Should this womans past matter?

[Minimalist]

But peeing in public or statutory rape (in most cases) shouldn't land you on the list.

But it does. Which begs the question which is more untrustworthy. The one doing it or the system putting them on the list. It's the medieval system of branding someone if they committed a crime. Only instead of hot irons, computer files are all the rage right now.

Will you PLEASE not give them any ideas.

[robvalue]

Abaris: Do you have any links you could recommend for me to read about what you were saying about murder please?

[Aractus]

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

She didn't kill her kids - her boyfriend did. She was only convicted of child endangerment: she was in a position where a reasonable person would have been expected to do something to save their kids, but failed to do so. But for the fact that her boyfriend intentionally drowned them they would not have died.

Furthermore, if she didn't want any kids then why would she have three more? It doesn't make sense. If she had wanted to kill the last three then she wouldn't be wanting to be a parent again afterwards.

[Losty]

I don't know how she got off with such a light sentence but a parent is absolutely responsible for their children's lives. If you stand there and watch your children be drowned that's just as good as killing them in my book.

[Aractus]

I don't know how she got off with such a light sentence but a parent is absolutely responsible for their children's lives. If you stand there and watch your children be drowned that's just as good as killing them in my book.

No it isn't. It's still a crime, depending on the circumstances, but unless you participate in some way you aren't a murderer. You could be frozen solid with fear; having a panic attack; whatever. I don't know the exact details of the case, but she was not convicted of murder.

[Losty]

I don't know how she got off with such a light sentence but a parent is absolutely responsible for their children's lives. If you stand there and watch your children be drowned that's just as good as killing them in my book.

No it isn't. It's still a crime, depending on the circumstances, but unless you participate in some way you aren't a murderer. You could be frozen solid with fear; having a panic attack; whatever. I don't know the exact details of the case, but she was not convicted of murder.

Yes it is. See I can do that too. Her being convicted of murder or not has nothing to do with whether or not standing by while someone drowns your own children is just as bad as killing them yourself. It's a matter of opinion so you can disagree with me all you want but your saying "no it isn't" means nothing.

[Aractus]

[Losty]

What is your point? Her inaction directly contributed to the death of her children and in my opinion that is just as bad as if she had killed them herself. I don't know why this is so difficult for you. I know the legal definition of murder. I'm not sure you know the dictionary definition of opinion. What I am saying is regardless of laws, choosing not to attempt to save her children is just as morally reprehensible as killing them herself. You don't have to agree but you cannot prove me wrong on a matter of opinion no matter how many times you quote the definition of the word murder.

Trying to downplay such a disgusting act as allowing your boyfriend to kill your own children by saying something really awful could have happened to them had they survived is either stupid or disgusting. Likely both.

[abaris]