Death penalty sought in baby's microwave death POSTED: 8:08 p.m. EST, December 7, 2006 DAYTON, Ohio (AP) -- A woman suspected of killing her month-old daughter by putting her in a microwave oven was indicted on a charge of aggravated murder Thursday, and the prosecutor said he would seek the death penalty. The indictment against China Arnold, 26, does not provide details on the death of Paris Talley. Investigators have said evidence that includes high-heat internal injuries and the absence of external burn marks on the baby were consistent with a microwave oven. The baby died on August 30, 2005. Her mother was arrested last week. "The Montgomery County coroner came to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by this baby could have only been caused by being placed into a microwave oven and having that oven turned on and [cooking] the baby to death," Montgomery Country Prosecutor Mathias Heck Jr. said at a news conference. Heck declined to discuss a possible motive or release any other details about the case. He said Arnold would be subject to the death penalty if convicted because the victim was a child. Defense attorney Jon Paul Rion said Arnold had nothing to do with her child's death. He said Arnold and the child's father had left Paris with a baby sitter the night before she found the baby unconscious. "China has the moral courage and the confidence in her God that the truth will come out in this case," Rion said. "We will seek every single way possible to communicate to our government and to the jury in this case that China is innocent of all the charges." Arnold is being held on $1 million bond. Heck said he will ask the court to order her held without bail at a hearing Tuesday. ---------------------------------- Be it the suspect, the claimed baby-sitter, or whoever, what kind of animal would microwave a living creature to death? Especially a one-month old, helpless baby?!?
Uh, the suspect is "suspected", dont you think your thread title is maybe a little prejudicial? You actually have that much faith in the adversarial justice system to legitimately prove guilt? That is totally f#ked up btw, but i dont see how it "underscores" the "need" for the death penalty. It might "underscore" the need, to make absolutely damn certain what happened and who did what , but that part of the process is waaaaay more important than effectively lynching the first "suspect" to come along.
What we "need" is a large microwave for guilty adults. Not sure what time is involved in slowly cooking a murderer, but I'll gladly hit "Start" if the libs have a problem doing so. JZ "Time Cook" Lucas
Well thats your opinion, somebody has to do it-if your going to have a death penalty, somebody has to do the executing. I just think its a lousy idea, because by my estimation the odds of actually getting a verdict correct are piss poor. Odd you didnt quote my reasoning re; my last paragraph......... JZ "instant cook" lucas
As far as i know, given an appropriately sized microwave, ten (even 5) minutes on medium would more than do the job, based on steam burn data from shipping accidents, mean temperatures to major organ failure from thermite/napalm/burn victim data, and how hot my baked beans get in 3 minutes+. i still think your a sick puppy, eye for an eye sadism is sick to me.......if your going to execute someone, at the very least an unsuspected bullet in the back of the head seems more humane, somehow-if you treat people like animals, you can expect them to behave like animals
Don't you think your post is off base? How am I being judgemental? Didn't you see that I wrote: So, whoever did this crime - suspect, baby sitter, whoever - IMO it is a tragedy that underscores the need for the death penalty. Whoever did it should fry. And slowly... I'm hardly "lynching the first suspect that comes along."
Hap, I dont think its off base, given i was trying to convey my primary objection was to the thread title. I dont regard murder as a tragedy, as such-natural disasters are tragedies, everything else was caused by humans.
Sick puppy? Maybe so. However Im a believer in ridding someone in the manner they did to their innocent victims. An eye for an eye is OK with me. J "old testament" Lucas
Well of course it makes sense from a pragmatic, or puritanical perspective, i just think its to simplistic to look at things that way, i dont regard myself as a christian as such, far from it, but focusing on eye/for eye (the poor phraseology wasnt intended) leaves so many gaps in the equation, common sense in evidentiary endeavors, much less, given inevitable human flaws in the fact finding process , or a reasonable, or fair sentence......... Thats a lot of steps, a lot of things that NEED to be right, as opposed to whether it "looks" right to anyone, re; the adversarial justice system, what someone who may be prepared to flick the switch should "beleive" about the matter, to brutally, and painfully murder someone who did nothing to them personally. JZ "is this a convection oven too?"Lucas