Toddler found living in car boot

[Zed]

I don't even know how to start this. It's probably the most sick, disgusting story I've heard in a long time. Just when we thought we had seen it all. I'm at a loss of words. What do you think?

[Nomad]

As a father, that was a pretty horrifying read. I don't know how anyone could do such a thing with a child and think it's OK. The worst part is not even that the mother was neglectful or intentionally abusive, but that she apparently acted as if what was going on wasn't terrible.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the mindset and having a hard time. Supposedly had the child in secret and was keeping her secret for whatever reason I suppose in some wild cases could be explained with reason, but keeping her in a car trunk is not even on any list I could think of for reasonable places to raise a kid in secret. I mean, sure, sometimes I wish I could lock my kid in a small space without consequence, but realistically every thing about it is immediately obviously and decidedly a bad decision.

It sounds like she spent a lot of time in the car, I assume taking care of the child but the development problems she supposedly has suggests little to no care was involved. I just don't get it.

[Krispy]

Boot = trunk: Ok, now I get it.

Cases of “feral children" pop up pretty much everywhere. They all suffer from malnourishment, have been locked up in a small room of some sort (a trunk is pretty extreme), and have developmental disorders. This girl is probably going to grow up mentally retarded. It's kind of hard to imagine the reasoning behind something like this, so I think it's just easier to say the mother was batshit crazy.

[Marnetmar]

I'm honestly at a loss for words after reading that, holy fuck.

[Waffenak]

World is filled with sick things and most of them are never uncovered

[Technician]

They already have three kids, so I guess they thought it best to keep a spare in the trunk.

You know, in case of an emergency.

[Maes]

A couple of little details that none so far mentioned:
The mother told police she had given birth in secret and hidden the baby's existence from everyone, including her partner, the girl's father.

...

The couple, who were both of Portuguese origin and both unemployed, lived in a village about 10 kilometres from the garage where the baby was found.

Not to justify their actions or stigmatize the Portuguese (who I feel for), but expect to see more and more of that in the years to come. There's MUCH more where this came from. Uncontrollable debt crises, practically inexistent social security nets, and a "European Union" which is such only in the most metaphorical and least inconvenient sense (basically, the only tangible aspect is -usually- not being held/questioned as long as non-EU citizens when crossing borders, otherwise you're treated just like any other foreigner- all contribute to such sad stories, and it's not even the worst of what's possible.

Actually, it's not even just a EU crisis-linked problem: I'm sure that if you probe the headlines of every local newspaper in every backwater or depressed area of the USA, you will find similar in not worse stories everyday.

Edit: Oh, and 11000th post, FWIW.

[geo]

Krispy said:

Boot = trunk: Ok, now I get it.

Yeah I was so confused too.

There were recently 4 kids found living alone in the US with their dead parents. They had been living for 4 years with their dead parents. The kids were 4 - 7 and none were able to really speak, just grunt. The radio reporting the news said... so it was like the movie 'Nell.' They were living on a diet of grass and the moisture from grass. The water, gas and heat in their house was shut off. Their parents had died of OD, because they were crackheads. I tried looking for an article on it, but I'm not exactly sure what to look for... 4 grunting children living with dead parents?

[Coopersville]

Pretty damn stupid. Sounds like they caught my ex-girlfriend finally.

[Koko Ricky]

They're only facing up to 10 years in prison? That's almost more disgusting than what they did to their child. For something like that, they deserve death and nothing else. People like that contribute nothing to society other than causing pain and misery.

[Technician]

GoatLord said:

They're only facing up to 10 years in prison? That's almost more disgusting than what they did to their child. For something like that, they deserve death and nothing else. People like that contribute nothing to society other than causing pain and misery.

Jesus, the Portuguese aren't THAT bad.

[Gez]

Death penalty has been abolished for over 30 years (since 1981) in the country where it happened. Furthermore, it is now forbidden (since 2007) by the local Constitution. Finally, it is also forbidden at the EU level by Charter of Fundamental Rights (since 2009).

[Zed]

Gez said:

Death penalty has been abolished for over 30 years (since 1981) in the country where it happened. Furthermore, it is now forbidden (since 2007) by the local Constitution. Finally, it is also forbidden at the EU level by Charter of Fundamental Rights (since 2009).

Yeah, and I don't agree with the death penalty even in this cases. But giving them only 10 years is offensive.

[Technician]

But why is it they? Didn't the article state the boyfriend had no idea what the fuck was going on?

[Zed]

Honestly, I don't believe that. Either he's lying or is a complete idiot. 9 months of pregnancy, with the obvious physical consequences in his partner, and more than a year with a child in their car and he didn't notice? The woman, as mentioned, was always seen near his car. The neighbors noticed it, and he didn't? The other day a spider appeared in a "remote" corner of my house. I'm sure it wasn't there a week ago. If I can notice such a little change in a place I almost never visit, even a complete moron can notice the presence of another human being nearby, especially with the smell it surely had (he was found, according to the article "lying in her own excrement").

[Koko Ricky]

Zed said:

Yeah, and I don't agree with the death penalty even in this cases. But giving them only 10 years is offensive.

I'm a bit extreme in this sense. If someone so deliberately tortures or kills other human beings with no regard for said subject's well being (I'm not counting military personnel, because war is, for now, a disgusting and necessary evil) then it is unlikely such a person will be able to function in a non-harmful way in society. It will save time, money and space to simply exterminate people of that nature.

[Maes]

GoatLord said:

If someone so deliberately tortures or kills other human beings with no regard for said subject's well being....

Am I the only one to see a gruesome flaw with this formulation (the rest of your post aside)? What about professional torturers employed by secret police forces of certain regimes? They are specifically trained to do just what you described: cause as much pain to an an individual as possible, but taking care not to do irreversible (or at least detectable) damage, if it can be avoided (though in some cases they show much less tact and sensitivity), and they are tolerated/encouraged just like soldiers fighting foreign hostiles, even if they usually operate against their own people. Careful what you wish for...

The problem with handing out death sentences or endorsing official torture too eagerly is that you are also at risk of getting the short end of the stick, someday. Would you advocate in favor of torture/death sentence in a society that you'd have to live in? Because it's very easy to play it tough with other people's cojones and say "Yeah, fuck them up!" when it's others' faces that will be stomped....

Plus, your argument about some people being terminally beyond redemption ("criminally insane", "dysfunctional", "unfit", "a burden" etc.) relies on long-ago discredited phrenogic theories (e.g. Lombroso's criminality theories) and can very easily degenerate into full-blown pogrom, eugenics, zero-tolerance, witch-hunts etc. which again, look fun and just as long as you can evoke them safely on others, without your little ass even being put on the line.

[Koko Ricky]

Maes, you make some good points, and I can't help but agree with them to an extent, but I was not talking about people whose official job involves torture and killing. That's a sticky grey area and I really don't know how that should be handled. I'm talking about sadistic criminals who go around murdering and torturing others, not soldiers or secret police forces. You know what I'm talking about.

You speak of "long-ago discredited phrenogic theories," and while I'm unfamiliar with said theories, I recognize the point you're making. In reality, a lot of these criminals can probably be rehabilitated with enough help and time. But I'd rather they be put to death, because all they're really doing is wasting space, oxygen, money, time and resources. I have a habit of dehumanizing individuals and reducing them to excrement when they kill/torture others for pleasure. At that point they've pretty much lost their right to live and the "eye for an eye" method suddenly makes a lot of sense. Did I mention I'm Texan? I'm sure that has something to do with my view.

I'd also like to add that, yes, it is easy for me to have this perspective when it's not my ass on the line. But if I were to kill/torture someone for pleasure--and really, there's utterly no justification for me do behave this way--then I would expect death to follow. I would have no right to live if I were that sort of degenerate.

[Maes]

GoatLord said:

You speak of "long-ago discredited phrenogic theories," and while I'm unfamiliar with said theories, I recognize the point you're making.

Well, a good place to start is reading up on Cesare Lombroso's theories.

Lombroso rejected the established Classical School, which held that crime was a characteristic trait of human nature. Instead, using concepts drawn from physiognomy, early eugenics, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's theory of anthropological criminology essentially stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal" could be identified by physical defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage, or atavistic.

As tempting as it is to lump a particularly heinous criminal in this ugly bunch, this is considered a totally discredited theory.

GoatLord said:

I have a habit of dehumanizing individuals and reducing them to excrement when they kill/torture others for pleasure. At that point they've pretty much lost their right to live and the "eye for an eye" method suddenly makes a lot of sense. Did I mention I'm Texan? I'm sure that has something to do with my view.

Try watching the 70s Italian documentary "Savage Man, Savage Beast", it tries to explain several aspects of human nature, especially regarding violence. While delibarately sensationalist, it does have some good points, in particular the one that Man rationalized and accepts violence and killings (and even torture) if they are put in a context of performing a "sacred function" within a society, and if they are controlled and ritualized. Criminals/deviants can be seen as individuals that don't respect those set limits, even if they are not doing anything different than what is acceptable even in civilized society within a framework of traditions, customs, rules, etc., the main difference being that their actions are random, unpredictable and outside of "The Law".

E.g. a torturer working for the state == Good. Somebody torturing randomly == Bad. Police shooting on a crowd = Good. A school/spree shooter == Bad. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine what the differences between the two cases are.

Zed said:

9 months of pregnancy, with the obvious physical consequences in his partner....

FUN FACT: From a certain degree of obesity and beyond, it's actually very difficult to tell the difference between the "before" and the "after" states, ESPECIALLY if you have better things to do than look at the woman all the time. Haven't seen a photo of the woman yet, but if she turns out to be some kind of a whale, it'd be at least justifiable.

I liked it how certain news broadcasts mention how such pregnancies often go unnoticed (usually in connection with poor/lumpen families that discover that their fat ugly 16 yo daughter is suddenly 9 months pregnant, and then the father/brethren go batshit/murderous on the perp) and they try to put it as delicately as possible: "Due to the girl's particular body conformation, it was made possible for the pregnancy to go largely (pun intended) undetected".

Spoiler

FWIW, this EXACT scenario is dramatized in the movie "Last Exit To Brooklyn".

[Zed]

GoatLord said:

But I'd rather they be put to death, because all they're really doing is wasting space, oxygen, money, time and resources. I have a habit of dehumanizing individuals and reducing them to excrement when they kill/torture others for pleasure. At that point they've pretty much lost their right to live and the "eye for an eye" method suddenly makes a lot of sense.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think is a better idea to rehabilitate them, even if this cannot be fully/successfully accomplished. Why? I think every crime can be avoided if we know enough about it. For example (I'm giving an "easy" example for simplicity's sake), if we can correlate car theft with poverty, we might as well give people jobs/options rather than punishing them right away. In the same line, if we want to prevent this kind of crimes (talking about the child), we have a better chance of understanding how/why it happened if we, for example, "study" the woman's brain instead of giving her the lethal injection or locking her up for a hundred years. Some kind of "obligatory treatment" if you wish. We might not be able to "cure" her, but without doubt we will learn something useful in the process, and might eventually understand it fully and act according to that.

Besides, for me, justice is not revenge.

[Koko Ricky]

I loathe revenge. So I can see how what I'm talking about is unquestionably a form of revenge. I guess for me, it's an ugly but easy solution to the problem of violent criminal behavior. It probably would do a world of good to put these folks under scanners that can tell us something about how their brains work.

But then you have psychopaths. Those folks who do not seem to possess the compassion and sense of morality that are found in most humans. These are the people that reflect on their horrific crimes with no remorse; they may even laugh about it. Scanning their brains could reveal some very helpful patterns, but should we even try to rehabilitate them? Individuals that are that far gone seem unlikely to ever be functional in society.

Maes's comments on justifying one form of murder/torture and condemning another is very interesting, and makes the grey area nature of it that much more confusing.

[Maes]

About "concealed pregnancy", once again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19660845

And yes, obesity can be ONE of the causes for it to go unnoticed. What tact, I know.

Again, I'm surprised that at least Yankees here don't show a greater understanding for the couple's situation: they are both unemployed economic migrants from an economically destroyed country (Portugal), and none of them is exactly a high upwards social mobility breadwinner. In Greece, we have a saying: "Η φτώχεια φέρνει γκρίνια" ("Poverty causes grumbling"), but extreme/prolonged/sudden impoverishment and desperation can cause much more than just grumbling, including an apparent "loss of humanity". Usually people suffering from the crisis pride themselves of not having become e.g. apathetic, deviants, fascists, arrivists, calculating opportunists etc. despite it all but some people just can't cope with it all.

In the USA, such people, to my understanding, usually end up in trailer parks and/or as drunkards/meth addicts, and you certainly have your fair share of similar stories even in Good Old America, even involving "methheads' babies" that get neglected or even ODed along with their parents. I don't know if you came to consider such events normal in any way, and consider them "impossible" outside of the USA. Well, they are not. But usually such people get dismissed as "fucked-up methheads" in the USA, why so much rage over this one couple?

[Koko Ricky]

Damn, Maes, you're on fire. Once again you make some excellent points. Poverty breeds ill behavior and this is true across all ethnic groups and in every corner of the world. But to what extent should we sympathize with people living in shit conditions? Undeniably, some very ugly behavior patterns will likely emerge from such desperation. But should we not blame them when they lose their humanity? Maybe it's weakness. Some people grow up in horrific conditions and turn out fine. Others become meth heads and neglect and/or abuse their children.

[Maes]

It's hard to provide an answer without bringing forward social darwinism at some point. It's VERY tempting to say that "those people were weak/unfit/couldn't hack it and so they brought their troubles upon themselves. Too bad for the baby, though", especially if you notice that "other people in their situation did just fine".

Perhaps that is the answer, at the end: most people "do fine" or at least manage to stay decent in such situations, but the relatively few ones that fail, do so catastrophically and dramatically.

Some groups of people are also used and organized for living (and even THRIVING) in these conditions ALL the time, e.g. Gypsies. They carry around numerous families, usually sleep/live in their vehicles, but they do have their own ethos, traditions, pride, rules, closely-knit clans/communities and manage to at least make end meets and not starve, though the means they use to make this happen don't always make them particularly welcome everywhere, and not everybody can successfully improvise himself a Gypsy. Even they are not immune from some tragic/gruesome stories, but most of them are consumed and stay concealed within their own communities.

Certainly, to a former-city dweller forced to hit the road due to poverty, the Gypsy must appear like super-adaptable nomadic and crafty Kings of the Road, able to make a living almost everywhere and rather than being hindered by their hordes of children, they turn them into a profit, but as I said, not everybody in need can improvise himself a Gypsy.

[Koko Ricky]

Social Darwinism might exist to a point. If it does, it has nothing to do with race/ethnicity, and likely is somewhat random, and possibly genetic if we're talking about mental disorders that tend to circulate within a given family. There's seven billion people on the planet; it's not hard to imagine that every one in so many has a dysfunctional mentality that makes it much more difficult for them to be civil or overcome adversity.

[Aliotroph?]

Maes said it better than I usually do. I don't want to give the state the authority to kill people it deems worthy. That never ends well, and you can't bring back the innocent.