Shaw, Thank You for your patience and cliff notes explanations of the rule of law that myself and others know precious little about. I'll have to admit that, like many others here at DSP that, what would seem to be fair justice for this heinous crime is far from what might be exerted by the State of Ohio once uber liberal law benders get involved. In my every day common man way of thinking 'recklessness' was something that happened when a couple of teens got carried away having fun and crushed someones car with a snowball or crashing a car at excessive speed on a damp road. Should have known you were having too much fun and someone was going to get hurt. Likewise 'negligence' was more akin to getting distracted and not guarding the water that was on the stovetop boiling when the rambunctious 3 year old came through the kitchen at a high rate of speed and touched the handle. Recklessness has nothing to do with an adult raping and killing an infant. Negligence has nothing to do with an adult raping and killing an infant. Was there a reason why you taught us the legal definition of those two terms? I don't see either as applicable to this case. And before you are kind enough to reply and teach us the meaning of 'mental insanity' I'll broach that wall and offer that OF COURSE this fuckwad KNEW full well what he was doing, and KNEW full well that he was causing mortal damage and OF COURSE he was mentally insane because what sort of sane human rapes and kills infants?!?! Really. He purposely and knowingly raped the infant with such force that the infant died. What else needs stated? Why? Perhaps your exalted legal view offers a perspective on why he deserves to draw breath and be fed 3 square and balanced taxpayer provided meals a day for the remainder of his natural life??? I'm not asking for that, however, please bear in mind that many of your arguments appear to be trying to bend the rules of law to fit your own idiosyncratic conception that no criminal should die at the hands of the state. Possession of that exact uber liberal idiosyncratic viewpoint has been used by many law benders to justify their specious legal arguments defending fuckwads similar to this one. As if it matters a single iota what this assholes intent was while raping the infant. WTF?? Who fucking cares what he was thinking? He was raping and killing an infant!! The only persons who would even ASK about his intent are those trying to bend laws to set him free. One would be well served questioning the ethics behind whichever law bender defends this idiot. Some people should die sooner than others. Life is NOT fair. An adult who rapes and kills babies does not deserve to be fed from my sweat. He deserves to die by State authorized death penalty. He knew what he was doing and he pulled his own ticket. Punch the ticket and move on. NEXT!! At the very least he should be put into general prison population and give the guards the weekend off. Shaw, Thank you once again for attempting to defend the concepts behind whatever legal protections this fuckwad is allowed and please do not take the tone of my reply as anything except my gross repulsion at the entire story. I don't expect that you personally would defend him but I remain open minded to your reply.