Baby killer only gets eights years

[Jimsween]

'Can't scream, can't cry out, can't call for help' . . . Jordan Anderson Smith, who died at seven months after suffering horrific injuries. BABY Jordan had his tiny toes crushed one by one, was hit so hard his bottom teeth went through the roof of his mouth, and was subjected to repeated punches to the stomach.

The seven-month-old's torture and suffering ended only when he choked to death on his own vomit. Yesterday the man responsible for the brutal killing of the baby boy was sentenced to a minimum term of just eight years and three months. With time already served, Christopher Hoerler could be free in January 2010, at the age of 32.

Jordan died in the Housing Commission home Hoerler shared with the baby's mother, Louise Anderson, at Ashmont, Wagga Wagga, in the early hours of February 25, 2000.

The trial had been told that nobody heard Jordan scream during the attack because it was believed the first punch to his jaw, which drove his bottom teeth into the roof of his mouth, knocked him unconscious. His extensive facial injuries and fractured ribs suggested he had been dragged face down over carpet or a sofa and punched hard in the abdomen.

Hoerler then set about crushing Jordan's little toes – one by one – with a fan clamp.
When the sentence was announced, Jordan's uncle Darcy Smith yelled, "scumbag" at Hoerler. Outside court, Mr Smith said the family was bitterly disappointed. "Today is a very dark day for justice in Australia," he said. "He's a dead-set animal. Anyone who can take a human life is a dead-set animal full stop, let alone a seven-month-old baby that can't scream, can't cry out for anyone, can't call for help – it's defenceless".

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8140887%5E26462,00.html

Pictured is Chistopher Hoerler (top) and his victim baby Jordan (bottom)

[karasz]

so a guy killed a baby and you dont like it...

do you think people will say 'about damn time' OR 'the baby had it coming?'

this is a useless thread, i mean thanks for the news but there will always be people that should have their lives ended...

[karasz]

im referring to the guy that killed the baby..

NOT the baby itself...

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 12:20 AM, karasz wrote: so a guy killed a baby and you dont like it...

do you think people will say 'about damn time' OR 'the baby had it coming?'

this is a useless thread, i mean thanks for the news but there will always be people that should have their lives ended...

I'm pointing out a problem in our legal system, and I do no for a fact there is room for debate on this issue, however I wont say what it is in particular because that would defeat the whole purpose of debate.

[FUNKbrs]

But he only got 8 years, despite RUTHLESSLY MURDERING A BABY. That's the problem. This guy SHOULD be getting the death penalty, instead, he loses 1/6 of his life. I hope he dies of AIDS contracted through a prison rape.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 12:26 AM, JudgeFUNK wrote: But he only got 8 years, despite RUTHLESSLY MURDERING A BABY. That's the problem. This guy SHOULD be getting the death penalty, instead, he loses 1/6 of his life. I hope he dies of AIDS contracted through a prison rape.

Aha, my oppourtunity arises. But Funk, our legal system is based on rehabilitation, not punishment. Granted giving him 8 years in a minimum security prison isn't going to rehabilitate him, but you can't just kill him.

Also, 1/6th? You do realize that implies he will only live till 48.

[blueloa13]

i dont think you should kill him becuase that would be to easy. i think that they should make all of damages done to that baby onto that guy. except make sure that he is consious

[RedSkunk]

Just imagine if he had had a bag of pot in his car too! Yeesh! He'd be getting 20, 30 years no sweat.

[Dagodevas]

8 years for ruthlessly slaughtering an infant is indeed far too lenient. As mentally disturbed as that man may or may not be, he should not be aloud to mingle with common, decent people for at least another 40 years.

[bumcheekcity]

Well, that is one of the saddest stories ai have ever heard. People can get more than that for having a spliff.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 03:38 AM, Dagodevas wrote: 8 years for ruthlessly slaughtering an infant is indeed far too lenient. As mentally disturbed as that man may or may not be, he should not be aloud to mingle with common, decent people for at least another 40 years.

Even if he is completely rehabilitated? What good does it do to keep a person in jail any longer than it takes to rehabilitate them? Surely you wouldn't do it just for the sake of punishing him, because no mentally stable person can do something like that, so he really doesn't deserve to be punished if he has become mentally stable. And don't give me that deterrant argument, punishment (no matter how cruel it is) has never succeeded in deterring crime, countries that focus more on rehabilitation and attempt to improve the mental health of thier people before they commit crimes have far lower crime rates than America.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 02:08 AM, blueloa13 wrote: i dont think you should kill him becuase that would be to easy. i think that they should make all of damages done to that baby onto that guy. except make sure that he is consious

Please explain to me what if anything at all that accomplishes.

[Dagodevas]

At 12/16/03 06:10 PM, Jimsween wrote: Even if he is completely rehabilitated? What good does it do to keep a person in jail any longer than it takes to rehabilitate them?

It's for his own safety. Even if he was completely rehabilitated to 100% society still would not accept him.

[takeit2themax]

Probly hates white people and took out his rage on the white baby. I hope some other crack smoking porch monkey rapes him.

[Dagodevas]

At 12/16/03 09:41 PM, 02LS1Z28 wrote: Probly hates white people and took out his rage on the white baby. I hope some other crack smoking porch monkey rapes him.

Well, that was unfounded. Thank you for unnecessarily making a race issue out of this.

[heyitsjohn]

At 12/16/03 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote:

I'm pointing out a problem in our legal system, and I do no for a fact there is room for debate on this issue, however I wont say what it is in particular because that would defeat the whole purpose of debate.

our legal system is fucked up, that much is clear when innocent people are locked up and guys like this get off in 8 years. crappy attourneys too, they should have gone for murder 1 or capital murder. anyone who does that deserves a conviction of capital murder and a 1 way ticket to the hot seat. AT LEAST give the guy 25-life. i mean damn, he killed a baby. for apparantly no reason.

[takeit2themax]

hopefully someone shoots him right as he walks out of prison in 2010.

[takeit2themax]

At 12/16/03 09:51 PM, heyitsjohn wrote:

At 12/16/03 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote:

our legal system is fucked up, that much is clear when innocent people are locked up and guys like this get off in 8 years.

This happend in Austrailia.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 07:54 PM, Dagodevas wrote:

At 12/16/03 06:10 PM, Jimsween wrote: Even if he is completely rehabilitated? What good does it do to keep a person in jail any longer than it takes to rehabilitate them?

It's for his own safety. Even if he was completely rehabilitated to 100% society still would not accept him.

There is no reason that society has to know his past discretions if he was indeed rehabilitated. Also, this is just because of our culture, which is a culture of punishment, needless to say Sweden would be much more apathetic towards a convicted murderer than America would (I use Sweden as an example because to the best of my knowledge thier legal system is much more based on reform).

And I might also add, that keeping a man in prison "for his own safety" against his own will is not only unconstitutional, it is completely wrong in many many ways. The government should not be able to say what you can and cannot do to your own property (body) espescially when it means taking away most of your liberties.

[Dagodevas]

At 12/16/03 10:43 PM, Jimsween wrote: There is no reason that society has to know his past discretions if he was indeed rehabilitated.

That’s right, the neighborhood he decides to move too after they turn him loose doesn’t need to know that the new guy next door spent 8 years in prison for torturing an infant to death. He’s a nice guy when you get to know him. You probably wouldn’t mind letting him baby-sit your kids sometime.

[blueloa13]

At 12/16/03 06:12 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/16/03 02:08 AM, blueloa13 wrote: i dont think you should kill him becuase that would be to easy. i think that they should make all of damages done to that baby onto that guy. except make sure that he is consious

Please explain to me what if anything at all that accomplishes.

well currently the justice system isnt working, but i think if you do the same crime to someone as they did tosomebody else. but then again the world is full of wierd asses so i guess it wouldnt work the way i want it too.

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 11:34 PM, Dagodevas wrote:

At 12/16/03 10:43 PM, Jimsween wrote: There is no reason that society has to know his past discretions if he was indeed rehabilitated.

That’s right, the neighborhood he decides to move too after they turn him loose doesn’t need to know that the new guy next door spent 8 years in prison for torturing an infant to death. He’s a nice guy when you get to know him. You probably wouldn’t mind letting him baby-sit your kids sometime.

If he was rehabilitated then they do not need to know that, if it turns out he was not rehabilitated and he molests against then the parents should be told that he was a convicted sex offender, and then they will have grounds for a lawsuit against the state for not properly rehabilitated him. People aren't allowed to find out if a person has AIDS either, there is no reason (if the government is doing it's job and rehabilitating criminals) that people should be allowed to access confidential information like that.

[Dagodevas]

At 12/16/03 11:59 PM, Jimsween wrote:

If he was rehabilitated then they do not need to know that, if it turns out he was not rehabilitated and he molests against then the parents should be told that he was a convicted sex offender, etc...

You’re missing the point Jim. That man has the right to redeem himself in the eyes of society, but society has the right to be aware of the fact that they are in the presence of potentially dangerous people (the right to be safe). If they rehabilitate that man and he kills again than the government would have failed to protect society. They need to tell its people that they are in the presence of a person who has been to prison for violent crimes. His rehabilitation does not guarantee that he is safe to mingle freely with society (ever seen “A Clockwork Orange”?). By letting him reenter society and deny society their right to know of his previous crimes violates their right to be protected.