Should this womans past matter?

[brewer]

[Kitan Etos]

She only got five years?

What kind of justice is that?

[abaris]

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.

[Chad32]

I think someone guilty of killing her children should not be allowed to be around children. Hell they told Pee Wee Herman he couldn't be around kids anymore, and all he did was jack off in a theater.

Were there signs of prior abuse with the kids she killed?

Yes your past matters, especially when it's something as bad as killing your own flesh and blood. I could understand if this was some lesser crime, like someone who stoile something out of a store when he was a kid, but now he's an adult working at a store. This is murder. Of children. That's kind of serious.

[Jackalope]

She killed three of her own kids. Why is she out of prison?

[IATIA]

So, what to you think people? Has she paid for her past behavior and deserves the kids?

Legally yes, morally no. It is quite obvious that this woman cannot handle her own life. let alone the life of three children. They should have never let her have the other three in the first place.

[The Valkyrie]

Five years for killing three kids.

Should have been life.

Yes, it matters. Especially if there is current evidence of abuse.

[Chad32]

For some reason I read the sentence as saying there wasn't current evidence of abuse. If there is abuse, then there's no reason not to take the kids away. This shouldn't be a debatable issue.

[Angrboda]

We don't have rules in place to prevent people from becoming parents.  Hastily acting to deny her that right could set a dangerous precedent.  I don't know.  I'm divided on the issue.  I think the main stickler is that she only got 5 years for the prior murders.  It's that which inclines people to suspect she's still dangerous.  What were the terms of her release?

Amanda Hamm was convicted of child endangerment and served five years in prison for watching her boyfriend carry out a plot to drown her 6-year-old, 3-year-old and 23-month-old children in 2003 because they interfered with the couple's relationship and his sex-and-drugs lifestyle. He was convicted of first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence.

[Chad32]

I believe some people don't deserve to have kids. It's one thing to claim someone is genetically undesirable and shouldn't breed, but another to say that someone who kills their children or watches someone else do it shouldn't be around kids.