'Hot sauce' mom child abuse trial begins

Date: 2011-08-18
Source: upi.com

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Aug. 18 (UPI) -- Opening statements began in the child abuse case against the Alaska "hot sauce" mom, whose televised punishment methods led to complaints and charges.

Jessica Beagley of Anchorage is accused of abusing her adopted Russian son by putting hot sauce in his mouth and forcing him into a cold shower as punishment for bad behavior. Beagley, 36, faces a misdemeanor count of child abuse.

In her opening statement Wednesday, municipal prosecutor Cynthia Franklin told jurors the abuse case centered around videos Beagley sent to the nationally syndicated "Dr. Phil" show, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

Franklin said the tapes would show Beagley disciplining one of the twin boys she and her husband, an Anchorage police officer, had adopted from Russia by putting hot sauce in his mouth and placing him in a cold shower, the prosecutor said.

"You will see some of the videos Jessica Beagley made, including the one that was clipped up, put on 'Dr. Phil' and prompted the calls to [Anchorage police]," Franklin said.

The child was forced into the shower "here in Alaska, with the water tap turned all the way to cold," Franklin said.

Beagley's lawyer, William Ingaldson, said the case wasn't about whether his client "used a punishment that you or I would use. … It's about Jessica Beagley being charged with criminal child abuse."

For the punishment to be criminal, prosecutors must prove it was cruel, gratuitous and done with the intent to inflict pain, among other things, Ingaldson said. None of the criteria fit the case, he said.

"She wanted to be and still wants to be a good mom," Ingaldson said.

7
Average: 7 (1 vote)

Types of discipline and punishment

Interesting statement:

For the punishment to be criminal, prosecutors must prove it was cruel, gratuitous and done with the intent to inflict pain, among other things,

I get confused with the cases we present... it seems one person's 'discipline' is another person's 'punishment', making things like child abuse/cruelty towards a child very subjective.

I find it very interesting the defendant's lawyer does not think Tabasco poured into a child's mouth, as a means to discipline, is NOT cruel.... or at the very least done with the intention to inflict pain.    If that's the case, I'd sure hate as hell to live in the home where pouring Tabasco in a child's mouth is a perfectly acceptable way to discipline a child.

Perhaps the jury ought to ask the lawyer, or defendant, to demonstrate how NOT painful the punishments the mother chose to use on her adopted child really are. 

BDSM Socitey: who gets 2 say they love/punish/discipline whom??

That is the elephant in the room.

The other day I was musing about this same idea. When discussing single parent (read: socially inferior) thuglets in training in the inner city ghetto and barrio, they trot out the concept of tough love. Michele Bachmann's pervert choir queen husband Marcus recently spoke of treating suspected lgbt children as barbarians who need discipline, as to force them into the appearance of conformism. (In the above case, it goes without saying just which children will be adminstered such discipline. For their own good, because their parents love them über Alles, of course.)

When it comes to other kids, helicopter suburb class-anxiety parents will sue because the teacher laughed at their religious beliefs in public. Personally, I take the same attitude towards APs and PAPs because i see the same pathology at work: children are objects and part of the wealth, and what the state has to do with it. Any bad object is a public show of the parent's bad investment strategies.

Michel Foucault touched on some of these things in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

And hey, so did Pink Floyd's The Wall.

A lot of Foucault's ideas on punishment, care, and state actors influenced my own impacted cynicism about parents and children. Reading him in the 90s prepped me for the case files of PPL in the 00s/10s. He was talking about some messed up stuff in the 70s, when he wrote that.

Points for people to consider

Not that long ago, an AP and I were discussing the type of child many adopters seek, and how this translates into everyday conversation.  This one particular AP admitted to me another AMother told her,  "The child you have should never have been adopted."  Why?  Because the child has so many problems.

What?

What does this mean?

A healthy child deserves an American family, but a child who has been neglected and abused does not deserve a concerned and dedicated family because the problems and complications are too many?

Seriously... is this how adopters think?

Of course, it should come as no surprise, the ideal adopted child is without illness, without history of abuse/trauma, and the adoptable child is under the age of five.  This magic combination should make parenting almost like parenting a "normal" child...you know, one birthed from the uterus, not the heart.

It's funny when these things in Adoptionland are said to an adoptee.

There was a day when people would look at the adopted child and think:  Orphan; the child's parents are gone... no family, no inheritance, no wealth... poor, poor thing.  Maybe if the child is lucky (and good), that child will be given a new family.

Nowadays, the adopted child is seen with so many labels, it's a wonder anyone can remember there is a child full of loss, inside.  Over the life-span of the adoption industry, we have seen a change in public opinion, and I do not believe the morphing change and stigma associations have been to the benefit of the child.  On one hand, the general public is to believe adoptable children are "regular" "normal" children lacking family and love, and all they need is a parent and a home.  The general public is not to do the math that says adopted child = bad news.

MC, your comment really struck a loud chord in my mind.

Personally, I take the same attitude towards APs and PAPs because i see the same pathology at work: children are objects and part of the wealth, and what the state has to do with it. Any bad object is a public show of the parent's bad investment strategies.

I believe the PPL cases help prove far too many people are going into adoption with the wrong image and mind-set as it should relate to good loving parenting and the purpose behind adoption.  When adoption advocates claim adoption is about finding parents for children, I think who in the right mind would ever choose adoptive candidates who look at children as objects?  Sadly, we see this type of adoption taking place all the time, and it's exampled in comments like, "The child with many problems should never be adopted in the first place."

The logical result of the mini-messiah complex?

When adoption advocates claim adoption is about finding parents for children, I think who in the right mind would ever choose adoptive candidates who look at children as objects?  Sadly, we see this type of adoption taking place all the time, and it's exampled in comments like, "The child with many problems should never be adopted in the first place."

Flip side of that:  Look at me!!!! Look what I found/saved/rescued! [ticks off everything deemed wrong and undesirable about the child, one martyr point per line item]

I am such a messiah!

Worthy of more study

I often wonder how mega-adoption affects the messiah effect.

It seems the more a person adopts, the more children, the more "dramatic' the story, the more extreme the AP seems.  [Peruse the over-emotional blogs, for confirmation.].

Tell me, what are the AP's getting out of such adoption stories?

Pound Pup Legacy