his 
>    daughter died a cruel death and he is responsible.

 This is true only if he has a conscience, which appears to be far from 
the truth, unfortunately. I don't believe that society in general deserves to
be subject to his barbarism ever again.

>I think that horrors like the death of 
>    Geneva Azar can only be prevented by large injections of
>    love into the world. 

 Gee, that really sounds nice. I don't think that "large injections of love"
will ever be reality, though. The reality of the situation is that the case
of Geneva Azar is a broken record- it happens time and time again. I don't
see where this upwelling of love is going to come from, or how it will prevent
the hate-mongers from continuing their present course.

>    People won't stop hurting each other until they no longer want to 
>    and until they understand and can control their own impulses. 

 Impulse control is probably the biggest single problem in our world. I can't
see any time in the near or distant future when the problem will improve. It
seems to be getting worse, to the extreme detriment of society.

>    I believe that no amount of hate of criminals or punishment of wrong 
>    doers will help.

 In other words, wrong-doers should be unpunished? I cannot agree.

 The Doctah

    Re .29, you say that you "believe that no amount of...punishment
    of wrong doers will help" stop crime.  I disagree with this.  Even
    with the imperfect and slow moving justice system we have today,
    I'm sure there would be much more violence in the United States
    if there were no "punishment of wrong doers."  If everyone knew
    for certain that they could kill, rape or beat up anybody they wanted
    to without any fear of any punishment at all, I'm sure that violent
    crime would be much more rampant than it is now.  Imagine a world
    where everyone could just go around killing whoever they wanted
    to without any fear of being punished!  That sounds pretty scary
    to me.  I think that fear of punishment keeps a large percentage
    of the population under control.
    
    As far as the large injection of love you mentioned goes, I certainly
    don't know where that's supposed to come from either.  I agree that
    in order to have less violence in the world, the world has to be
    a nicer place for everybody to live because I think that the world
    the way it is is so nasty sometimes that it breeds criminals and
    violent behavior.  But, how are we going to make everybody start
    being nicer to everybody else?  The human race, on the whole, does
    seem to be more civilized than it was in the past, but it's a very
    slow moving process.  In the meantime, I think we need life in prisen
    and the death penalty for people who are so sick that they are capable
    of actually killing their own children.  If this man is out of prison
    in a few years, and winds up killing another child someday, then
    having kept in prison, or executing him would have definitely prevented
    that death.  
    
    I agree that the thought of wanting to hurt another person is horrible,
    but *he* chose to do it, or was so crazy that he did it without
    choosing to.  Now, I don't think he counts.  He did something so
    terrible that he no longer counts as a human being whose life should
    be preserved.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: last several
    
    First, the "large injections of love" that David Azar needs 
    should've happened 30(-ish?) years ago in order to be affective.
    Certainly, more love and respect in the world would help to prevent
    this crap from happening. But if we don't "learn" love as children,
    we ain't never gonna "learn" it.
    
    Punishment? Hell, *I* don't care if he's punished. What I care about
    is that he is taken out of society and away from any place he can
    express his sickness again. "An eye for an eye" is too late, in this
    case. He made it past 3 months of age.
    
    Rehabilitation? Ok, go ahead and try. In the face of the evidence,
    it won't work. (I tend to agree. I think kids can get warped REAL
    early by a lack of respect and love - and past a certain point
    there is nothing that can be done. What the adult has is behaviours
    necessary to their SURVIVAL, and they will always rely on those
    behaviours, warped or not.)
    
    I say: put him away and don't let him out. Imagine his getting
    paroled and marrying a woman who doesn't know the case...they
    have a little daughter...
    
    Bleah.
    
    --DE
    

>In the meantime, I think we need life in prisen
>    and the death penalty for people who are so sick that they are capable
>    of actually killing their own children.

 I was just wondering, does this include women who kill their own children
and use the post-partum depression defense?

 The Doctah

	At the age of 17 I didn't believe in capital punishment
	and now at the are of 41 I still don't.  I get angry
	some times to think that I do but when it comes to the
	actual act - it is still killing and I don't believe
	it is good for the person who does it.

	Yes, lock him and others like him up and keep them 
	away from society - not as punishment but to protect
	the rest of us from them.  I really don't care if people
	who kill are punished, I just want them someplace where
	they can not get at the other members of society.

	_peggy

    re .19 (an eye for an eye ...)
    
    The common believe is that this says 'repay alike'. It however does
    not, not in the context of the times it was written. What it says
    is: No vendetta! No punishment on relatives/dependents/tribe.
    No excessive punishment, e.g. eye for an eye -- not life.
    
    From what I have read on this topic it seems that:
    
    1. Child abusers were abused more often than not.
    2. The wifes tend to believe that ignoring and suffering
       will improve the situation (at least for a part of the family)
       and separation attempt makes the situation worse.
    3. What is needed is a supporting system (yes, paid by taxpayers!)
       that enables / eases the financial part of the separation
       and also help the abusers (therapy, counselling etc.).
       The assumption that all of them actually enjoy what they are
       doing seems to be wrong. 
    4. Punishment is not the issue, the prevention and ultimately timely
       help to the child is.
    

>prevention is superior to punishment

 I don't think anyone will argue that, but what do we do when prevention
fails? Nothing?

 The Doctah

    re: .37
    
    � . . .what do we do when prevention fails?
    
    Protection, I imagine.  What troubles me in a number of replies
    is that what some people seem to be saying is that since we seem
    to be doing so poorly at prevention and/or rehabilitation, let's
    opt for punishment and/or protection and forget about prevention
    or rehab.  
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  Your question on death penalty for a child's death at the
    hands of an individual suffering from post-partum depression
    seems to have quieted this topic down a tad, doc. . .

    A three month old baby died without any reason except that the father
    couldn't help himself.....  BS!!!!  He makes the word, father, dirty.
    
    And Doc, (and Steve) comparing a women suffering from PPD to what David 
    Azar did to his child is ridiculous.  I'm sure there's a PPD topic 
    somewhere in this notesfile, it doesn't really belong here.
    
    Anna
    

    re: .39
    
    I disagree, Anna, that the comparison is "ridiculous" and, in 
    honesty, I'm not real thrilled with your choice of words for
    replying.  I personally found Mark's question straightforward
    and more than a little unsettling; my reply indicates that I 
    suspect that others may be similarly uncomfortable.  I would be
    surprised to learn that I (and Mark) was the only one here who
    felt that there was at least some validity for the comparison.
    
    The  PPD defense is essentially that "A. . .baby died without any 
    reason except that the mother couldn't help herself" (to paraphrase 
    your words).  In similar fashion, David Azar was out of control -  
    the jury found that he did not want to kill his daughter; he had
    lost control.  Both his state and that of a PPD mother are affective 
    states.  The latter been received somewhat more clinical study and 
    has been given a name.  But what do we really have, clinically and
    legally, to separate those two states of mind?  A matter of degree?
    Corrollary question - might close scientific study find that David
    Azar was biochemically deficient or imbalanced?
    
    Please understand that I raise this within the context of feeling
    repulsed by the act he committed.  What concerns me is that if we
    simply "toss the _________ (insert epithet) in prison or kill him",
    we  have done little or nothing to prevent having this discussion
    again.  And again, and. . .
    
    Steve
    

  Steve, I'll admit to discomfort about the post-partum depression
  statement.  To recap, Dana brought up an argument made by Robert
  Heinlein in "Starship Troopers."  The situation involved a deserter
  who was convicted of killing a 4-year-old girl and hanged for
  the offense.  The argument was: 
  
  (1) This person was either sick or he was not.  If he was not sick then
      he deserved no compassion and the death penalty was justified.

  (2) If he was sick then either he could be made well or he could
      not.  If he could not be made well then he was of no use to anyone and
      the death penalty was again justified.

  (3) If he could be made well, then he couldn't possibly live with
      himself afterward, knowing what he had done.  The death penalty
      seems like the appropriate measure.

  I found this argument to be fairly compelling.  Until the doctah brought
  up PPD...  I think I still believe that I would not want to live if I
  woke up one day to learn that I had killed some innocent person while
  I was "sick."  But don't think I'm willing to impose that standard
  on a mother who is recovering from PPD.

  JP

    David Azar may be biochemically deficient?  You think that might
    have been his reason for losing control?  Do you think he was
    biochemically deficient when his sons were born?  They're alive
    aren't they?  Do you think he abuses them too; but they're lucky
    enough to be strong enough to stay alive?  
    
    I believe David Azar resented this baby as soon as it was concieved.
    He resented the baby when she turned out to be a girl.  He resented
    the baby when he had to take care of her.  David Azar 'lost control'
    when these resentments started even before he abused his daughter the
    very first time.  He should have been man enough (adult enough) to
    understand that then, and get help at that time.  ***These conclusions
    are my own belief as to what may (must) have happened****
    
    Anna
    

    Several notes have referenced a fact that the baby was killed because
    she was a girl.  Was there anything that supported this?  I didn't
    follow the case, so I don't know what the different arguments were.
    
    I'm willing to bet, though, if he abused his daughters he may well
    have abused his sons too.  This is just my opinion...
    
    
    Kathy

>    David Azar may be biochemically deficient?  

 Perhaps, but that doesn't make him any less responsible in my book.

>   You think that might have been his reason for losing control?   

 Reason? Not sure. Excuse? Probably.

>   Do you think he was biochemically deficient when his sons were born?  

 If he is now, he was then in all probability.

>   They're alive aren't they?  

 Yup.

>   Do you think he abuses them too; but they're lucky enough to be strong 
>   enough to stay alive?  

 Tough to say. There may be a preponderance of the evidence that he abused
the daughter because she was female, but it is also possible that she was
abused because she cried the most, ie her sex was coincidental. Nobody really
knows for sure, but it seems like the baby's sex  was a factor. Maybe even
_the_ factor.

>    I believe David Azar resented this baby as soon as it was concieved.

 I bet he didn't even know it was a girl then (assuming you postulate his reason
for abusing her was because she was female.)

re: being "man enough"

 That's a double edged sword. If being "man enough" is to take responsibility
for one's actions, then what does it mean to be "woman enough?" It sounds
mighty sexist to me. How about "mature enough," or "adult enough?"

 The Doctah

    I think there is one difference between David Azar's killing his
    daughter, and a woman who is suffering from PPD killing her child.
     From what I can tell, none of us really know *why* David Azar killed
    his child.  If he is allowed to walk the streets freely again someday
    there is no guarantee that he won't flip out (or whatever he did)
    again someday and kill somebody else.  But, supposedly, a woman
    suffering from PPD who kills her child does it because she is suffering
    from PPD.  So, we might be able to conclude that if she never suffers
    from PPD again, that she won't ever kill anybody again?  So, if
    we make certain that she never suffers from PPD again, then maybe
    it would be safe to have her freely walking the streets.  So, maybe
    women who kill their children while suffering from PPD should be
    involuntarily sterilized.  It seems like rather a fair punishment
    to me.  As a matter of fact, since David Azar is most likely going
    to be a free person again someday, maybe he should be sterilized,
    too.  It seems fair.  You kill your kid, you don't get any more.
    
    I can't really say that I think that what David Azar did is any
    worse than a mother, suffering from PPD,  killing her child.  As
    a matter of fact, I remember an interview with a woman who, I think,
    while suffering from PPD, baked her child to death in her oven.
     I found that rather grisly.  I can't say that I think it's any
    worse for a father to kill his child than a mother.  The child is
    still dead.  And, perhaps David Azar truly did have something wrong
    with him so that he had no more control over his actions than a
    woman who suffers from PPD does.  The only difference I can see
    is that the mother suffering from PPD might never harm anybody under
    any other conditions, whereas we really don't know what might set
    David Azar off again.
    
    Lorna
      

    re .44
    
    I didn't say David Azar killed his daughter because she was a female.
    It was just ANOTHER reason to resent her.....
    
    Also, I did use the phrase "adult enough".  If David Azar were a women,
    I would have no problems with using the phrase "women enough".  I'm one
    of those persons that doesn't get hung up on 'possible' sexist phrases.
    
    And my first paragraph in .42 was meant to be dripping of sarcasm, not
    to be answered.  If David Azar is suffering from PPD, he should write a
    book about in while he's got all this 'free time' now..
    
    Anna
    

    Wasn't she a twin?  I thought I read that her twin brother and her
    older brother were unharmed with none of the old bone fracture scars
    that she had.
    
    Personally, it infuriates me to have anyone kill a child for any
    reason.  

    Well, here we are again, talking about something we know nothing
    about, but what the heck...
    
    Hasn't PPD been found to be a form of psychosis? And the mother
    at that point, was suffering from diminished capacity?
    
    I don't believe there was EVER a question of diminished capacity
    in Azar's case.
    
    I agree with Anna. This is apples and oranges - while Azar may
    be a sociopath, he isn't psychotic (temporarily or not). He *knew*
    what he was doing, and had apparently done it several times before.
    I believe the analysis of the woman suffering from PPD is that she
    doesn't understand what she's doing at the time.
    
    Anyone have any *real* solid medical info on PPD so we don't dump
    on people we oughtn't?
    
    --DE
    

    David Azar was quoted as repeatedly intimating that he resented his
    daughter because she was not a son.  When she was born the parents
    took her to the store they owned where an employee cooed that she
    would be daddy's little girl to which David replied, "She is NOT
    daddy's little girl".
    
    He was also quoted as saying, "Boys are the way to go.  Girls are
    a problem".
    
    And again, "I have my sons and [wife's name] has her girl".
    
    Was he imbalanced?  I think he just carried the culturally-sanctioned
    misogyny to the extreme.                                   

re: "eye for an eye" --

It may be unwise to ask for Biblical punishment: you may be asked to accept
Biblical standards of proof as well.  As I understand the law, Azar could
not be convicted of his daughter's murder as there were no witnesses.

By the way, Biblical law requires that the witnesses (there must be two)
carry out the punishment.

Martin.

> "She is NOT daddy's little girl".
and the other quotes.

Well, my dad told my mother "You can't make me love her." And my mother told my
dad "No, but I can make her love you." And she did. And he does (love me).
(Though he also seems to have his share of misogny; he does think women are
sexually evil.)

Now what does all this prove? Not much. A lot of things come to my mind though:
The ill-effects of misogny can be overcome (don't have any boys, or have a
strong-willed wife). 
I've heard quotes a lot worse from a friend's mother.
Culturally supported or ignored hatred is more difficult to overcome than
others.

	Mez

Whatever reason he killed his baby daughter, I don't wish him dead or
harmed.  That is my own anger.  It has nothing to do with him.  It's
easy to sit in judgement from the outside and pass judgements on Azar
or his wife.  I prefer to do neither.  I doubt that Azar is not
feeling remorse or guilt.  How do you know?  I would guess that he is
suffering greatly.  He has created a lot bad karma and now he must
live with it.  I guess personally life in prison would seem like an
appropriate sentence to me.  But I hope we might all find in our
hearts a little compassion for *everyone* involved in this crime.
How is hating David Azar going to help you or anyone?

For punishment in the US, we put all the criminals together.  For
many, this is more like a training school for crime or a nice home for
a while (if your living conditions are so bad that prison is better -
for example for many black youths).  In other societies in the past,
those that transgressed the accepted behavior of the tribe were sent
to live with the sprirtual leaders of the community.  I find this idea
quite interesting.  Seems to me that rehabilitation is more likely to
succeed in this setting.  Its easier to hide people away and to write
them off than to really try and help them.

To all those who advocate an eye for an eye approach:  have you ever
hurt anyone else intentionally or otherwise?  How would you want them
to react to your behavior?  

Azar's ideas about women and daughters we must examine.  It certainly
does point out the fallacy and danger in this way of thinking when
carried to an extreme.  I hope we have all rid ourselves of this type
of thinking and see all people as people beyond  their race, sex,
orientation, age, "class", and cultural backround.

john

    
    re .52 
    Firstly, I think that most of the people in this notesfile do NOT
    hate David Azar. I know that I do not. I simply would like someone
    about 4 times his size to break a few of his ribs over a couple
    of weeks, give him no medical attention for them, just continue
    to break a few more, and finally, swing his head against a wall.
    
    Next, I think that if I walk over to your desk and physically
    assault you in some way, that you will not smile at me and say
     that its O.K for me to do that. YOu'll either floor me or run
    to Personnel so that I can be puniished in some way.
    
    Now, Most importantly, you mentioned people should ,I quote
    Look beyond race.....yet you say
    >living conditions so bad that prison is better, for example for
    >many black youths.
    
    Isn't this prejudging the entire black race? Are blacks the ONLY
    poor people in the U.S.A. I hope that this is an oversight and
    it is not due to the fact that prejudice of blacks is so much
    a part of your way of thinking that you do not even reealize it
    any more.
    
    Desryn.
    

RE:                     <<< Note 720.53 by NACAD::D_DUNCAN >>>

    
>    Firstly, I think that most of the people in this notesfile do NOT
>    hate David Azar. I know that I do not. I simply would like someone
>    about 4 times his size to break a few of his ribs over a couple
>    of weeks, give him no medical attention for them, just continue
>    to break a few more, and finally, swing his head against a wall.

I honestly can't distinguish this from hate.  I'm not sure if you are
being facetious or not.  If you are going to mad, OK, be mad.  All I'm
trying to do is let you see another possible way of dealing with it.

    
>    Next, I think that if I walk over to your desk and physically
>    assault you in some way, that you will not smile at me and say
>     that its O.K for me to do that. YOu'll either floor me or run
>    to Personnel so that I can be puniished in some way.

  I didn't say that Azar should not be punished or that I recommend
  letting people hurt you.  Please reread what I said about his
  punishment.  I was talking about my own internal state.  Is
  it possible to be firm, to take a stand, to take appropriate
  action without hate and anger (but from a position of love)?  That
  is what I am getting at.  I'm suggesting an alternative.  

  The question in general, for me is this, what is the appropriate and
  best way to act?  For example, if my child breaks a rule designed
  for his/her safety, do I take a loving but firm stand and explain
  the rule and punish if need be.  Do I yell and scream and become
  hateful?  Or do I just let it pass in the guise of letting the child
  be (or do his/her own thing?).  I guess it's apparent the I have
  an opinion that says that the first way is best.

  I guess I see this coming up in my own life all the time in conflict
  situations.  Do I make judgements, not look at the other person's
  point of view, become full of anger and hate and act from it?
  Why does having some compassion imply that you are a wimp or that
  you are not capable of taking the appropriate action?

>    Now, Most importantly, you mentioned people should ,I quote
>    Look beyond race.....yet you say
    >>living conditions so bad that prison is better, for example for
    >>many black youths.
    
>    Isn't this prejudging the entire black race? Are blacks the ONLY
>    poor people in the U.S.A. I hope that this is an oversight and
>    it is not due to the fact that prejudice of blacks is so much
>    a part of your way of thinking that you do not even reealize it
>    any more.
    

Is it prejudgiced to say that *many* black male youths are living in
deplorable living conditions through no fault of their own?

The reason I mentioned it was because I had just heard an in-depth
report on the problems of black male youths in American on NPR and I found
it to be excellent and informative.  If you look at the statistics for
young black men in the US, I think you will see the problem that I and
the report was referring too (not in prejudice but in compassion and
concern for the situation).  

john

    re:  .53 D_Duncan
    
    *Hate* D.Azar?  Maybe not, how about: I deplore ANYONE who would
    beat children/ babies/infants.  He's a monster and so is anyone else
    who could do that.
    
    -Dotti.

    It seems to me that for me to decide that this person, or any
    other person guilty of a serious crime, is a monster, requires me
    to believe that there are no circumstances under which I might
    commit the same or a similar crime -- no combination of personal
    chemistry, upbringing, and life circumstances that would make me
    do "that," whatever "that" is.
    
    Yes, beating a child, or a spouse, or a stranger, is a heinous
    offence.  But would I be so sure and superior if I had grown up in
    a violent home, where I and my siblings were routinely beaten? If
    I were then face to face with my own inconsolably crying baby --
    especially if it was a baby I didn't want in the first place?
    Mental illness, postpartum depression, a chemical dependency
    problem, the despair of no job and more and more responsibilities,
    all those things have made people crack.  
    
    We all have different levels of tolerance, different areas of
    weakness and shame and potential violence.  That I have never
    encountered the circumstances to make me beat a child, or murder a
    gas station attendant during a robbery, doesn't make me morally
    superior to the child-beater or the robber.  It only makes me more
    blessed.
    
    --bonnie

    
>    We all have different levels of tolerance, different areas of
>    weakness and shame and potential violence.  That I have never
>    encountered the circumstances to make me beat a child, or murder a
>    gas station attendant during a robbery, doesn't make me morally
>    superior to the child-beater or the robber.  It only makes me more
>    blessed.
    
Yes yes yes yes yes.

	MKV

>    We all have different levels of tolerance, different areas of
>    weakness and shame and potential violence.  That I have never
>    encountered the circumstances to make me beat a child, or murder a
>    gas station attendant during a robbery, doesn't make me morally
>    superior to the child-beater or the robber.  It only makes me more
>    blessed.

 Is this to say that all people are morally identical? I disagree with
this premise.

 The Doctah

    re: .56
    
    Well said, Bonnie.  
    
    Steve

    in re .59 in re .56
    
    DITTO!
    
    Bonnie J

re: .53 (D_Duncan)
                         -< ONLY BLACKS are POOR???? >-
>    Now, Most importantly, you mentioned people should ,I quote
>    Look beyond race.....yet you say
>    >living conditions so bad that prison is better, for example for
>    >many black youths.
    
>    Isn't this prejudging the entire black race? Are blacks the ONLY
>    poor people in the U.S.A. I hope that this is an oversight and
>    it is not due to the fact that prejudice of blacks is so much
>    a part of your way of thinking that you do not even reealize it
>    any more.

Hmph.  This confuses me - I was wondering how you would prefer this
be rephrased so that it is non-prejudiced (in your eyes.)

I thought the use of the phrase "for example" indicated very well that
he wasn't saying *only* blacks have this type of horrible living conditions.
And I thought the use of the word "many" indicated very well that he
wasn't referring to *all* blacks, nor even necessarily "most".

D!

    I also applaud Bonnie's note.
    
    re:.58
    
    	� Is this to say that all people are morally identical?
    	I disagree with this premise. �
    
    I don't know whether or not that was what Bonnie intended, but I
    didn't infer this from what she said.
    
    Person A may be morally identical to Person B, but various factors
    mentioned by Bonnie and experienced differently by the two Persons
    may result in a different course of action.
    
    Or...
    
    Person A is morally "inferior" to Person B.
    
    OK, now. How can we tell the difference?
    
    Seems to me that Bonnie is advocating a position of assuming the
    former in the absence of evidence for the latter. Some folks in
    this note string seem to be in favor of assuming the latter in the
    absence of evidence for the former.
    
    --- jerry

>    Seems to me that Bonnie is advocating a position of assuming the
>    former in the absence of evidence for the latter. Some folks in
>    this note string seem to be in favor of assuming the latter in the
>    absence of evidence for the former.

 If you can't assume that David Azar, a convicted child killer, is morally 
inferior to say, Mother Theresa, then it is obvious why our opinions diverge.
If a person's actions are not indicative of their moral fiber, then nothing
is. This doesn't mean that the actions themselves are the sole indicators
of morality, but when coupled with the circumstances, go a long way. For
instance, I would not say that every person that kills another is immoral.
If someone attacks Jane, and she pulls a handgun out of her purse and kills
him/her, her killing the other person is no indication of her morality. If
Jane is driving down the street and opens fire on a group of kids at a
bus stop, that probably is a good indication.

 What I got from Bonnie's note was that a person's actions give no indication
of their morality. So it is entirely possible that Ted Bundy was a moral
person, who for some unknown reason liked to relieve females of their burden
of living (in a gruesome manner, no less). That just doesn't parse. If that
makes me judgemental, so be it.

 The Doctah

    re:.63
    
    Yes, David Azar and Mother Theresa are not morally equal. But why
    is that? Is it because the former is possessed by Satan and the
    latter possessed by God? Is it because Mother Theresa was raised
    in an environment that fostered samaritan attitudes while Azar
    was not? Is it because Azar has a chemical imbalance and Mother
    Theresa does not?
    
    The point that Bonnie was making was that in the face of external
    forces, some people stand tall, some bend, and some break. This
    does not necessarily indicate the percentage of good moral fiber
    in their make-up.
    
    --- jerry

>    in the face of external
>    forces, some people stand tall, some bend, and some break. This
>    does not necessarily indicate the percentage of good moral fiber
>    in their make-up.

 What does it indicate? Anything? Luck?

 The Doctah

    
    re .61 (D_CARROLL)
    
    Instead of saying...many black youths... he could have said..many
    inner city youths... or many youths whose parents are on welfare.
    
    REASON:
    By saying the phrase "black youths" he is perpetuating the idea
    that many people have.
    EXAMPLE: I am looking at lawn mowers in the local Bradlees. A white
    male comes up( MY husband was with me)  He wanted to know why we
    were looking at lawn mowers. When my husband said that we own a
    house, he said in utter shock...You people own your own home!!!!!
    
    EXAMPLE: My brother-in-law who owns a really nice home in N.J is
    doin some yard work. He recently moved in the area. Some neighborhood
    folk soliciting for some elected official comes up and asks him..
    ...Are the people of the house at home..meaning that of course,
    he is black so he obviously cannot home such a nice home.
    
    EXAMPLE: I am going to a WOODs meeting here in Greater Maynard area
    at a local camp. The local police pulls me over...Hello ma'm, what
    are you doing in this area... I was not speeding and did not get
    a ticket for anything. he simply wanted to know what was a black
    person doing in this area. not to mention that a few cars with
    white females and males had also passed that road without being
    stopped.
    
    I can go on ad infinitum(SPELLING?). What I am saying is that you
    have to be a victim of racism both subtle and blatant to understand.
    Generalities like..many black youths.. simply instill in people
    the wrong message. I am not reading this note anymore because as
    I said you have to be a VICTIM NONSTOP EVERYDAY EVERYDAY
    EVERYDAY........................ to understand.
    
    Desryn.
    

    People are not morally identical. People are simply not identical.
    
    So, if I judge you to be morally inferior to me, am I morally
    superior, or does the very fact that I consider myself competent
    to JUDGE ANOTHER PERSON  make me morally inferior?
    
    --DE
    
    
    

> Who asked you?

 It bothers you when I ask for clarification about someone's position?

>    People are not morally identical.

 How, then, can you differentiate between them? By what measure can we say
that Mother Theresa is morally superior to Ted Bundy? (Or are we not allowed
to say or even think such things?)

>    So, if I judge you to be morally inferior to me, am I morally
>    superior, or does the very fact that I consider myself competent
>    to JUDGE ANOTHER PERSON  make me morally inferior?

 The simple fact that you judge someone to be morally superior or inferior
to you or anyone else does not make them so. If you say that Hitler was
morally superior to Joan of Arc, that doesn't make it so. 

 That you consider yourself competant to judge other people is really of
no consequence to anyone but yourself. It certainly doesn't make you morally
superior or inferior.

 So why is it useful to categorize people according to your perceptions of
their morality? All things being equal, I would rather sit next to Mother 
Theresa on a train than a serial killer. 

 The Doctah

    If one passes  moral judgement, one doesn't measure based on
    *himself*, but on some standard. And he must make damn sure 
    to hold *himself* to that standard also. Unless hypocrisy
    is moral by those standards.
    
    By the standards I accept (judge and am judged by) David Azar
    is a bad person. 
    
    

    Well, I suppose you can make a case for being able to judge others
    so long as you hold yourself to the same standards of judgement.
    
    Upholding other people's moral standards seems to me to be a very
    tiring business.
    
    I would rather sit next to a person on the train who was polite,
    didn't bother me, made decent conversation (if any), had bathed
    recently, and minded their own business.
    
    Whether this person is Mother Theresa or a mass murderer is neither
    here nor there to me. It matters not, for the experience of sitting
    on a train. 
    
    --DE
     

    How can anyone judge anyone else? How does anyone know what 
    anyone else has had to suffer? David Azar may have been
    abused as a child. Mother Teresa may have had loving care.
    People all have different genetic backgrounds. 
    
    Not judging other people is something I learned as a child.
    It seems so obvious to me that I'm amazed that it has to be
    stated. Hasn't everyone heard the saying "Don't judge another
    until you have walked a mile in his moccasins."
    
    Eileen
    

    re:.65
    
    	� What does it indicate? Anything? Luck? �
    
    I don't know what it indicates, and *that is precisely the point*!
    It could well be luck.
    
    Can you tell me with complete assuredness that if Mother Theresa
    had been raised in the same physical and social environment as
    Azar was that she wouldn't be abused her child? Can you tell with
    complete assuredness that if David Azar had been raised in the same
    environment as Mother Theresa was that he wouldn't have turned out
    a saint?
    
    I'm not saying that I'd rather sit on a train next to Azar than
    Mother Theresa, or that Mother Theresa didn't turn out a better
    human being than Azar. What I'm saying is that Azar isn't
    necessarily a self-made monster. Maybe he is, but I don't and
    can't know that, and neither can you.
    
    --- jerry

As several others have noted, the concept of judging "who is more moral" or
"how moral is someone" seems questionable.  Even at its most superficial, it
presupposes some sort of metric for morality (an MQ - Morality Quotient?).
This is hard enough (maybe impossible) for relative simple things like
intelligence -- how could it even be conceivable for as slippery a concept
as "morality"?

There is also the old matter of "let him who is without sin..." (as well as
"don't judge another ...", quoted in .71).  Even if there were a metric for
morality, how can I -- or anyone -- possibly be qualified to evaluate it?
And if it is inevaluable by mortals, then what good does it do to speculate
about it?

Which leads to my final concern:  Why would we want such a thing?  Aside from
any personal preferences for associating with moral rather than immoral people,
I think it is a basic ethical principle of our society that we judge people on
their *actions*, not on their souls.  Would we imprison immoral people?  
Refuse to hire them?  Subject them to mandatory morality counselling?

....

However, I cannot simply discard the notion of moral valuation.  In this
discussion and in some others recently (Self-Control, e.g.), I have gotten
the impression from some notes that the notion of moral valuation is 
pointless because, in essence, people do what they do because they could
not have done otherwise -- that it's all heredity and environment.  That
sort of strict determinism just isn't compatible with my intuitive notions 
of human freedom.

But if we can't judge others on moral grounds, what good is the whole notion
of moral judgment?

The answer, I think, is that we can judge ourselves.  I ought not to judge
someone as an "immoral person."  Much less should I judge one person as more
moral than another.  But surely I have not only the right, but the obligation,
to consider that if I have a choice between two actions, then there may be a 
moral element in that choice, and *I* may be (or become) a more or less moral
person depending on the choice that I make.

So, I think that morality may be a meaningful notion; that we can discuss it,
theorize about it, draw up systems and codes; but when it ultimately comes
time to *apply* it, the place to apply it is to ourselves.

Reasonable?

	-Neil

    Last few: YEs, indeed.
    
    This "sitting next to on a common carrier" stuff...
    
    Can'tcha just see it? You go to get your airplane ticket, and:
    
    "First-class or coach?"
    "Smoking or Non-smoking?"
    "Aisle or Window?"
    "Morally Superior or Morally Inferior"
    "Amoral or Immoral?"
    
    
    
    And my personal favorite (thank you, Berke Breathed)
    
    "Barfing or Non-barfing?"
    
    
    --DE
    

    A puzzlement...
    
    Re:  many replies back there...
    
    Explain this to me... If David Azar was abused as a child (as some have
    suggested) therefore he's an abuser as an adult(?), then why didn't he
    abuse his other children?  The man is a monster....I repeat, ANYONE who
    could beat up on someone so small, so helpless, is a monster in my
    book.  I don't even care how his childhood happened to be.
    
    
    -Dotti.

What follows is *MY* opinion you may or may not like it.


I was abused as a child to an extent by my father, and my mother
when I was 15 I stood 6 ft tall and weighed 200lbs. I said to myself
I don't need to take this crap and gave my father a beating, he never pulled 
any of that stuff again. 
*BUT* just because I was abused does not mean that I then went on to abuse my 
boys. I have a lot of anger/guilt/pain from the abuse I took much as azar has
been excused for but I take *RESPONSIBILITY* for my actions. it is *NOT* a
pattern that has to be repeated! People choose to commit crimes.

I will stand-up to and fight if challenged, anyone my size, I am not a 
pacifist(as some of you may know) but I take *RESPONSIBILITY* to not
abuse/assault/murder/rape/or-any-other-crime.

He deserves what he gets and has no-one to blame but himself, social
engineers be-damned.
Amos

    re:  .76 MPGS::Hamburger
    
    Amos,
    
    You said it much better than I could.
    
    Thank you.  
    
    -Dotti.

    RE: Dotti, Amos
    
    The statements were based on some amount of data that indicates
    that abused children have a good chance of becoming abusers themselves.
    Not all do. Some have greater strength of character than others, maybe,
    or some other authority figure to pattern after, or whatever.
    
    It may indeed be the way it seems to work with alcoholics - some kids
    of alcoholic parents become alcholics themselves, while others react
    like Amos and decide that *they* will never act that way/do that thing.
    
    Whether Azar was abused as a kid (and *my* theory is that he was, and
    that his mother was as well, hence his abuse of the female) or not,
    he did what he did. IF he was abused, it's only a contributory factor
    to the *reason*, not an *excuse*.
    
    --DE
    
    
    

    Although I respect Amos and Dotti's viewpoint my concern is it does not
    get at the root of the problem nor does it evaluate the cause.  It is 
    extremely cut and dried.  The fact is in many life situations people
    are not going to take responsibility for their actions.  And therefore
    the David Azar's will remain with us forever.
    
    We do not know why David Azar did what he did.  There are many
    possibilities.  He could have been abused, he could have subscribed to
    some societal attitudes about women, he could have some neurological
    imbalance that impeded his ability to make judgements under stress.
    
    I really don't believe that people wake up in the morning and decide to
    be bad.  There is a heck of a lot more to it then that.  How we punish 
    David Azar is one thing and I go along with a strong punishment...but 
    let's not put him and others like him in jail and think that we have 
    the problem solved.  
    
    My definition of a 'social engineer' is an individual that will look at
    anti-social behavior and find ways of channeling that energy and
    helping the person live a worthwhile life, before a crime has been
    committed.  
    
    Rehabilitation is fighting fires...and the current economic situation
    is sad, because our government is cutting funds that would be
    pro-active in this area.  

re: Jerry

>What I'm saying is that Azar isn't
>    necessarily a self-made monster.

 Then you agree that he is a monster but you can't say if it's his fault or not?

re: Neil 

>I think it is a basic ethical principle of our society that we judge people on
>their *actions*, not on their souls. 

 How, then, do you judge someone who killed his own child?

>I have gotten
>the impression from some notes that the notion of moral valuation is 
>pointless because, in essence, people do what they do because they could
>not have done otherwise -- that it's all heredity and environment. 

 I have gotten the same impression. It's a bunch of baloney. People have a 
choice.  Heredity and environment are small factors compared to freedom
of choice.

re: Amos

>People choose to commit crimes.

 Yes. Go to the head of the class. TBA

The Doctah

    In starting this note I had not even imagined that it would get
    to the point on questioning people's moraility sp?. 
    
    the fact of the reason stands a person has committed a crime by
    which most of us in this note have called horrendous for a few reasons
    
    a) the crime committed involved a child
    b) the crime was repeated until death happened.
    c) the victim was in no way responsible for herself at he age.
    d) it seems like from the comments the paper had reported Mr. Azar
    to have been made that he pefered boys,men over girls,women.
    
    As the jury made up of our peers did their best to punish Mr. Azar
    of his crimes they had alot to think about beofre handing out the
    verdict. As note in the 21/2 days delibration SP? 
    
    I can only hope that Mr. Azar will only walk the streets if 
    a) He can prove beyond a doubt that this crime will never happen
    again. or b) he escapes from prision.
    
    In my thinking I can say I di not think a punishment of this nature
    deserves TIem foo for good behaviour or parole. A murder has been
    committed and murders will still be committed, due to whatever
    circumstances. I firmly beleive when a muder has been committed
    life in prision means life in prision, no parole no time off for
    good behaviour.
    
    FOr those who want to think of this David Azar parole hearing comes
    up in 15 years from this year. in 15 years this man who brutally
    murdered his daughter may be free walk the streets to continue live
    life, in whatever way he chooses.
    
    Lise 

    re: .81
    
    � I can only hope that Mr. Azar will only walk the streets if 
    � a) He can prove beyond a doubt that this crime will never happen
    � again. or b) he escapes from prision.
    
    Regardless of issues of morality and assuming he survives prison,
    Azar will walk the streets again and it will have nothing to do
    with proving this crime will never be repeated.  It's an interesting
    notion, perhaps, but how would anyone ever "prove" that something
    won't happen in the future.  I fail to see how anyone in prison
    or here, for that matter, can prove beyond a doubt that they won't
    commit any given crime.  I suggest that such a proof is logically
    impossible.  Also, unless there was a "no parole" clause in sentencing
    (I don't think there was), he'll be eligible in less than the full
    sentence time; in this state I think it's around 11 years.
    
    Steve

    re:.80
    
    	� Then you agree that he is a monster but you
    	can't say if it's his fault or not? �
    
    No. You're assuming that "self-made" is replaceable with another
    adjective. I'm using "self-made monster" as a single, unreduceable
    term.
    
    In any event, regardless of what I think he *is*, I do not think
    he is a monster. I reserve "monster" to describe someone who would
    do acts far worse than he did -- say, acts of gross and excessive
    mutilation (I don't want to get more explicit than that) -- and
    doig it with full knowledge of what he was doing and with malicious
    intent. That the verdict was not first-degree murder indicates that
    the jury did not believe that Azar killed his daughter with malice
    aforethought.
    
    --- jerry

>That the verdict was not first-degree murder indicates that
>    the jury did not believe that Azar killed his daughter with malice
>    aforethought.

 Well, not unanimously, anyway.

 The Doctah

    I don't find  a significant difference between a premeditated
    atrocity and one commited by a person who lacks self-control.
    
    To lose one's temper and commit murder is as bad as planning
    to commit murder - the result is the same, the punishment
    should be the same.

>    To lose one's temper and commit murder is as bad as planning
>    to commit murder - the result is the same, the punishment
>    should be the same.

 I don't necessarily agree with that. Of course, the reason why someone loses
their temper and commits murder has impact. If Jane comes home and finds
her husband in bed with another woman and shoots him, that's not the same
as Ralph killing a child because it is X and not Y or whatever.

 The Doctah

    re: .83 and subsequent
    
    Actually, in this case, the difference between the potential first- and 
    actual second-degree conviction, had nothing to do with pre-meditation. 
    He was found guilty of 2nd degree murder because the jury was not
    unanimous in its conviction that the crime was sufficiently
    "attrocious".  As one juror (I believe) said, "it's not the same as if 
    he cut off her arms and legs and then killed her."
    
    [If this has already been gone over in this note, I apologize for the
    repetition.]
    
    Don't shoot the messenger.
    
    Susan
    

    re: -.1  to clarify my previous note...
    
    In the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, a verdict of 1st degree murder
    must meet one of 3 conditions:
    
    1. The murder was committed with premeditated malic aforethought.
    2. The murder was committed with extreme attrocity and cruelty.
    3. The murder was committed in the course of committing another felony
    which is punishable by death or life imprisonment (armed robbery, etc.)
    
    In the Azar case, the jury was instructed by the judge that they could
    only consider the second, presence of extreme attrocity and cruelty,
    since no evidence was ever presented relating to the first or third
    condition.
    
    If memory serves me (and it may not; it's been awhile), when the jury
    began deliberations, 4 jurors voted for 1st degree murder.  Gradually,
    the other jurors persuaded 3 of them to vote for 2nd degree, but there
    was still one woman who held out for 1st degree.  She gave in when the
    other jurors pointed out to her that if they were a hung jury, he would
    get a mistrial and another retrial, and he could come out with an even
    lighter conviction.  So she went along with the 2nd degree verdict.
    
    Susan
    

    re: .82 (mine)
    
    I want to correct a mistake I entered in .82.  In that reply
    I indicated that Azar would be eligible for parole in about
    11 years.  This is incorrect.  Given a 15-year sentence, he
    would be eligible for release in about 11 years; that is, unless
    he encounters disciplinary problems while inside the joint, he
    will have served his 15 years in about 11.  The reason is that
    state prison systems generally assume "good behavior" time and
    that 1.0 days served counts as 1.n days towards completing the
    given sentence.  I believe that on a 15-year sentence in Massachusetts,
    the individual would be eligible for parole consideration in about
    3� years (about one third of 11 years).
    
    Steve

    Pretty disgusting, IMO, that a life is worth a mere 3.5 years of
    discomfort.
    
     The Doctah

    Azar out in 3.5 years????  I think I'm gonna be sick....
    
    Outrageous!
    
    -Dotti

    a couple of thoughts:
    
    First, a caution: Azar will (I believe) be *eligible* for parole
    consideration in around 3� years; whether or not the board grants
    parole is an entirely different matter.
    
    Second, an observation: I believe this case (with thousands of others)
    helps demonstrate one of the weakest points in our "criminal justice
    system" - prisons.  Unless we propose to keep all criminals inside
    the joint forever, convicts *will* get out.  In my experience, if
    an individual isn't a hardened, anti-social creature when (s)he enters
    prison, (s)he will be upon release.  
    
    Steve

    RE: -1
        
>    Second, an observation: I believe this case (with thousands of others)
>    helps demonstrate one of the weakest points in our "criminal justice
>    system" - prisons.  Unless we propose to keep all criminals inside
>    the joint forever, convicts *will* get out.  In my experience, if
>    an individual isn't a hardened, anti-social creature when (s)he enters
>    prison, (s)he will be upon release.  
    
>    Steve

     I couldn't agree more. I'm not proud to say that I know many people
     who've been in prison. I've visited people in all of the correctional
     facilities in Mass. Oh, the minimum security aren't too bad, but
     IMHO anyone getting out of a prison will be hardened, if anything,
     just by what they had to do to survive.

     Guy 
    

OK; what is it about prisons that make them fail like that? What kind of
facilities for "keeping the danger to society away from society" would work
better, help the re-entering person be an _asset_, keep folks _out_ of these
facilities instead of bringing them back?

When/if I have a chance to vote or propose, what _is_ it we need?
	Mez

>What kind of
>facilities for "keeping the danger to society away from society" would work
>better, help the re-entering person be an _asset_, keep folks _out_ of these
>facilities instead of bringing them back?

Has anyone read Robert Heinlein's Time_Enough_For_Love?  (I believe that is the
book, but it could be The_Past_Through_Tomorrow.)  Anyway, in it Heinlein 
suggests a solution in a story about a man who refuses to follow the laws
society lays down.  He is given the option of a total personality rebuild,
or to go into (I think it's called) The Conclave.  That is a large portion
of land (the size of a city?) surrounded by impassable walls.  Within, are
all the criminals of the society who have rejected the personality rebuild.
They develop their own society, which in many ways turns out to be more
repressive than the society "outside".  They are entirely responsible for
themselves once they are inside, there are no laws or rules or anything.

I realize that right now this isn't a feasible alternative, but Heinlein
makes a strong case for such a system, and perhaps aspects of it could be
worked into our current system.  the basic theory is "If you can't follow
the laws of our society, go make your own society and don't bother us."

D!

What's a personality rebuild?

	Mez

>What's a personality rebuild?
>
>	Mez

Who knows, it's science fiction, they don't have to *explain* anything! :-)

It's basically a new age version of the frontal lobotomy - they erase your
personality, and then put everything back *except* the parts that made you
anti-social before the rebuild. 

I know rebuild isn't the term Heinlein used, but that is my generic term for
that concept which is used under many different names by many different
authors.

D!

    The story was "Coventry" & appears collected in "Revolt in 2100"
    (together with the title story and "Misfit"; together they chronicle 3
    different chunks of his Future History scheme).  The area was, I think,
    meant to be at least on the order of, eg, Colorado for size, and was
    surrounded by an impenetrable energy barrier to prevent the "inmates"
    from escaping.  The alternative treatment wasn't a strip-down-and-
    start-over but rather a sort of "hardware psychotherapy":  only the
    tendencies to physical violence were twiddled out of existance
    (Heinlein finessed the problem of non-physical violence).
    
    						=maggie