Should this womans past matter?

[Longhorn]

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.

I think she should be assessed by a mental health professional first. And that something as serious as complicity to murder of the individual's own children should absolutely be taken into consideration.

[abaris]

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

It shouldn't warrant automatic action. That would be the same as endless punishment, which wasn't the verdict. Should they take a closer look, if she has kids again? Of course. Visits of child services should be more frequent. But I'm against branding someone for life for something they did in the past. Especially in public.

[brewer]

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.

I said "in the" not "for the". Still the biggest ass around I see.

[Losty]

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.

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.

It's fun to say people shouldn't be judged on their past mistakes but it's extraordinarily stupid in practice. You don't hire a convicted animal abuser to walk your dog, you don't hire a child rapist to babysit, you don't hire a money launderer to run your company. In some situations people absolutely should be judged based on past actions.

It's not to say this woman shouldn't be allowed to have her children, but regardless of signs of abuse, if she is not seeking medical treatment for her mental illness then her past actions tell us she should not be allowed to have any kids in her presence.

[abaris]

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.

[robvalue]

My problem really is whether anyone should have the authority to say that someone who has committed something as serious as murder is now "safe" to be in society. If I was in charge, I'd want to hear a pretty compelling case.

[abaris]

My problem really is whether anyone should have the authority to say that someone who has committed something as serious as murder is now "safe" to be in society.

There are many different kinds of murder. That's why our society has trained professionals to evaluate the person in question. I'm not swinging one way or the other in this particular case. I'm only saying, once they've done their time they shouldn't automatically carry the scarlet letter for life.

The alternative would be to kill off any and all offenders. And I don't think, many of us are for that kind of approach.

[Minimalist]

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

[abaris]

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.

[paulpablo]

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.

This is totally correct, the justice system is keeping an eye on her and according to what I've read the they've discovered she still has a taste for violent crackhead boyfriends.  There's really no mob justice involved.