I think anyone who kills their kids should get life in prison.  AND be surgically sterilized.

Ah. The crux is that she didn't kill her kids. Her boyfriend actually committed the murders.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent when we let bureaucracies decide when a person is too dangerous to have kids after a stint in prison.

Also, not that its any excuse, but depending.on what drugs she was on and how dependent she was on this man for getting those drugs, her altered/dependent state might have something to do with why she was complicit in the crime.

A woman who puts her man in front of her kids ought not be a parent again. If the state has to step in in order to make it so, even this libertarian can accept that.

If someone, anyone, even his mother had tried to drown my son, I would happily serve whatever term I was assigned for killing the person. And if I stood by and watched, doing nothing, I should expect the opprobrium of society; and that includes not being entrusted with children any more. After all, if I failed to protect my own flesh and blood, what claim might I have to be a good guardian?

(November 5, 2015 at 6:18 pm)Kitan Wrote: She only got five years?

What kind of justice is that?

'Murrican.

Those are my thoughts. If I caught someone messing with my nieces they better hope I didn't have a means to put them in the hospital. If you're a parent, and you ever decide that your current lifestyle is more important than your children, then you don't deserve to be a parent. I know drugs can make you do crazy stuff, but that's a line where you shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Some people like to cut women some slack when it comes to kids, but this is proof that some women don't deserve slack. and why does drowning seem to be the popular way to kill a kid for women? Just because you can't hear them scream as they die horribly?

The best interest of the children should be the only deciding factor in these types of matters.
Fuck her.

(November 5, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: A woman who puts her man in front of her kids ought not be a parent again. If the state has to step in in order to make it so, even this libertarian can accept that.

If someone, anyone, even his mother had tried to drown my son, I would happily serve whatever term I was assigned for killing the person. And if I stood by and watched, doing nothing, I should expect the opprobrium of society; and that includes not being entrusted with children any more. After all, if I failed to protect my own flesh and blood, what claim might I have to be a good guardian?

I am not saying this is what happened, just playing devil's advocate.

But if this woman were so dependent on the man for drugs and he kept her high all the time, impairing her judgement to a point that he had complete control over her, that is a situation which I think a person can come back from and not be 100% culpable for those actions. She is responsible, she was complicit in an unspeakable event, but I don't think she would deserve a lifetime without her own family in this hypothetical.

All I am saying is that I could see a situation where taking her kids now on the sole basis of this past event would be unconstitutional. Now, since the state is saying there is evidence of abuse, then I hope she has her day in court.

Yes.  It should matter.

(November 5, 2015 at 6:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: So, get the kids or not?

No. Next question.

(November 5, 2015 at 7:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 5, 2015 at 6:18 pm)Kitan Wrote: She only got five years?

What kind of justice is that?

'Murrican.

Well, yeah. After all, we have to make sure there's plenty of room for those three strikes guys who've been busted for three felony possession chargers. They are, after all, a far greater threat to society than a mere murderer.