Should this womans past matter?

[Losty]

I disagree. You can't seriously tell me that two women who both have mental problems and refuse to seek treatment should be treated the same when it comes to child custody when one has murdered 3 of her own children in the past and one has not.

First, I'm talking in general terms, since there's only one source for that case. Also, have you read what I posted next, when asked about my opinion?

I stand by that. I'm no fan of the punitive for life treatment, so many convicts get. There should be checks and balances by trained professionals, before someone is released to society again. But there shouldn't be a brand on their foreheads afterwards.

In Europe, quite a few aren't released when their sentence is over. A team of psychologists checks them up and if they think there's a high chance of recidivism, the convicts are transfered to a closed instituton for treatment and an indefinite period. Again, with checks every few years. That's what in all likelyhood will happen to Brejvik, once he served his sentence. And it happens with serial offenders. People aren't that naive to think, they won't offend again.

I was responding to a post you made. I hadn't gotten to the posts where you clarified your opinion further.

Here's the thing, you are comparing apples to oranges. In a perfect world no one would ever be released into society until we were 100% certain that they were rehabilitated and safe. In the real world this woman served 5 years in an American prison and she likely left more disturbed mentally than she was when she went in. Now she has 3 more kids and isn't getting treatment. Her past actions are absolutely relevant.

[Losty]

Seriously, though, she killed 3 of her kids.  It isn't the same thing as parking in a handicapped spot without a sticker.

I don't have to like her for that. But I'm also not for mob justice. If the professionals think she's done her time, she shouldn't be found guilty for life by the mob. The justice system should keep an eye on her, especially if she's got kids again. But that doesn't warrant an automatical removal, only a justified one.

I don't think you have a firm grasp on the American justice system

[abaris]

Her past actions are absolutely relevant.

I guess we have to file that under distinction between Americans and Europeans. At least where values are concerned. Noone should be automatically found guilty for their past.

[abaris]

I don't think you have a firm grasp on the American justice system

Well, I kind of think to have. That's why I don't like it. It seems medieval. I'm not all bleeding heart, but I'm certainly not in the autómatically brand them camp either.

[Longhorn]

I believe that with situations like these they should be examined and action taken on a case to case basis. Neither extreme would solve the problem more efficiently, in my view.

But still, if a person is convicted of complicity to murder of their own children, that indicates a whole lot of mental issues - I agree with CD that an institution would be more suitable for this woman than prison, though I'm obviously no expert - or at the very least a contraindication to having children, regardless of whether she has abused any of them up to this point or not.

[abaris]

I believe that with situations like these they should be examined on a case to case basis.

This, exactly.

[Aroura]

So, this one is being examined, they did not just take her kids and call it done.

So far, evidence reveals that the current father is violent, and that both parents have substance abuse issues.
The mother is not doing any of her recommended mental health treatments.

I'm pretty sure the judge will take away the kids and rightly so.

If the new father was a poor, blue collar worker with no history of violence and no current substance abuse, and mom was going to regular counseling, then yeah, MAYBE she could be allowed to have them back. But that isn't the case.

Past history: Stood by and watched boyfriend murder children, did nothing while they SCREAMED FOR MINUTES FOR HELP IN A LOCKED CAR before drowning.
Current situation: Father of kids has history of domestic violence, and both parents use illegal drugs. Do we need to wait for serious neglect or abuse to happen in this case before the kids are taken away? I THINK NOT.

Dianne Downs (I admit, actively) killed her kids so she could get a man. When she got preggers again, the courts didn't wait to see if she'd learned her lesson this time. This case already has precedent, and the precedent is to protect the kids.

I'm not a judgmental person. I do not believe in the death penalty, and I think our entire "justice" system needs a major overhaul, but in this case, child services was absolutely right to take the kids away first and ask questions later.

[Losty]

Her past actions are absolutely relevant.

I guess we have to file that under distinction between Americans and Europeans. At least where values are concerned. Noone should be automatically found guilty for their past.

Of course not. There's a big difference between someone's past being relevant and someone automatically being guilty because of their past.

I don't think you have a firm grasp on the American justice system

Well, I kind of think to have. That's why I don't like it. It seems medieval. I'm not all bleeding heart, but I'm certainly not in the autómatically brand them camp either.

My point was, sadly, our justice system doesn't work that way. I haven't the time to look up stats but it's easy to say that most offenders will be repeat offenders, and likely many will commit worse crimes after being imprisoned for their first crime. I agree with you that the American justice system sucks. But that doesn't change the fact that serving your time doesn't mean you're now safe and trust worthy citizen in America. And it most certainly doesn't negate that in this circumstance a woman killed her children and is now not seeking medical treatment. Her past is very relevant and it should be considered along with current things like her not being treated.

[Minimalist]

We put people who piss in public on sex offender registries for at least 10 years.

That's not medieval.  It's pure 21st century!


In case you doubt me.

http://www.businessinsider.com/surprisin...er-2013-10

3) Peeing in public. At least 13 states require sex offender registration for public urination, according to Human Rights Watch's comprehensive review of sex offender laws in 2007. Two of those states specify that the urination must happen in front of a minor.

Remember all this shit comes out of state legislatures and you do not exactly get the cream de la creme serving there!

[abaris]

Of course not. There's a big difference between someone's past being relevant and someone automatically being guilty because of their past.

The public views it differently, as my first post in this thread adressed. Especially when people are put on certain lists, as min pointed out. There is a Scarlet Letter haunting them for many years, if not for the reast of their lives. Again, not adressing that particular case, since I know too little about it. But the system in general.

It's important to make distinctions between someone not committing a crime at all, such as taking a piss in public, having a motif for commiiting a crime, such as my terrorist in my first post, or someone being a psycho- or sociopath getting of on committing crimes.