Florida Couple Get 12 Years For Python Killing Their Daughter

[Formaldehyde]

The couple I mentioned in this previous thread, who were convicted of manslaughter and 3rd degree murder after their chronically hungry Burmese python strangled and tried to eat their daughter, have been sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Their lawyer claims the trial was compromised by the Anthony case. That they should receive no prison time because it was an accident:

Couple sentenced to 12 years each for allowing pet python to kill 2-year-old child

As a teenager, Hare bought the snake with $200 she had earned working for her parents. She named it Gypsy and called it her pet.

Wednesday afternoon — about seven years later — prosecutor Pete Magrino stood just feet from Hare in a Sumter County courtroom and called the snake an "instrument of death."

Gypsy, a jury decided last month, had killed Hare's 2-year-old daughter because the 21-year-old and her boyfriend, Charles "Jason" Darnell, neglected to properly enclose the snake. At the time, they housed the animal in a tank covered only by a pink patchwork quilt.

Circuit Judge William H. Hallman III on Wednesday sentenced both of them to 12 years in prison and five years of probation on a charge of manslaughter. The defendants had declined a pretrial offer that would have capped their sentences at 10 years.

"You both were keeping a wild animal, a wild animal which is dangerous," said Hallman, who noted the snake often roamed free around the house. "Any reasonable person would realize that creates a grave danger."

Both judgments fell short of what Magrino had requested. The prosecutor asked that Hare receive a 15-year term with the Florida Department of Corrections and that Darnell get 30 years, in part because of his drug-related criminal history.

"This case is about parental responsibility," Magrino said to the judge, "and they totally abdicated their parental responsibility to provide a safe place for the child." Both Darnell and Hare pleaded for mercy.

"I would just like to say that I'm very sorry for what happened," said Darnell, barely able to speak between tears. "If I could take it back, I would."

In her brief statement, Hare reiterated the defense's long-standing argument: Her daughter's death was an accident.

"I will always miss her," Hare said, "and feel the pain from everything that's happened."

As they had at trial, both defense attorneys argued their clients were, essentially, incompetent and deserved a lighter sentence because of it.

"No mother would put a child, her 2-year-old child, in the middle of such danger if she recognized the danger," said Hare's lawyer, Ismael Solis Jr. "We don't all have the same IQs."

During trial, Hare's mother, Sheryl Hare, testified that she had noticed her daughter was keeping the snake in an unlocked glass tank.

"I talked to Jaren and begged her not to put it in the house," Mrs. Hare said. "It didn't have a lid on it. I even offered to buy it."

She also proposed having her husband make a lid for the enclosure.

After the hearing, Darnell's attorney, Rhiannon Arnold, re-emphasized to reporters that Shaianna's death was an accident. Neither defendant, she said, should have been imprisoned for what happened. The lawyer said she would appeal both conviction and sentence.

In fact, Arnold said before the throng of news cameras, she believed the two suspects suffered because of Casey Anthony's high-profile acquittal, which was announced in Orlando just one week before Hare and Darnell were convicted.

Anthony had been charged with murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. The verdict sparked a national backlash from thousands who believed she was guilty.

Although Arnold based her comments on speculation, the lawyer told reporters she was certain that in the aftermath of the Anthony decision, the jurors in her client's case did not want to acquit two more people accused of allowing a young child to die.

Do you think this sentence is too harsh? Or should the prosecutor's request for an even lengthier sentence have been heeded by the judge instead?

Should the relative intelligence of parents be taken into consideration in such cases?

Do you think the Anthony verdict influenced the jury to find them guilty?

 

[MobBoss]

I think those that are determined to keep exotic and dangerous animals should be held responsible if said animals kill or harm others.

 

[LucyDuke]

In July 2009, the python slithered out of its tank in the living room of Hare's mobile home in the northern Sumter town of Oxford. The severely underfed, 81/2-foot-long snake then glided into the child's bedroom and slipped into the crib.

Soon after, Gypsy coiled around the little girl, Shaianna, and asphyxiated the toddler as it tried to eat her. The snake had not been fed in a month and had escaped its enclosure many times — even that night, when Darnell tripped over it on his way to the bathroom.

Toss a cruelty to animals charge on top of murder/manslaughter. Stupid is not an excuse.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

Harsher punishments never stopped a criminal before or a crime to be commited.
Here in Denmark we even have what we call "family reduction", it is not official but it is like an unwritten rule. Parents that kill their infants often get very reduced sentences compared to other murder, manslaughter or whatever cases.

But keeping an animal is ofcourse the responsibility of the owners. Be it a snake or a dog. I think some kind of license would be good to implement so people get a basic idea of their pets before getting one.

 

[Ajidica]

This has reinforced my belief that people should have licenses to have kids. I mean, we require a license to drive a car, but not one to raise a human being?

 

[LucyDuke]

I certainly don't understand why you can have an unrestrained 8 1/2 foot snake and not feed it for a month without a license. How is that less dangerous than a locked up gun?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Being dumb is not an excuse. They consented to all of the risks of the python when they bought it as far as I'm concerned.

If they truly loved their daughter, they would have kept the animal properly enclosed. If they couldn't afford that... then, why the HELL did they buy the python?!

I'm all for their harsh sentencing.

This has reinforced my belief that people should have licenses to have kids. I mean, we require a license to drive a car, but not one to raise a human being?

Indeed. Would cut back on households that have kids but can't afford it at least. (Though what do you do if the license is broken?)

 

[SuperJay]

Toss a cruelty to animals charge on top of murder/manslaughter. Stupid is not an excuse.

While I agree that it was ridiculous to keep a grown adult python in an unsecured container, it's not unusual for pythons to go weeks between feeding. (And it's actually kind of cool how their physiology is adapted to do so.) Not feeding it for a month is not necessarily "cruelty" with a snake like this - in the wild, they can survive for much longer without eating.

Obviously that doesn't make it a good idea, and I don't excuse the neglect of these people, but I think the article is a bit misleading - people read that bit and associate it with not feeding a cat or a dog for a month and assume that's just horrible, but with pythons it's not really that unusual.

BTW the snake's name was Gypsy and their attorney's name was Rhiannon. God must be a Fleetwood Mac fan.

 

[MobBoss]

Harsher punishments never stopped a criminal before or a crime to be commited.

I would think this rather hard to prove or disprove given the nature of the claim.

Here in Denmark we even have what we call "family reduction", it is not official but it is like an unwritten rule. Parents that kill their infants often get very reduced sentences compared to other murder, manslaughter or whatever cases.

Errrr. Why?

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

I would think this rather hard to prove or disprove given the nature of the claim.



Errrr. Why?

We have had a lot of increases in punishment here. But the críme has risen. I know thats a local example and we differ much from many other countries.

Regarding the rebate on penalty for family.. it is specific, to the death of infants. I guess it has todo with a infant being very fragile and parents that can be under pressure and such. A little slap in a moment of weakness can have a disaterous effect.
Altho i do not agree that there should be a rebate as a norm, i do think each case should be handled individually and take as many things into consideration as possible.

 

[RobAnybody]

Here's my problem with the whole thing...

Charles "Jason" Darnell

Why is Charles' nickname "Jason"?

 

[Formaldehyde]

No doubt it is the mythological Greek hero instead of the Hollywood serial killer.

 

[LucyDuke]

Being dumb is not an excuse. They consented to all of the risks of the python when they bought it as far as I'm concerned.

If they truly loved their daughter, they would have kept the animal properly enclosed. If they couldn't afford that... then, why the HELL did they buy the python?!

Being dumb isn't an excuse, but it's a reason. It's entirely possible that they truly loved their daughter but were too dumb to understand that the snake might kill her.

While I agree that it was ridiculous to keep a grown adult python in an unsecured container, it's not unusual for pythons to go weeks between feeding. (And it's actually kind of cool how their physiology is adapted to do so.) Not feeding it for a month is not necessarily "cruelty" with a snake like this - in the wild, they can survive for much longer without eating.

Obviously that doesn't make it a good idea, and I don't excuse the neglect of these people, but I think the article is a bit misleading - people read that bit and associate it with not feeding a cat or a dog for a month and assume that's just horrible, but with pythons it's not really that unusual.

BTW the snake's name was Gypsy and their attorney's name was Rhiannon. God must be a Fleetwood Mac fan.

Yeah, I know they don't need to eat daily, but a month? C'mon, that sounds a bit much. If they'd fed the damn thing, would it have been as likely to try to eat their kid?

Here's my problem with the whole thing...

Why is Charles' nickname "Jason"?

Could be his middle name.

 

[NovaKart]

The 5-year-old snake weighed 13.5 pounds when measured about a month after the attack. A healthy albino Burmese python of that age ought to weigh about 150 pounds, a snake expert testified.

This is from the article in the previous thread. The python was seriously underweight. I actually feel sorry for the parents, I think they just did this out of ignorance. I think some snakes will only eat live rats.

People really should know how to properly care for these kinds of animals if they're going to keep them and they don't. It's not like a dog or a cat that people are used to watching. The snake probably appeared to be tame and they didn't think it was dangerous.

I've also heard that snakes have poor eyesight but a strong sense of smell and they can get confused, like if someone was handling a dog or cat and their scent was on them and mistake a human for prey.

 

[SuperJay]

Yeah, I know they don't need to eat daily, but a month? C'mon, that sounds a bit much.

It's really not that unusual in the wild. I think the "record" for a python 'fasting' is something like a year. Granted, that's not ideal even for a python, but they have all kinds of physiological mechanisms adapted to infrequent eating. Reptiles are cool, man!

If they'd fed the damn thing, would it have been as likely to try to eat their kid?

This may sound gruesome and I apologize if it bothers anyone, but this tragedy was going to happen eventually because they didn't keep the python secured. Snakes are opportunistic feeders. They will eat when they can, not just when they're "hungry." Generally a python won't pass by potential food if they can get an extra meal (unless they've just eaten within the last day or two and are still digesting larger prey). It's a wild animal, not a domesticated pet. They don't know when they're going to get a chance to eat again. It's just survival as far as they're concerned.

IMO there's no question the parents were negligent, but the bigger snake-related mistake was keeping it in a small, uncovered (!!) tank, not in feeding it too rarely. An adult Burmese python can grow to lengths of like 10 feet or more in the wild. In captivity, it depends on the habitat, but the point is that a snake that large is designed to overpower even larger mammals - zookeepers generally don't handle them alone because a 10-foot python can overpower an full-grown man. So yes, they were negligent in regards to keeping this animal in an unsecured tank, but that snake wasn't starving like the article implies.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'm glad I phrased it as a question, then!

I don't think anybody can challenge the fact that keeping the damn thing contained was the big problem. Apart from NovaKart's post, that the thing was apparently less than 10% of healthy body weight (which sounds kind of crazy, how is it even alive?), I'll back off the not-feeding-it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I hope the snake didn't have to die because of its owners incompetence. It was only doing what was natural to it.

 

[SuperJay]

I'm glad I phrased it as a question, then!

I don't think anybody can challenge the fact that keeping the damn thing contained was the big problem. Apart from NovaKart's post, that the thing was apparently less than 10% of healthy body weight (which sounds kind of crazy, how is it even alive?), I'll back off the not-feeding-it.

Ohhh, my bad, I didn't see Nova's post (looks like it came in while I was responding) and I didn't see where in the article it mentioned the snake being so underweight. I was going purely off the "1 month since feeding" bit. Given that information about its weight, it does sound like they neglected to feed the snake like... at all. That's far more than just one month without food, that is an animal that was systematically underfed over a long period of time. You were right - that snake was likely starving.

I still think this would have happened eventually even if the snake had been fed the week before. Having a small child in a house with 9-foot python that apparently roams freely is a recipe for disaster, no matter how often you feed that snake.

I hope the snake didn't have to die because of its owners incompetence. It was only doing what was natural to it.

Unfortunately, it probably was euthanized. Pythons are an invasive species to Florida, meaning they displace part of the food chain (the large carnivorous predator 'niche' occupied largely by alligators in that area), and there's already a widespread problem with them being released into the wild by irresponsible pet owners, especially in the southern part of the state.

 

[MobBoss]

We have had a lot of increases in punishment here. But the críme has risen. I know thats a local example and we differ much from many other countries.

Regarding the rebate on penalty for family.. it is specific, to the death of infants. I guess it has todo with a infant being very fragile and parents that can be under pressure and such. A little slap in a moment of weakness can have a disaterous effect.
Altho i do not agree that there should be a rebate as a norm, i do think each case should be handled individually and take as many things into consideration as possible.

Its just odd for me to hear about a 'dead infant rebate'..... I mean who the hell hits an infant hard enough to kill it? And why should they be deserving of a 'rebate'?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I don't know much about Florida's manslaughter laws. I am sure that they can be let out early for good behavior. Is it a mandatory sentence of 12 years?

Do you think the Anthony verdict influenced the jury to find them guilty?

Oh, I am sure that it is on the jury's minds before and during the trial.