Should this womans past matter?

[Jackalope]

It's a gateway crime, obv.  You might do something really serious, like treat a medical condition or something.

Hello, Feds?

It's a goddamn plant.

A. Plant.

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.

[robvalue]

I'd like to comment on the idea that someone who has been to jail has "paid their debt to society".

I think it's a ridiculous phrase. You got caught and are facing the prescribed punishment. It's nothing to do with any debt. Especially in the case of murder, the idea that you could ever repay the taking of a life is disgusting to me. The crime, if one was actually committed, has not been erased. If you were actually innocent, then it makes even less sense to use that phrase.

It almost makes sense I suppose if the crime was relatively minor, and you're just being stood out to think about what you did. I'm not against giving people a second chance of course, and I don't like holding past deeds against them, depending on the context. But you can't pretend like it never happened.

Personally, I think anyone that murders another human should generally never be released from prison. It's someone who is capable and willing to cross a line which makes them unfit for society, and it's not fair on innocent people to have someone like that walking around among them. If in this case she didn't actually do the murders but was complicit, that's not exactly the same, and it would depend on the details. I'd have to hear a pretty strong case on her behalf for me to consider letting her keep any further kids, though. As Steel said, being not in your right mind can be a factor.

[Cato]

I can't help but think that some saying this woman should keep her children would also ask for heads of authorities should something happen to her current kids.

Having knowledge of what happened, would any reasonable person let this woman baby sit for them? Why then should she be allowed to be the primary care giver for any living thing?

What does she tell her future kids when they are old enough to understand and learn what she did? Would the kid then have the right to choose to live elsewhere (let's say age 13).

As Rob Alluded to earlier, the idea that the woman should keep these kids because the current brood are not injured or dead yet is preposterous. She watched as her three children drowned in relatively (4.5') shallow water. I wouldn't let her have a pet hamster.

[MentalGiant]

Maybe she's changed, but maybe she hasn't. You have to be a pretty fucked up person to drown 3 kids and I seriously doubt a couple years in prison has inspired true change nor fully addressed the issues that drove her to do so. I think at most, she should be allowed supervised visitation.

[Longhorn]

Of course it fucking matters, but she should still be in prison in the first place -_-

[downbeatplumb]

A woman who was convicted in the drowning of her 3 previous children. She served 5 years. After she got out, she married and had 3 more children. When authorities figured out who she was they took the kids away. She is now trying to get them back.

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-mom-watch...16622.html

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

In the article is states that "there also is 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.". Is this enough to keep the kids away from the parents, the potential for future crime?

Her attorney states" the children showed no signs of abuse and were healthy, even crying and taking off their shoes and socks to try to prevent child protection workers from taking them from their home last year. They also said no problems had ever been reported to the state Department of Children and Family Services until a doctor at a hospital where Ware gave birth recognized her.".

So, get the kids or not?

 
My surname is Ware so maybe they are related to me!
Anyhoo
She should not be allowed to have children just because she can make more. She has what i believe is termed, "form".

[Jackalope]

Of course it fucking matters, but she should still be in prison in the first place -_-

TBF, an institution would probably be more effective, but then again we are talking 'bout 'Murrica, fuck yeah, so we needs some vengeance to go with our misplaced sense of justice.

But yeah, I have a hard time believing that she ought to be out unsupervised. To me, filicide represents the absolute worse betrayal possible. How do you ever trust someone like that?

[brewer]

Thanks for the input. My thoughts, in this case past matters and present matters. She is still fucked up in the head. No kids for her.

[TheRealJoeFish]

In a way, legally, it's the future that really matters: is she likely to harm her children again?

Of course, this depends heavily on the past and present. She was complicit in the murder of her children, which counsels against her, she refuses to take medication, which counsels against her... in my view, this should probably be enough to remove the children from her custody. I don't know if it is. But I think it should be. Very few legal principals are given more weight than "best interests of the child."

[brewer]

Update. Judge ruled against the parents.

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-mom-watch...39355.html