"Would You Murder Someone Who Molested Your Kid?" or "Should This Father Be Jailed?"

[Seil]

-zvGOW6v1eE

Obviously, vigilante justice is illegal - A Time To Kill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O90-DO9P6q0) (should've) proved that. But I think you'd be hard pressed not to find a sympathetic jury.

[Bells]

You can be as Sumpathetic as you want, it still doesn't make it right.

You can even go and say that the guy deserved, and i think you would be hard pressed to find someone to disagree with you on that... but killing him still isn't right.

Not that in the middle of fury base bloodlust i would ever expect a father in that situation to know when he gave a punch too many, i wouldn't say he set out to simply murder someone by punches. But, he did it.

To be honest... death is the easy way out. Yeah, one less creep out there. One more leech taking cash to survive until he dies in a concrete hole by himself, alone and isolated... but murdering him only gave him a few minutes of pain followed by absolutely nothing because he is fucking dead. Then what? You didn't undo what he did. You may have stopped him from ever doing it again, but jail can accomplish that too... even therapy in some cases... just tossing people in a jail system full of cracks and creases is not going to do a whole lot of good either...

Still doesn't make cold (or hot) blooded murder ok though...

[Flarecobra]

Put him in prison. Let him be the prison bitch.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

not that I will have kids, but if I did and someone bad touched: would crush the bonangles out of them. permanent type harm.

if they did more than the bad touch..yeah, I'd hunt the fucker down.

[Seil]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/Poetisch/url_zps7330966c.png

[RobinStarwing]

not that I will have kids, but if I did and someone bad touched: would crush the bonangles out of them. permanent type harm.

if they did more than the bad touch..yeah, I'd hunt the fucker down.

"Molester? What Molester? I don't know of any one molesting my kid."

And they would never find the scumbag ever....

[Flarecobra]

By the way. Rusty cheese grater... and said molester's junk.

I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

[Azisien]

If I caught them in the moment, yes I would.

If I found out about it after the fact, I would think dearly about it, and probably plan it, but you know, I would probably lose my entire life (my job, access to my kids I'm avenging) if I botched the assassination, and that wouldn't make it worth it. So probably no.

[Bells]

By the way. Rusty cheese grater... and said molester's junk.

I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

Or you could just watch the movie Hard Candy. It does the thinking for you pretty much.

[Amake]

The definition of murder is wrongful killing so no, that's probably not something you should do. In the heat of the moment, yes, it would certainly be understandable. But if you're going to kill someone on purpose, with forethought, you need to be sure that a) there's no other way to deal with your problem and b) that their death is worth more than their life to everyone involved. It quickly becomes apparent that you can't possibly know if killing someone is the right thing to do. And let's face it, even if it was possible to know these things you're probably biased on account of your personal involvement and couldn't possibly be more the wrong person to make that decision.

Sure there's a certain risk calculation to be made to determine the point at which killing a child molester to keep them from molesting children is the most reasonable course of action, but that would be proactive social engineering, and we're talking about reactive revenge, and we shouldn't confuse those two things because revenge is a bad idea that never works.

[RobinStarwing]

The definition of murder is wrongful killing so no, that's probably not something you should do. In the heat of the moment, yes, it would certainly be understandable. But if you're going to kill someone on purpose, with forethought, you need to be sure that a) there's no other way to deal with your problem and b) that their death is worth more than their life to everyone involved. It quickly becomes apparent that you can't possibly know if killing someone is the right thing to do. And let's face it, even if it was possible to know these things you're probably biased on account of your personal involvement and couldn't possibly be more the wrong person to make that decision.

Sure there's a certain risk calculation to be made to determine the point at which killing a child molester to keep them from molesting children is the most reasonable course of action, but that would be proactive social engineering, and we're talking about reactive revenge, and we shouldn't confuse those two things because revenge is a bad idea that never works.

Why not have it be both Social Engineering and Reactive Revenge? You are removing a dangerous element from society not just because it hurt you but also because it could hurt others besides you in the same way.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

If I caught them in the moment, yes I would.

If I found out about it after the fact, I would think dearly about it, and probably plan it, but you know, I would probably lose my entire life (my job, access to my kids I'm avenging) if I botched the assassination, and that wouldn't make it worth it. So probably no.

This, and I'd also have to consider due process. What if I go off on a half-cocked rumor and kill someone who ultimately wasn't at fault?

[Loyal]

Why not have it be both Social Engineering and Reactive Revenge? You are removing a dangerous element from society not just because it hurt you but also because it could hurt others besides you in the same way.

"Could" sounds like a dangerous word here.

[Magus]

This, and I'd also have to consider due process. What if I go off on a half-cocked rumor and kill someone who ultimately wasn't at fault?

I always have a good lol at this episode of Alfred Hitchcock presents:

t_gU6XPNsRw

Skip to 19:19 for the beginning of the lolz.

[Amake]

"Could" sounds like a dangerous word here.
"Because it hurt you" is the real danger, however. You may think you can do both things at the same time, but more likely you're going to use social engineering as an excuse to justify taking revenge, because you're not thinking clearly. And do you know how you can tell you're not thinking clearly? Because you want revenge.

[Seil]

Here is a news report on the story that's not a Youtube: (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/texas-dad-beats-his-daughters-child-molester-to-death-he-wont-be-charged/)

A Texas father walked in on his five-year-old daughter being molested and wasted no time in beating the man to death. The grand jury found the dad not guilty due to a state law that allows deadly force to be used to stop an aggravated sexual assault.

The incident occurred June 9th near Shiner, Texas. Someone spotted a farmhand, Jesus Flores carrying the girl into a secluded area and alerted the girl’s father. The concerned parent ran towards his daughters screams and found them both with their underwear off. He flew into a rage and beat Flores into unconsciousness. When he was sure the man was no longer a threat, he called 911 to report on the incident. ”Come on! This guy is going to die on me! I don’t know what to do.” he yelled.

The event was treated as a homicide but the father did not go to jail and will not be charged with a crime.

[Magus]

Well jeez Seil that was hardly premeditated. Straight-up manslaughter. Not surprised he's not getting convicted of anything given the circumstances besides.

[Amake]

Yeah, now we just have to wonder if this "stand your pants" law that permits killing rapists on the spot is something to embrace. Not that I'd like to resist the opportunity myself (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=983058), but I would expect to be punished for it.

[Magus]

Probably as long as no one is shot on the basis that they look like they might be going to rape someone.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Probably as long as no one is shot on the basis that they look like they might be going to rape someone.

So a week then.

[Osterbaum]

The US "justice" system has seemingly always had a raging hard on for revenge. Criminals are dehumanized and sentencing seems to be less concerned about rehabilitation than punishment or outright revenge. Maybe nobody is going to shed any tears for a child molester and maybe it was ok not to convict the father for what happened. But these decisions don't exist in a vacuum and they create a precedent. Think of that what you will.

In Finland the use of force for self-defense or the defense of other people or property is allowed, but the force used has to be deemed justifiable in proportion to the crime being defended against. I can guarantee you that beating someone to death after they've been prevented from doing whatever they were going to do would lead to a conviction. However in these cases the situation is often considered a mitigating factor and sentences will often be less than if convicted of the same crime (such as manslaughter) in different circumstances.

[Doc ock rokc]

In Texas we have a "Castle Claus," or the right to kill anyone trespassing on our property with intent.

so that means IF the girl was evidenced to be molested and the man is trespassing its a shut case. The father WILL go free (and probobly be monitored and forced into court mandated therapy)

Otherwise I think The case gets WAY more complicated. I would bet on manslaughter if the man was dead on the scene.

[Overcast]

By the very minor documentation I've read the man did about the best you can try to do after flying into a fit of murderous rage at someone trying to do something terrifying to what you hold dear. For some people you'd be hard pressed not to at least think of covering it up, but he called it in.

He likely should serve some punishment of manslaughter for the sake of telling people that while it is understandable what his reaction was, that killing, even when so inspired, is not how things are meant to be handled. This is Texas though.

If I would? In the heat of the moment probably, I couldn't help myself I'd be so scared and angry and chemically off my balance that I cannot imagine me going any other way. It feels like all the fears I have of having children coming into light.

But being who I am, and considering what I've been through if it were something I found out later I'd be more concerned with my child. I can't undo what has been done to them, but I can let them know that there is nothing wrong with them because of it. No pity, or anger, or anything. Just love and understanding. If I remember right it is what you need at that time. Which I feel is much more important than any revenge I can hope to muster.

[Aerozord]

From a non-legal perspective yea I dont blame the guy, probably do the same, but legally murder is murder. Admittedly this isn't murder either, more like manslaughter. Can't let motivation be a factor because its not a matter of "is it justified" its the issue of forcing prosecution to prove that it wasn't.

I believe in consequences and rehabilitation. A life has been lost due to your choices thus you must accept punishment for them.

On the rehabilitation side, I'm betting the sentence will be light for a manslaughter charge and assuming his mental health is stable he'd probably be released early. Legally, I think he should be jailed, but also think he should get a light sentence

[Inbred Chocobo]

The US "justice" system has seemingly always had a raging hard on for revenge. Criminals are dehumanized and sentencing seems to be less concerned about rehabilitation than punishment or outright revenge. Maybe nobody is going to shed any tears for a child molester and maybe it was ok not to convict the father for what happened. But these decisions don't exist in a vacuum and they create a precedent. Think of that what you will.

In Finland the use of force for self-defense or the defense of other people or property is allowed, but the force used has to be deemed justifiable in proportion to the crime being defended against. I can guarantee you that beating someone to death after they've been prevented from doing whatever they were going to do would lead to a conviction. However in these cases the situation is often considered a mitigating factor and sentences will often be less than if convicted of the same crime (such as manslaughter) in different circumstances.


Here is another concern I have heard people talk about in Georgia at least. A person tries to rob your place, and you defend yourself, everyone believes it is better to outright kill the intruder than to injury them, as if you injury them what could happen is the intruder could turn around and sue you for injuries caused.

So now that people have fear that you can be sued by the intruder, people are starting to get the idea its better to just outright kill someone so that they cannot do anything else, sue you or otherwise.

[Bells]

Here is another concern I have heard people talk about in Georgia at least. A person tries to rob your place, and you defend yourself, everyone believes it is better to outright kill the intruder than to injury them, as if you injury them what could happen is the intruder could turn around and sue you for injuries caused.

So now that people have fear that you can be sued by the intruder, people are starting to get the idea its better to just outright kill someone so that they cannot do anything else, sue you or otherwise.

Dead man tell no tales.

Also, i recall cases where not only that actually happened but there are at least a couple where the robber actually won.

[Krylo]

The US "justice" system has seemingly always had a raging hard on for revenge. Criminals are dehumanized and sentencing seems to be less concerned about rehabilitation than punishment or outright revenge. Maybe nobody is going to shed any tears for a child molester and maybe it was ok not to convict the father for what happened. But these decisions don't exist in a vacuum and they create a precedent. Think of that what you will.

In Finland the use of force for self-defense or the defense of other people or property is allowed, but the force used has to be deemed justifiable in proportion to the crime being defended against. I can guarantee you that beating someone to death after they've been prevented from doing whatever they were going to do would lead to a conviction. However in these cases the situation is often considered a mitigating factor and sentences will often be less than if convicted of the same crime (such as manslaughter) in different circumstances.

A couple of things: First of all, the human body is fragile. It can take quite the beating to non-vital areas, but there are ways to very quickly and even accidentally end someone's life with your bare hands.

Secondly, you seem to assume this was a one way beating when we have nothing to back that up. What we know is that the father walked in on his daughter about to be raped, and assaulted the man who was going to do it. Any justice system wherein assaulting someone who is literally pants down and about to rape anyone, much less a child, isn't accepted is not one I can particularly endorse.

That said, the actual struggle we don't know about, what we DO know is that as soon as it was done and before the man died, the father called 9-1-1 and said (yelled actually), exactly this phrase, ”Come on! This guy is going to die on me! I don’t know what to do.” Read that, and tell me what the language and the yelling imply? Because to me they imply, by saying 'is going to die on me' and 'I don't know what to do' that the father had not intended to deal life threatening wounds, but had merely intended to incapacitate the man once combat had started, to avoid harm to either his daughter or himself.

Upon the man's incapacitation and apparent life threatening injuries, the father sought aid for a man who was about to rape his, very, underage daughter.

Given all of that, and given that he was actually brought to preliminary trials and the case was found to be not worth pursuing--not simply refusal to arrest or gather evidence as in other cases recently. Given this, what good would jailing him have done anyone?

Would it have helped to rehabilitate a man who already attempted to save the life of another man who was about to inflict grievous bodily and emotional harm onto his daughter? Would it have helped his daughter deal with the pain? Would society as a whole be better off with a, seemingly, well-adjusted and able person removed from the workforce?

What, possible, benefit could jailing him have? This isn't about anger at the molester. This is about the accused doing, as far as we can tell, everything right. Until some story comes out about how he beat the man incredibly severely for long minutes of pure rage, that invalidates this man showing obvious concern and worry for the health and well being of his daughter's molester when he called in, we can not assume that this decision was made out of spite for a pedophile.

[Amake]

Any justice system wherein assaulting someone who is literally pants down and about to rape anyone, much less a child, isn't accepted is not one I can particularly endorse.
I'm going to assume the law in Finland is essentially the same as in Sweden, where you can too assault someone in self defense, just not too much. You know how revenge is cool and anything is excusable as long as you do it to someone who wronged you first, as Oster touched on? That's how it doesn't work in our part of the world; there would be a trial to decide if the amount of force with which you defended against an attacker was justified or excessive. This sends the message that it's not okay to set yourself up as judge and executioner (we don't have juries) or the street as your courtroom.

[Krylo]

He did go to trial. After being investigated for murder. It didn't make it to jury trial, but that's not the same thing as not going to trial. It went to preliminary trials where it was decided it would not be pursued.

The whole thing happened AT THE SCENE OF THE WRONGING, and he called the police as soon as the man was no longer fighting back obviously worried about what might happen to him.

And I expressed multiple times that it's not about whether revenge is okay, as he, AGAIN, expressed concern over his victim's well being on his 9-1-1 call, despite what he did, and it's actually very easily to accidentally kill someone if you hit them in the wrong place during a struggle--temple, throat, etc.

Also: you fail to answer my question. What good comes of jailing him to literally anyone or anything?

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------

You know how revenge is cool and anything is excusable as long as you do it to someone who wronged you first, as Oster touched on?

Also, to you, Oster, and any other foreigners who feel like bringing this up: Stop it.

It's arrogant, condescending, and ridiculous, and isn't actually how the law works here. At all.

Just. Stop.

Edit: If you want to be condescending toward the people on the first page and a half, go ahead, I guess? Some of that was going a bit far. Just don't do it to me or the entire legal system of the country I live in when you aren't actually talking about things that are true. (This means you may be condescending toward it for for-profit systems, school to jail pipelines, bought off judges, drug laws, police. . . everything about police, jail as revenge instead of rehabilitation, etc.)

Edit 2: Actually going off the fact that Jails in the US are more for punishment and revenge than rehabilitation, I have to ask you two who claim to want to actually do what is right, why you would want this man jailed at all? It'd be different it prison systems were, you know, set up to rehabilitate and help offenders. I still wouldn't agree he needs to go to one given his actions directly proceeding from the lethal assault of the Jesus Flores, but at least it'd be somewhat understandable.

As it stands I have trouble seeing wanting him to go to prison as. . . anything really? What's the point?

[Overcast]

I don't really want to see him jailed inasmuch as fined myself. A punishment for killing another person, because if he didn't have life insurance that drops a bitter pill down on the survivors who represent him, if any. If he's lucky(in this theoretical scene) he was unliked and the family will only want enough to put him in the ground, buried without ceremony, only about 2k. Or they'll meet him halfway and go with cremation at 3, if they have the need they may ask for a full service, which on average is 8, but no matter what they can't get over 10, and honestly since it is their peers more than they judging this and considering the circumstances they'll stay low if at all.

Just a punishment to help ease the cost in destroying another person. Death is a cold, hard thing for anyone involved.

[Amake]

It's arrogant, condescending, and ridiculous, and isn't actually how the law works here. At all.

Just. Stop. It does look to me that's exactly how it works. Sure it's an exaggerated image manufactured by media for sensationalism, but that's not always easy to remember. Just then I was groping for some comparison to explain the concept of excessive self defense and that was all I could come up with, but I didn't mean to condescend, so I apologize for that.

As to the point that would be served by jailing this guy, killing someone without due process is not exactly in the spirit of the rule of law, no matter how obvious and horrible their crime. I'm not necessarily in favor of rule of law as an inherently good thing compared to rule of man, but if you're going to have it you should at least try to apply it fairly and equally. What happened to this rapist was not justice.

But no, I don't think creating another victim of the US prison system would be good for anyone. I mention how differently the system in this country looks at self defense so that you could see where I, and to some degree Osterbaum depending on if our systems are as similar as I think, are coming from when it apparently sounds like we think it's "unacceptable" to defend a rape victim; not because I think our system should be applied to this case.

[Osterbaum]

Also, to you, Oster, and any other foreigners who feel like bringing this up: Stop it.

It's arrogant, condescending, and ridiculous, and isn't actually how the law works here. At all.

Just. Stop.
I don't remember trying to be condescending when I wrote my above post. I'm not entirely sure where arrogance comes into play either, certainly I can comment negatively about the state of affairs in other countries. I'm not particularly fond of the US legal system (I'm not particularily fond of any current legal system actually) and I see no reason to hide that fact. I have lots of criticism for how some things are in Finland, but you don't see me going on about it on NPF because A) few people here would be quite as interested as I am and B) Finland doesn't quite have the same importance as the largest, most succesfull empire in the world.

But ok, maybe the image I have is wrong/incomplete. It is the image I get from news I read and watch and from the way I see americans talking about crime in general (including on NPF). Criminals are often ridiculed and dehumanized in any discourse that involves them. The way the legal system and the prison system treat criminals and prisoners seems to embody many of these attitudes. I don't particularily have any compassion for a child molester and I'm not interested in debating wether they deserve to die or not. It is however a fact that any such judgements do not exist in a vacuum and contribute to a certain kind of legal culture.

If you want to be condescending toward the people on the first page and a half, go ahead, I guess? Some of that was going a bit far. Just don't do it to me or the entire legal system of the country I live in when you aren't actually talking about things that are true. (This means you may be condescending toward it for for-profit systems, school to jail pipelines, bought off judges, drug laws, police. . . everything about police, jail as revenge instead of rehabilitation, etc.)
Even if my perception of the US legal system is wrong, it's not like I have a shortage of things to criticise about it. Though with many of these problems the narrative of the criminal as unfit for society is either a cause or an after-the-fact created justification for it in general.

Edit 2: Actually going off the fact that Jails in the US are more for punishment and revenge than rehabilitation, I have to ask you two who claim to want to actually do what is right, why you would want this man jailed at all?
I didn't say anything about wanting to see the man jailed. I offered criticism of the US justice system from my perspective, suggested at potential consequences of such policies and explained in short an alternative that I am familiar with.

[Krylo]

It does look to me that's exactly how it works. Sure it's an exaggerated image manufactured by media for sensationalism, but that's not always easy to rememberI'm honestly wondering how many cases this has kind of thing has received enough news coverage to reach out of the country? It just. . . revenge on the prosecution side, yes. I could see that.

But not on the side of releasing people who commit crimes. Actual revenge killings are normally prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and, as I mention, below, the vast majority of states have self-defense laws that do not allow the use of deadly force in all but the most severe circumstance.

That said. . .

As to the point that would be served by jailing this guy, killing someone without due process is not exactly in the spirit of the rule of law, no matter how obvious and horrible their crime.No, it isn't, but there are things called mitigating circumstances! They're built into the law on various levels and for various crimes. Though mostly violent ones, but not always. And they work to soften rule of law and allow it to be more flexibly applied.

Firstly: This man was attacking someone not purely to end another life or to rob him or for any of the other things we commonly associate with murder. He was doing it to stop an attack on someone else. This is not always a mitigating factor legally in every state in the US, but it is one in Texas and a few others. They're generally called Good Samaritan clauses.

Secondly: The man was not in a clear state of mind during the attack. This kind of plea usually will not get one off from a crime, but does generally result in greatly reduced sentencing if there's enough evidence that it was an emotionally stressful enough time that mistakes may have been made and the person in question does not actually require as severe a punishment.

Thirdly: The death was accidental. He was calling 9-1-1 and attempting to have the man saved. This, alone, makes this likely to have stepped down from homocide and into manslaughter.

And there may have been more mitigating factors as well. There's too many unknowns about the exact struggle between the father and Mr. Flores to really comment on that.

But what it comes down to is that a judge, and the DA, after the police collected evidence and investigated it as a homocide, decided that he did not use overbearing force. Whether he did or not, it's difficult to know.

Looking around for more stories I found this (http://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-texas-father-beat-death-daughters-molester/story?id=16612071). Edit1: found a better one with tape of the call.

Which says he struck the man several times in the head and throat, and made EVERY attempt to save Flores's life once he had calmed down. As I said earlier it's very easy to accidentally kill someone hitting them in the throat. This may not even have been the use of 'deadly force' as would normally be defined in most countries. Punching someone in the head a few times and catching them once in the throat is generally not seen as purposefully using deadly force, and intent does, indeed, matter quite a bit in most legal systems.

I'm honestly not sure why the idea of this being 'revenge' ever came up, given the story. Surely the father was angry, but it has always read to me as if his primary concern was getting the man away from his daughter, with some momentary and incidental emotional duress added to it. He offered to drive the man to the hospital himself when the 9-1-1 dispatcher was having difficulty finding the property and it was taking too long for the sheriffs to arrive.

These are not the acts of a man intent to kill another out of anger or spite.

That said, I did look into the law in question and it IS very broad. I believe it could use some pairing down, but considering he was brought before a grand jury, and the main reason they didn't prosecute him was that he was already remorseful, had always been remorseful over the attack even before knowing his victim had died, and had tried to get the man help were the primary reasons he wasn't prosecuted.

So, while the law might be a bit wide, it was certainly applied well in this case.

I don't remember trying to be condescending when I wrote my above post. I'm not entirely sure where arrogance comes into play either

For the record it is only this part, specifically I was complaining about, specifically in response to self defense laws: The US "justice" system has seemingly always had a raging hard on for revenge. Which is why I brought it up in reply to Amake. Also, it was Amake's handling of it that bothered me more than yours (specifically the part I quoted before). Which is why your reply was much more civil.

THAT SAID, the other problems you point out are quite accurate. Criminals are dehumanized.

But the US legal system in the vast majority of states does not allow the use of deadly force in defense of yourself. It, instead, requires you to flee from an attacker before using deadly force, and deadly force is still only acceptable when you believe there is no alternative. There's only a handful of states with stand your ground laws.

That said, even that's not 'revenge'. And this certainly wasn't. I'm not sure if there's some conflict on what the word revenge actually means, but it's what people were talking about in the front page. Striking someone immediately while they are in the act to stop them from committing an act is not revenge, however.

One could argue that revenge often happens once you get to prosecution, but that doesn't apply to this case.

Also, you did provide an alternative which involved him being jailed, which does imply you would have rather have seen him jailed. I'm not sure how else to read that.

[Osterbaum]

The US "justice" system has seemingly always had a raging hard on for revenge.
Ok I can see how that has a condescending/arrogant tone. I put justice in quotations, because a system (and this goes for all legal systems everywhere) that exists to predominantly enforce property rights and does not treat different groups of people, black/white or rich/poor for example, equally is misleading to name it a "justice" system.

I could've worded the second sentence better, less confrontationally maybe. But the fact remains that the US has some of the highest incarceration rates in the world, some of the toughest sentences (at least in the western world), often terrible prison conditions with multiple instances of guard on prisoner violence. In addition several states still have the death penalty and/or stand your ground laws. In addition the discourse you see people having about crime and criminals almost always treats the criminals as deserving of what they get instead of human beings who've been influenced by the world around them in addition to their own personal responsability. So I stand by what I said, but I might have worded it differently.

Also, you did provide an alternative which involved him being jailed, which does imply you would have rather have seen him jailed. I'm not sure how else to read that.
The alternative allows for the possibility! The way it goes is you'll be put on trial for "exaggeration of self defense" (freely translated) and then if you're found guilty you'll be sentenced according to the crime you might have committed (eg. manslaughter, assault) but the sentence will be shorter. You might be found to have used appropriate force however or the mitigating circumstances to be such that it was understandable. I certainly don't feel particularly sorry for the child molester and I have no need to see the father jailed.

[Overcast]

In todays meeting of multinational Jury, we have decided daddy doesn't need to go to prison.

[Krylo]

The alternative allows for the possibility! The way it goes is you'll be put on trial for "exaggeration of self defense" (freely translated) and then if you're found guilty you'll be sentenced according to the crime you might have committed (eg. manslaughter, assault) but the sentence will be shorter. You might be found to have used appropriate force however or the mitigating circumstances to be such that it was understandable. I certainly don't feel particularly sorry for the child molester and I have no need to see the father jailed.

But he went before a grand jury, though, to see if he could be tried?

I mean, it's not the same thing as getting to jury trial, but it's a thing they do before jury trials to see if a case is worth pursuing. They decided the chances of getting a conviction on him were so low that it wasn't worth pursuing the case, and never moved it to jury trial. As jury trial is considerably more expensive, and our courts are pretty clogged.

Or, more precisely (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html). I link it because I believe the US is the only country with a functioning Grand Jury system, though other countries do have other types of preliminary hearings.

I'm not sure how it works in Finland, and whether there are preliminary hearings or not, so I'm not sure if this makes sense even now.

But, basically, it was being pursued to bring to trial, and what you're asking to happen happened, except in the preliminary hearing it was decided that a conviction would not result in bringing it to trial so they didn't.

Edit: Or to put it another way, he was so strongly in the right, by the law, that the prosecutor could not, given full access to a jury with no defense attorney, no judge, no limits on evidence, and no limits on who he could call as witness or what he could ask them, convince the jury to indict the father. Indictment isn't even proving he was guilty to these people, it is showing any reasonable chance that he had done wrong. So with everything stacked for the prosecution, they still couldn't come out ahead, and, therefore, they elected not to try him.