'Parents' left baby strapped in car seat to die for 8 days
Mikey 22 comments
When ever I read stories like this, I go through a process. First I feel sick to my stomach, and then sickness turns to anger, and then the anger turns to bewilderment as I can't fathom how anyone could do something so heinous to a child. And then the anger returns, repeat ad-nausium.
Five month old Benjamin Sargent (pictured) died of starvation with his eyes open, fists clenched, strapped into a car seat after eight days without food or water. The 'parents' - and I use that term loosely - are facing first degree murder charges and possibly the death penalty.
While the infant cried and screamed, both parents spent most of their time "playing video games, watching TV, feeding and caring for themselves".
The question must be asked - would some sort of psychological screening have avoided this situation by denying the couple the right to bear children? I am two minds over this question.
The amount of infant neglect and abuse cases would drop significantly if potential bad parents were spotted first. I am all for anything that improves the quality of a child's life. But by what criteria would we judge a potential parents fitness to bear and raise children? I might be denied simply because I am atheist, even though I rock at parenting, but would never have been realised. In some countries, particularly the ones ruled by
Is psychological screening a realistic option? What other options could be explored?
Rodney
Sunday 24th February 2008 | 12:35 PMWas the video game "counter strike"?
Kelli
Sunday 24th February 2008 | 12:53 PMI will get it out of the way first "I hope the bastards rot in hell."
This would be expensive but a team of people dedicated to doing regular in-home checks on the childs living conditions could go a long way. These checks would also be random for the first few years so the bad seeds don't have time to fake a happy household.
They would not only check living standards but also the physical condition of the child looking for signs of malnourishment or abuse.
The idea of psychological screen isn't a bad idea especially when yokels like these 2 get together.
Gilly
Sunday 24th February 2008 | 03:36 PMOnly you could turn that into an Anti Christian rant Mike.
I still cant understand how or why though.
Oh and that type of thing was practiced commonly by North/North West Aboriginal tribes a few decades ago. What gives you a right to judge? Why are your morals better than theres.
Foolish talk.
Gilly your suggestion I was making an anti Christian statement could not be further from the truth, but I am not surprised you would miss the obvious.
Maybe I should have made it a little more 'universal'. You will see I have amended my statement in the article. Now if we could stick to the actual topic instead of looking for something that isn't there...
Gilly "The peoples Champ"
Sunday 24th February 2008 | 06:37 PM[comment was deleted: off topic]
Bob Dobalina
Sunday 24th February 2008 | 07:46 PMPreventative measures wont make much difference when people become different once they have kids.
baby boy
Monday 25th February 2008 | 07:29 AMI still cant believe some one can do this horrible thing.
aaron
Monday 25th February 2008 | 07:49 AMdude, as much as I normally disagree with gilly. He has a point. I do get what you are trying to say but you really did go the religious route needlessly.
Thanks Aaron. I was speculating as if I were in that situation.
As I don't have a police record, no history of violence, have never had a parking fine or speeding ticket, never been committed to a mental institution, in fact I am a pretty uninteresting guy when you really think about it :-)...that doesn't leave much else for a judging panel to deny me except for the absence of God in my life.
Can someone think of any other reasons - if this was ever to become a reality - why a couple might be denied the right to bear children? Excluding the obvious reasons of course like a violent criminal or sex offender record, or drug abuse etc...
Cheers.
andrew
Monday 25th February 2008 | 11:02 PMand may they go to hell if there is such a place, which i doubt and i am sure some do gooder will help them, hang the do gooder as well..
andrew
Monday 25th February 2008 | 11:04 PMare there really people out there that can do this to an innocent child? makes you wonder how many more are suffering...
Jake
Tuesday 26th February 2008 | 02:39 PMThis is one of the most vile and abhorent acts I have ever had the displeasure of reading about. One could only hope that they are both found guilty of 1st degree murder and put away for life.
Is there any word as to their rationalle or motive?
charity
Wednesday 30th April 2008 | 12:15 AMlook at that gorgeous face again..... then think about what pain that little bubba went through expecting his mummy and daddy to come to him..... the pain i feel in my heart is for him...he's in a much better place now. little angel. the parents should be sterilised.
Gong
Wednesday 30th April 2008 | 03:36 AMHumans
this will go on forever, God or no God
Mikey wrote "even though I rock at parenting"
Slightly offtopic maybe... How do you know you "rock"? ;-) In comparison to whom?
...in response to this comment by Sorat. Why is there a need for comparison? But to indulge you for a moment, I think that my kids are the most happiest, well balanced and well treated I have ever known says something about our parenting skills.
diane
Tuesday 3rd June 2008 | 04:59 AMI like the idea of strapping them to chairs and leaving them until they rot. In this instance it should be an eye for an eye.
Ben
Thursday 17th September 2009 | 07:44 AMMikey has a point. I have lived in countries where fundamental Judasim, and extreamist Islamic sects are the govermental policy makers. In these countries, to be athiest is not only considered abhorent, but would probably have led to being denied children if such screenings were put into place in those countries.
I understand some people may have taken offernce if his original comment contained a specific religion, but taking offence at his comment, does not negate the fact the it would most likely be acted out in that sense by the policy makers of some counties.
It would be a dangerous precedent to deny people the ability to "make" children based on ideological/political issues.
Yes the parents from this article make you are aware that not everyone should be a parent, but i dont think any goverment/religious organisation should have the right to deny you the chance to concieve. If once a child is born you (after the learning curve of course) prove to be a parent that through negligence may harm their own child, that is somthing different.
Trent Greguhn
Tuesday 23rd March 2010 | 05:41 AMDon't mean to beat a dead horse or anything here, this article is pretty old. However I looked up an update to this incident and it turns out the child didn't starve to death. It was worse.
The baby had not been changed for over a week and the feces in its diaper ate away his skin and he died from bacteria from the feces being introduced into his blood system. I didn't even know that was possible, but several sites reported on just that.
That is a terrible, terrible way to go.
Treva
Sunday 24th February 2008 | 10:02 AMHang the fuckers. Or even better strap them into chairs until they starve to death. Here are pictures of the yokels at http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12839
...and the case file http://tinyurl.com/25wabv