September 26, 2002

2:41 PM

32 year old man rapes his daughter, who's only a few days old. (French news link - could not find an English news source) Doctors expect the girl to survive, but with permanent cerebral damage. Reminds me of that Newt quote about monsters.
posted by titboy (54 comments total)

Google translation of the first link, for those of us who don't read French.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:44 PM on September 26, 2002

Thanks MCD
posted by titboy at 2:47 PM on September 26, 2002

The father, whose identity was not revealed, after having passed several psychiatric examinations during which "it had made good impression", had been authorized to spend the night of Friday to Saturday near his daughter.

Is there something missing in the translation or is it me?
posted by Witty at 2:48 PM on September 26, 2002

"The doctors had immediately alerted the parquet floor because of lesions which let suppose a sexual aggression."

There's plenty lost in the translation. That doesn't make it any less disturbing.
posted by me3dia at 2:51 PM on September 26, 2002

Good argument for France bringing back the guillotine.
posted by sixdifferentways at 3:01 PM on September 26, 2002

God help us.
posted by Hall at 3:01 PM on September 26, 2002

Where do I return my "I oppose the death penalty" membership card?
posted by mathis23 at 3:03 PM on September 26, 2002

I picked out as much as I could with my antique second-year French and the psychiatric examinations came out pretty much the same way--that he passed. Whaaa? He passed?
posted by gordian knot at 3:04 PM on September 26, 2002

I'm glad he passed. That probably means he won't get away with this based on some kind of insane loophole. I just want to know why he was allowed to spend the night with daughter after the fact... or again, am I reading that wrong?
posted by Witty at 3:08 PM on September 26, 2002

I read this as:

He raped his older daughter first. Then they examined him, said he passed the exam, and let him back in.
posted by Red58 at 3:11 PM on September 26, 2002

It's people like this that make it hard to oppose the death penalty sometimes. There's no death penalty in France, correct?

Not that it really matters much, but I imagine this guy's days in jail are going to be extremely unpleasant.
posted by UKnowForKids at 3:12 PM on September 26, 2002

after having passed several psychiatric examinations during which "it had made good impression", had been authorized to spend the night of Friday to Saturday near his daughter.
i read this to mean there was some reason to suspect he would be a danger to her, therefore psychiatric exams were made prior to allowing the visit. i'd like more information, this implied to me he perhaps had a history or was a known criminal of some sort, yet later the article seemed to indicate he was a music teacher. good grief, what rage or sickness could lay behind such a monstrous act?
posted by quonsar at 3:12 PM on September 26, 2002

Why we need to band together a society of nations that will keep a well trained executioner, skilled at keeping people alive and begging for death (it used to be sport, damn it).

We could keep them in Belgium, run it by the Hague, then set them loose on the deserving few. I'd nominate this scum.
posted by Busithoth at 3:22 PM on September 26, 2002

After he brought his daughter the first time to the hospital, she had injuries that could've been interpreted as sexual assault, so the hospital staff interviewed the father, who presumably was sneaky and convincing enough to explain away his daughter's injuries.
posted by titboy at 3:23 PM on September 26, 2002

There's no death penalty in France, correct?

no European Union country has it
posted by matteo at 3:31 PM on September 26, 2002

Busithoth: They could bring this guy out of retirement...
posted by titboy at 3:35 PM on September 26, 2002

[sexual abuse of children is bad]
posted by stinglessbee at 3:48 PM on September 26, 2002

Holy fucking sociopath!! I've heard of sick, but a freaking newborn baby?! Excuse me while I vomit... I oppose the death penalty as a general rule, but this fucker's gotta go. The exception that proves the rule...
posted by hincandenza at 3:52 PM on September 26, 2002

This guy obviously isn't gonna get away on a diminished responsibility claim - he appears from this article to have all his faculties intact (if completely warped). My attitude to this is the same as to all child sex abusers - lock him away and throw away the key. Get him out of society.
posted by Mossy at 4:01 PM on September 26, 2002

Disease.: Disease
(Dis*ease"), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Diseased ; p. pr. & vb. n. Diseasing.]

1. To deprive of ease; to disquiet; to trouble; to distress. [Obs.]


His double burden did him sore disease.
Spenser.

2. To derange the vital functions of; to afflict with disease or sickness; to disorder; — used almost exclusively in the participle diseased.


He was diseased in body and mind.

Cure it. Eradicate it. Solve the problem.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:04 PM on September 26, 2002

I still oppose the death penalty. You can't be against it except in 'really bad' cases, because then you just get what we have now, people squabbling about what 'really bad' is. However, he's a sick fucker all the same, and should get life in prison if there is any justice!

Him passing psychiatric tests is probably a good thing, like was mentioned. That means 'insanity' won't be a possible defense, and he'll probably spend more time in prison. And no, his days there won't be very happy once the convicts get word of why he's in the slammer...
posted by phidauex at 4:04 PM on September 26, 2002

I hear your anger, guys. I was repeatedly raped when I was 4. I can only shrug my shoulders and say that there is no end to the things that somebody, somewhere finds sexual...puppies, shoes, liver...There is nothing, no place that it would shock me to hear that somebody had put his penis into.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:07 PM on September 26, 2002

I think that things like this shouldnt get national and international attention. That is so disgraceful it shouldnt even be talked about outside of the people and courts immediatly affected.
posted by Recockulous at 4:17 PM on September 26, 2002

Hear, hear Secret LIfe of Gravy. Hear, hear.

I weep for humanity.
posted by aacheson at 4:23 PM on September 26, 2002

The exception that proves the rule...

Could someone explain to me what that expression actually means, logically? I'm genuinely curious ... I've heard it so often over the years. It never seems to parse.
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:39 PM on September 26, 2002

Cecil Adams knows all, even how the exception proves the rule. Or doesn't.

World Wide Words also weighs in.
posted by GaelFC at 4:58 PM on September 26, 2002

Monsters walk among us. Film at eleven.

Seriously folks, beyond the rubbernecking shock-horror factor, all front-page-of-The-Sun, why are people so freaked out by animals like this? You walk by them each and every day on the street, and if you could divine their innermost thoughts, you'd flee, screaming.

Suggestions that we put them to death (which are certainly appropriate in this kind of case, if we are to allow that the death penalty is less barbaric than the crime) and expressions of outrage are all fine and understandable, but I must say it surprises me how people rear back in shock and amaze when another hellspawn like this guy pops up.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:07 PM on September 26, 2002

So what will killing this guy accomplish? I have a feeling it won't stop future newborn rapists... all it will fulfill is the primal urge for vengeance. Moral hypocrisy at its worse.
posted by geoff. at 5:37 PM on September 26, 2002

Apparently, there are people who rape babies because they believe having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. These are ostensibly sane people. I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I do believe that these monstrous humans (and the evil man described in the FPP) should be removed from normal human contact for the rest of their lives. The phrase "life without the possibility of parole" was invented for these awful people.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:47 PM on September 26, 2002

I must say it surprises me how people rear back in shock and amaze when another hellspawn like this guy pops up.

I hope that anytime I hear of a man like this I am shocked. The day I am not means I have accepted it as predictable human behavior. Maybe it is and I am just not that enlightened or maybe I dont want to give up my faith in humanity.


What is your suggestion for justice geoff? is justice a "Moral hypocrisy"?
posted by Recockulous at 5:55 PM on September 26, 2002

Not necessarily hypocritical, geoff--laws like those of Hammurabi sort of fulfill the primal urge for vengeance while they enforce social order.

Of course, one hopes that some social institutions have developed since the time of Hammurabi.

I guess there was no info in the article about whether this guy fits into the sex-with-a-virgin-cures-Aids category?
posted by goethean at 5:57 PM on September 26, 2002

goethean: I guess there was no info in the article about whether this guy fits into the sex-with-a-virgin-cures-Aids category?

As best as I can tell with my high school French, this guy is just plain psychotic.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:08 PM on September 26, 2002

So what will killing this guy accomplish? I have a feeling it won't stop future newborn rapists...

No, but it will ensure that we never have to deal with this one ever again.

As a rule i agree with the death penalty, but i think that there are occasionally times that it, as a punishment, is insufficient. What i would like to see is a form of incarceration that provided complete isolation. The removal of the convicted's right to speak, interact or even see another human for the rest of their lives.

Put them in a box, and feed them. No music, no books, no TV, nothing. A plain white box. For the rest of their lives.

That is something i would accept as a punishment fitting a crime like this.
posted by quin at 6:48 PM on September 26, 2002

Recockulous, it's only hypocritical to those who are saying, "well usually I don't believe in the death penalty but...".

I really don't want to start a big debate here, but unlike Hammurabi's time, we have the capacity to prevent people from doing further harm to society (which was what goethean was alluding to).

What if this man is later diagnosed as having some type of disease that maybe treatable and contained. While I'm not going to be this man's advocate, and as of right now I see life in prison as the best option for him, it may not be the best option in the future.

If we have the ability to jail him for life and in the future possibly even treat him (even if it doesn't mean release), isn't that a much more humane alternative? Or have I turned into a baby raping advocate? Anyone want to help me out in not advocating a public lynching this guy? How about some of you "whoever hasn't sinned may throw the first stone" Christians? Anyone?
posted by geoff. at 6:57 PM on September 26, 2002

A Vietnamese guy I know once said that in Vietnam, someone who commits a crime so serious which would warrant life emprisonment in an other country, gets a death sentence, because the view is that a bullet costs less than feeding a prisoner til he dies of old age.

I have no opinion on that, but some of you might.
posted by titboy at 7:03 PM on September 26, 2002

It is very hard not to feel any compassion for the poor child raped by her father, it is difficult not to wish him an horrible agony and slow death.

But if we do so, we become as inhuman as he is. No matter what somebody would like us to belive, we are animals, but intelligent animals that are slowly learning how not to be brutal, how to live our life while respecting other humans needs , will and freedom.

The advocates of death penality just don't understand thatNO MAN AND NO GOD can be judge of anybody else lifestyle. Of course WE REJECT such inhuman brutaly, the rape of our own childs, because we're the most intelligent animals on earth. No other animal has ever built flying machines, isn't that an evidence of intelligence ?

Obviously, that man is human but isn't a civilized human.

Given that we want to live in a civilized society, where brutality, slavery, violence and rape are forbidden and punished, the worst punishment we can afford without using any brutality is:

1) lifetime imprisonment, even if he's not guilty because
of his insanity, given that he's a way too dangerous man.

2) work for food : he's going to break rocks, dig sand, or do anything else in uncomfortable environments for the rest of his life. He can choose to work or to starve to death. No work, no food. Medics will take care of his health so that he lives ALL his natural life in prison and working. That scares much more then death, just imagine what would you choose: a life of freedom, were you can even choose to steal if you don't want to work, or a life where you can only work or die, and you have no other freedoms.

Somebody may argue that this is borderline brutality : it's highly debatable , but I believe that it is better then death expecially when any judge can fail , but there is no coming back from death, you can't repair any error, too late.
posted by elpapacito at 7:24 PM on September 26, 2002

Anyone want to help me out in not advocating a public lynching this guy?

I do not believe the state has a right to take anyone's life. Period.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:29 PM on September 26, 2002

What would be eversonice would be to remove this fellow from society, and replace him with someone more deserving of a Western-style life. Like, say, any one of the millions of starving in the southern part of Africa.

Hell, I bet this guy lives the typical Western lifestyle that would easily support a dozen or more of the starving Africans. Let's swap them 'round: bring a dozen Africans to France, and put the sicko in the refugee camp.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:45 PM on September 26, 2002

geoff: I agree with you, as you can read in my previous writing. There is still one problem that puzzles me a little: somebody says the death penalty is the best deterrent against violent crimes because we all think death is the
worst that can happen to us. Yet, they don't seem to be
scared by the fact that some error may happen and they
could be sentenced to death even if they're innocent, otherwise they would strongly oppose death penalty.
This total , unconditional trust of "the system" scares
the hell out of me. So the problem is, how can we remove
this blind trust ?
posted by elpapacito at 7:52 PM on September 26, 2002

elpapacito: It is very hard not to feel any compassion for the poor child raped by her father, it is difficult not to wish him an horrible agony and slow death.

But if we do so, we become as inhuman as he is. No matter what somebody would like us to belive, we are animals, but intelligent animals that are slowly learning how not to be brutal, how to live our life while respecting other humans needs , will and freedom.

I completely agree, and I hope no one misunderstood my statements above. My meaning was that people like this guy make it hard to oppose the death penalty, but I'm still opposed to it, even if it's not gutturally satisfying. That's kind of the whole point of being opposed to the death penalty.
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:55 PM on September 26, 2002

Killing is easy. People do it every day. The hard thing is to always oppose a death penalty.

Doing so is also, in my mind, one of the few things that separates us from animals.

And I say that as a person who loves animals.
posted by yhbc at 8:06 PM on September 26, 2002

I do not believe the state has a right to take anyone's life. Period.

what about the angry mobs?
posted by trioperative at 8:10 PM on September 26, 2002

tri, that's also called "lynching". It's usually frowned on as well.
posted by yhbc at 8:12 PM on September 26, 2002

And I say that as a person who loves animals.
*cough*
posted by quonsar at 8:16 PM on September 26, 2002

why are people so freaked out by animals like this? You walk by them each and every day on the street, and if you could divine their innermost thoughts, you'd flee, screaming

How would you know, unless you're speaking of your own thoughts.
posted by semmi at 10:22 PM on September 26, 2002

Best cross the street when you see me then, eh semmi?

(Lame attempt at an ad hominem, there, buddy.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:06 PM on September 26, 2002

How would you not know unless you're making excuses for your own?

Thoughts are thoughts are thoughts are thoughts. Though we may not like the image this story thrusts into our immediate consciousness, we're now also having the thoughts of what detestable urges this man must have been overcome with when he experimented with his free will. Free will, we all have it. Those who deny that any thought is possible, at all possible times, by any given person are perhaps they who must be steered clear from the most. How would I know? Because I have OCD.
posted by crasspastor at 11:28 PM on September 26, 2002

"I do not believe the state has a right to take anyone's life. Period."

Well I do. And considering you've not backed up your statement my opinion just voided yours.
posted by ed\26h at 1:47 AM on September 27, 2002

No other animal has ever built flying machines, isn't that an evidence of intelligence?

What if they just don't want to fly? I mean, no other animal builds nuclear bombs either... that's pretty intelligent.
posted by digiboy at 3:11 AM on September 27, 2002

elpapacito says: The advocates of death penality just don't understand thatNO MAN AND NO GOD can be judge of anybody else lifestyle.

As an advocate of the death penatly, I must disagree with you. I understand that it is not my place to judge another's so-called "lifestyle." But when that "lifestyle" breaks the laws of a civilized society, I believe that society (through its criminal justice system) must judge that person accordingly. A trial, a verdict, and then a sentence.

Your statement is, on its face, naive. The fact is, we judge others all the time. It is in our nature as human beings. You who are reading this now are judging me just as I judge you when I read your comments.
posted by tommyspoon at 5:01 AM on September 27, 2002

digiboy: yeah the definition of intelligence is broad as you imply , and not building nukes is definitely a wise choice, but not a sign of intelligence. There are a lot of wise man who say "no to war or nukes" and I agree with them, yet in a war all they could build is probably a slingshot.

And I only know one species of animals that do farming or the equivalent of "cattle" breeding , they're ants . Almost all the others I know die if climatic conditions are such that their food isn't avaiable. Now you could argue that "maybe they don't want to survive" too and that's ok, they don't WANT ; but they also don't have other chances either, we humans do.

Tommy: we gave ourself justice system because we want ourselves and others to respect some basic or complex rules that we agree to , like "you must not rape" one. I personally agree that rape is bad so I support the law that doesn't allow any raping. But somebody else may disagree and say "rape is good" : all we can do is saying "if you do then leave our system or we'll send you to prison if you rape somebody" and that's fine with me. But a final, irrevocable verdict a judge may express would be valid only in our system, not in others. That's why I say no man and no god can judge anybody else lifestyle because, given that at then every individual is a system different from others (even if similar it's not the exactly the same), we can say that he is right or wrong IN our system, but not in his one . In other words our judgment has no universal value.

And given that, at the end, we know that if we kill one person we're destroying his system=life forever (almost every human except some religious people will agree with me) we can't be judges of different system AND by our judgment kill them. We'll put them in prison, or give them chance to leave our system, but we just can't kill them because we disagree with them.
posted by elpapacito at 5:49 AM on September 27, 2002

"I do not believe the state has a right to take anyone's life. Period."

Well I do. And considering you've not backed up your statement my opinion just voided yours.


Gee, Ed, I was just trying to give geoff. some support and be succinct. It seems like we have had this death penalty discussion so often. I believe my reasons against have already been voiced by others but a quick overview:

1.) Our justice system is good, but not infallible. See:This Case Study published by the National institute of Justice with an Introduction by Janet Reno on the examples of 28 people convicted by juries but exonerated by DNA evidence.

2.) The taking of the life of a defenceless person is murder whether it is done by the state or not. When the state kills someone, we all have blood on our hands, and I for one would not be capable of "throwing the switch" or putting the noose around someone's neck.

3.) The death penalty is not a deterrent. No matter how many executions there are in a given year (from 0 to 56) the national murder rate stays about the same. Also, death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states. During the early 1970's death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.9 criminal homicides per 100,000 population; abolitionist states averaged a rate of 5.1

These are my main arguments; there are many others, just as I am sure you have many arguments for. It took me a long time (at least 15 years) and a lot of thought before making up my mind. I hope you have been as careful in making up yours.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:49 AM on September 27, 2002

I just don't think killing someone is the worst thing you can do to them. If I had a choice between 30 or 40 years of prison, never seeing the sun or having any privacy, and a nice quiet lethal injection I'd go for the needle every time.

This guy should suffer for a long time.
posted by JoanArkham at 7:53 AM on September 27, 2002

Secret Life of Gravy:

I fully agree with point no. 1. I'd only support it for very extreme crimes where there isn't even the sligtest doubt whatsoever.

With regards to point two, no it isn't murder as it isn't unlawful, however conveniently dramatic the word sounds. I do like the way you thrown in the term "defenseless" as a bit of emotional coercion though. Almost makes the baby rapist sound cute and fluffy don't it? :)

Point three, the murder rate probably stays the same because you consider executions to BE murders. That may be a little pedantic I admit, but I don't think the function of the death sentence in this instance at least would be as a deterant anyway.
posted by ed\26h at 9:15 AM on September 27, 2002