From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:44:29 +0800
To: "S. M. Halloran" <mitch@duzen.com.tr>
Subject: Re: Bell vs. Woodward--justice?
In-Reply-To: <199711121324.PAA14037@ankara.duzen.com.tr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.971113125835.725B-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> This 19-year old was way out of her league and not at all fit for 
> child care activities. 

Obviously, but this isn`t the point in question.

> I am a firm believer that baby care for 3 year 
> olds and less should be licensed.  The requirements for the license 
> would be minimal.  It just merely shows that you understand that babies 
> less than 1 year of age often cry--some hardly at all, others damn near 
> all the time--and that 97% of the time there is a reason that can be 
> found and the solution implemented, and the other 3% of the time the 
> reason is beyond our understanding, but things will just seem to take 
> care of themselves.  

Wrong, there is no justification for licensing whatsoever, I suggest 
parents taking on carers for their children agree a responsibility
distribution for the welfare of the child, and have the good sense not to 
employ inept unqualified childcare staff. The parents are much to blame 
in the death of the child, particularly in this case because they were 
both qualified doctors and did not notice the child was unwell.
I can see a motivation for wanting better regulation, but it is attacking 
the situation in the wrong way, more laws never help. A voluntary 
organisation for childcare workers, admission to which depended on 
fulfilling the requirements you outline above for your licence idea, 
would be useful, concerned parents could simple ensure their chosen 
applicant was a member of the organisation before hiring them. Mandatory 
licensing is wrong.

> The licensing procedure might also be a way of 
> checking if you have the minimal temperment to deal with infants and 
> small children.

No, this is of no value, I don`t have the right temperament to deal with 
children, I am too easily made angry by them, this does not indicate I 
would harm a child, I simply have the sense to recognise I am not suited 
to caring for children.
I do not see anyway how such a character judgement might be made, and by who?

> What about the judge?  His first purpose is to make sure the law is 
> followed, especially with respect to trial procedure.  But with the law 
> is JUSTICE!  It has always been my belief that the ultimate goal of 
> these sacred occasions is justice. 

And justice cannot be served when an appointed official can overturn or 
reduce a conviction, only an appeal should do this. Sure, if the jurors had 
ignored proper procedure it is the duty of the judge to declare a 
mistrial, that is entirely different from reducing a charge and basically 
letting a convicted felon go free.

> I am rather curious to know where public opinion lies in the UK, just 
> to get a fix on cultural differences.

The opinion is generally very simplistic, most people think she 
didn`t do anything, and ask most people if she shook the child and they 
will say she didn`t, even though Woodward herself doesn`t deny doing so.
Most people don`t have any defined opinion on the judicial aspect of the 
case as regards the actions of the judge, other than to be pleased he 
freed her. The UK media spin has been very favourable to the Woodwards.
I also think there is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that 
the defendant was convicted by the jury because of her traditional 
British "stiff upper lip" reserve, wheras the Eappen family knew just how 
to play the court with the usual American "Victim impact statement" 
designed to be emotive and persuasive to the judge in gaining a high 
sentence, of course in this case it had little effect. 
I don`t know if you have seen a well publicised British trial (cameras 
aren`t allowed into court rooms here so many never get to be high profile), 
but although the system is much the same as regards proper procedure, the 
atmosphere is entirely different. Something like the Eappen victim 
statement would make a UK jury sick, and probably encourage an aquittal.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"