(November 6, 2015 at 3:26 am)Skeletor Wrote:

(November 6, 2015 at 1:14 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: But Skeletor; so is deadly nightshade.
(Check and mate you commie bastards.)

Nightshade isn't a schedule 1 substance and won't net you 30 to life in prison, either.

And yet I don't hear anyone campaigning to make it one.
You hippies with your "joints" and your subversive music don't care that right now a 12 year old child could be munching on a deadly nightshade leaf. All you care about is lighting up while little Timmy dies. What does he die from? Is it poison? No, its...
THE LIBERAL AGENDA. DUN DUN DUN.

(November 6, 2015 at 10:53 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(November 6, 2015 at 3:26 am)Skeletor Wrote: Nightshade isn't a schedule 1 substance and won't net you 30 to life in prison, either.

And yet I don't hear anyone campaigning to make it one.
You hippies with your "joints" and your subversive music don't care that right now a 12 year old child could be munching on a deadly nightshade leaf. All you care about is lighting up while little Timmy dies. What does he die from? Is it poison? No, its...
THE LIBERAL AGENDA. DUN DUN DUN.

Damn right.

(November 5, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Skeletor Wrote: She killed three of her own kids.  Why is she out of prison?

People in the Bible killed their kids all the time.  Some even ate them. Religious folks think that they are the best role models ever.

Maybe she can move out of the country to get away from all of the haters and have another kid in peace. Europe is taking in some people worse than her.

(November 5, 2015 at 6:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: A woman who was convicted in the drowning of her 3 previous children.

Great, you misquote the case, and then everyone else commenting until SteelCurtain also parrots the same crap. According to the link you provided she was convicted of child endangerment, not murder, and her boyfriend was convicted of murder.

(November 5, 2015 at 6:21 pm)abaris Wrote: Probably not as known in the States, but all through the 70ies and 80ies there was a left terrorist group operating in Western Europe. They called themselves the RAF. I grew up with the hype surrounding them and seeing their mugshots at every public building and gas stations.

Anyway, one of them, convicted in the killing of a prominent banker, was called Susanne Albrecht. She went underground in the still existing GDR, got caught when the Iron curtain fell, did her time and resurfaced under a different name. Turned out she worked as a school teacher at the German city of Bremen. The tabloids and the conservatives made a big deal out of it. So much so that the school authorities, having no clue about her past, wanted to fire her. In stepped the kid's parents launching a petition to let her stay, since she was such a good teacher.

The past should never be held against any person. Only the presence counts.

Considering she murdered 3 kids already and she's failing to do mental treatment, I would say the past counts.

I don't give a rat's ass about the morality of the situation. I just don't think we do enough to protect kids. Meanwhile the rights of parents are treated as a sacred cow.

In terms of judging her fitness, how can she trust herself? Does she still feel justified in having killed the last batch? Does she feel entitled to do with them as she sees fit? That she would consider having more kids just seems reckless.

(November 5, 2015 at 7:31 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: 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.

But the thing is that she is human, with choices.  The boyfriend didn't just burst into her home and kill her children, she stayed with him for years while being fully aware that he would abuse her children by putting their heads in ovens and chasing them with knives.

Additionally there's this, bare in mind that Leo Ware is her current boyfriend.

Quote:But prosecutors and child protection authorities told Judge Demetrius Kottaras last week that, although none of the three living children has been physically harmed, there is direct evidence of current abuse and neglect. That includes domestic violence by Leo Ware against his wife and others, substance abuse and Amanda Ware's failure to follow treatment for mental illness, which created an injurious environment for the children.

And this 

Again I bolded Leo Ware's name just so I can make a point now that he's her current boyfriend.

Quote:n 2012, Chicago police responded to a domestic abuse call at the Ware's house after Leo Ware struck his wife. The next year, while she was pregnant, Amanda Ware sought an order of protection, saying she feared for herself and her children because Leo Ware was using crack cocaine and might become violent. Two weeks later, she had the order dropped.

They aren't just judging her on her past, it's the fact she's attracted to abusive crackhead scum.
So she's already stood by to watch her last abusive crackhead boyfriend kill her children and got away with a five year sentence.  
Now she's got a brand new set of kids along with a brand new crackhead abusive boyfriend, possibly still taking drugs herself and also refusing treatment for her depression.
Yeh maybe it would be a good to not let her keep those children.  Or just not have released her from prison in the first place.

(November 8, 2015 at 6:42 am)Losty Wrote: Considering she murdered 3 kids already and she's not failing to due mental treatment, I would say the past counts.

No, present acts count. If there are signs of physical or mental abuse, go ahead and take the kids away. If there aren't, you shouldn't be branded for life.

(November 8, 2015 at 7:00 am)abaris Wrote:

(November 8, 2015 at 6:42 am)Losty Wrote: Considering she murdered 3 kids already and she's not failing to due mental treatment, I would say the past counts.

No, present acts count. If there are signs of physical or mental abuse, go ahead and take the kids away. If there aren't, you shouldn't be branded for life.

Well the past does count, otherwise there would be no punishment for crimes.  

When people say don't judge someone by their past it's just because it sounds pretty cool and open minded but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, everyone judges people by their past, you don't let a sex offender babysit, shops ban thieves from their stores, employers ask people for a CV to apply for a job and check their criminal records for quite a few jobs.  To a large extent it's very very wise to judge individual people by their past actions.