Justice system question / philosophical

[MattTheSkywalker]

Please read as follows.

OSHKOSH, Wis. - A 4-month-old girl died when her inebriated mother fell asleep on top of her while breast-feeding, prosecutors said. Lorinda Hawkins told police she fell asleep about 15 minutes after she started breast-feeding the baby Feb. 23 because of her intoxication, a criminal complaint said. When she woke up about an hour later, the baby was pale and wasn’t breathing, the complaint said.

Hawkins was charged Friday with one count of child neglect causing a death. If convicted as a repeat felony offender, she could be sentenced to 29 years in prison and fined $100,000. Defense lawyer Steven Smits asked for Hawkins’ release on signature bond so she could enter substance abuse treatment, but she remained jailed late Friday on $7,000 bond. A preliminary hearing was scheduled Nov. 17.

The 27-year-old — who was on probation for child neglect — had consumed six double-shot alcoholic beverages at a bowling alley, the complaint said. A toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol level ranged from .15 to .27 percent. Her husband drove Hawkins and their 4-year-old daughter to the bowling alley and later brought them home, then went out drinking himself, according to the complaint. The baby was unresponsive when he returned an hour later, the complaint said.

Hawkins was on probation for neglect of the same child, and was prohibited from drinking alcohol and from having unsupervised contact with all four of her children at once, court documents show.


How do we deal with this? This is a philosophical question; how do we deal with a person unfit for parenthood? These kids are virtually guaranteed lives of low output, low education and likely incarceration.

If anyone feels like discussing this from a social policy standpoint...I am interested how other people look at this.

 

[75th]

I read about this when it first happened. Considering she was already on probation for child neglect, I think that she would be made physically incapable of having children.

Not being able to provide well enough for your kids is one thing, but the lengths that this woman went to is something else entirely.

But thats just me, and Im an asshole.

 

[Mr. dB]

So here we have a recidivist who disobeyed a court order and as a result caused the death of an infant? I think the prosecutors have just cause to proceed with a negligent homicide or manslaughter case.

How much you wanna bet the mother was obese?

 

[chefbone]

Tubal ligation and 14 years of prison....Once her 4 year old turns 18, let that bitch out of jail!

 

[75th]

How much you wanna bet the mother was obese?

LOL stupid white trash.

The husband was probably 150 pounds, mullet, and drove a Camaro away whilst his wife was breastfeeding.

Shit, I hope curlings wife is doin alright.

 

[BrothaBill]

The issue is thus, it is currently accepted as the medical model to define alcohol and other abuse in a disease state modality. It is thus the fault of the system and locked into say this is a rare inevitable outcome of such a model.
This is in fact, a woman who killed her own child, although mentally, there was no malice or intent.
This falls under a manslaughter charge given the requisite facts

 

[gotmilk]

Sadly, you cannot restrict her from having another baby because her next infant could end up being the next Bill Clinton.

If I was dictator of the United States, I would kill the bitch. Kill her before she has the chance to breed again. Her, and about 85% of the current prison population, all gang-bangers, and the dude who invented Twinkies.

I wonder what the infants blood-alcohol level was?

 

[Buddy_Christ]

So here we have a recidivist who disobeyed a court order and as a result caused the death of an infant? I think the prosecutors have just cause to proceed with a negligent homicide or manslaughter case.

How much you wanna bet the mother was obese?

I agree - throw the book at her.

Even if she only gets convicted of the charge listed, she should serve no less than the maximum and it's doubtful that she'll be able to reproduce when she is released in 29 years.

Accidents happen, but getting drunk when you are supposed to be taking care of your chiildren is not an accident. Since she has already proven she can't take care of children and obey court orders, her children should be taken away from her.

The father...not sure what to say about him in this case. It says nothing about him being under court orders. I'm going to have to assume that he was the one taking care of the children and he was to supervise her being around them. If that's the case, then he should be charged with something as well, maybe child endangerment for leaving them with her, I dunno.

Unfortunately those kids are going to lead one fucked up life.


Why don't we just sterilize everyone at birth? Instead of circumscizing, let's do vascetomies. Let's also tie the tubes of babies. If you want to have children, the government will pay for the reversal later on in life, once you've shown that you are ready, willing, and able to be a good parent. That doesn't mean that you have to be making over a certain income or already own a house, shit like that. What it means is you have to have the actual desire to have children, go through some drug screening, and take some classes to aid you in becoming a good parent. It would by no means be a way of controlling the population, it'd just be a way to keep people from becoming parents that have no right to bring a child into this world.

Think about it for a minute before you say the above is immoral or wrong. We neuter animals so they don't reproduce. We don't want to deal with thousands upon thousands of unwanted animals. We are animals, even though we try to separate ourselves from them, we are still animals. If we can control our "animals" from reproducing and giving us the burden of taking care of them when they are unwanted, why can't we place that control on our own kind?

 

[BrothaBill]

Sadly, you cannot restrict her from having another baby because her next infant could end up being the next Bill Clinton.

If I was dictator of the United States, I would kill the bitch. Kill her before she has the chance to breed again. Her, and about 85% of the current prison population, all gang-bangers, and the dude who invented Twinkies.

I wonder what the infants blood-alcohol level was?

Everything is based on precedent in a system. Hardly a long term solution to a rare issue. Your solution warrants a big gong on the gong show of logic. *GOOOONGNNGNGNGGGGG**

Have to try again with more long term thinking to enter the conversation

 

[Ish]

Lethal injection is the only answer.

 

[BrothaBill]

Lethal injection is the only answer.

until its your sister

 

[gotmilk]

Here's how I would handle this.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/~sdb/Safari-2003/Images/576 Lioness kill 4.jpg

 

[milo hobgoblin]

After prison.. sterilization.

 

[Ish]

I don't have one.

until its your sister

 

[moose11]

I hope she gets the death penalty. But the sad thing is that even if she does...she will be sitting in jail for like 10years waiting to be executed at the cost of $40,000/yr of taxpayers dollars.

 

[gotmilk]

Lethal injection is the only answer.

Jim Jones style Kool Aid using this sugar substitute:

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/spr/eradicate.j.JPG

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Please read as follows.

OSHKOSH, Wis. - A 4-month-old girl died when her inebriated mother fell asleep on top of her while breast-feeding, prosecutors said. Lorinda Hawkins told police she fell asleep about 15 minutes after she started breast-feeding the baby Feb. 23 because of her intoxication, a criminal complaint said. When she woke up about an hour later, the baby was pale and wasn’t breathing, the complaint said.

Hawkins was charged Friday with one count of child neglect causing a death. If convicted as a repeat felony offender, she could be sentenced to 29 years in prison and fined $100,000. Defense lawyer Steven Smits asked for Hawkins’ release on signature bond so she could enter substance abuse treatment, but she remained jailed late Friday on $7,000 bond. A preliminary hearing was scheduled Nov. 17.

The 27-year-old — who was on probation for child neglect — had consumed six double-shot alcoholic beverages at a bowling alley, the complaint said. A toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol level ranged from .15 to .27 percent. Her husband drove Hawkins and their 4-year-old daughter to the bowling alley and later brought them home, then went out drinking himself, according to the complaint. The baby was unresponsive when he returned an hour later, the complaint said.

Hawkins was on probation for neglect of the same child, and was prohibited from drinking alcohol and from having unsupervised contact with all four of her children at once, court documents show.


How do we deal with this? This is a philosophical question; how do we deal with a person unfit for parenthood? These kids are virtually guaranteed lives of low output, low education and likely incarceration.

If anyone feels like discussing this from a social policy standpoint...I am interested how other people look at this.

Sooo....how is a low life mom going to afford a $100,000 fine, and why should taxpayers support her 29 year stay in the big house?

Isn't there an island where we can put all the misfit parents/criminals/terminally infected people? You know, to weed out the trash/less fortunate so everyone else has more breathing room, and kids can grow up in a healthy environment?

...But I suppose that's being too harsh though.......fucking rediculous.

 

[75th]

Sooo....how is a low life mom going to afford a $100,000 fine, and why should taxpayers support her 29 year stay in the big house?

Isn't there an island where we can put all the misfit parents/criminals/terminally infected people? You know, to weed out the trash/less fortunate so everyone else has more breathing room, and kids can grow up in a healthy environment?

...But I suppose that's being too harsh though.......fucking rediculous.

I think the government tried that island thing before, but Kurt Russell fucked it all up.

 

[BrothaBill]

I don't have one.

until its your metaphor then

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I think that she would be made physically incapable of having children.

Imprisonment accomplishes this.

What about the issues of government excessively intervening into family life?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Sadly, you cannot restrict her from having another baby because her next infant could end up being the next Bill Clinton.

If I was dictator of the United States, I would kill the bitch. Kill her before she has the chance to breed again. Her, and about 85% of the current prison population, all gang-bangers, and the dude who invented Twinkies.

I wonder what the infants blood-alcohol level was?

What about the potential for having 4 more prisoners - ie her kids? Kill them too?

I was also wondering on infant's BAC.

 

[velvett]

The 27-year-old — who was on probation for child neglect — had consumed six double-shot alcoholic beverages at a bowling alley, the complaint said. A toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol level ranged from .15 to .27 percent. Her husband drove Hawkins and their 4-year-old daughter to the bowling alley and later brought them home, then went out drinking himself, according to the complaint. The baby was unresponsive when he returned an hour later, the complaint said.
[/I]


How do we deal with this? This is a philosophical question; how do we deal with a person unfit for parenthood? These kids are virtually guaranteed lives of low output, low education and likely incarceration.

If anyone feels like discussing this from a social policy standpoint...I am interested how other people look at this.

Both parents were neglectful in my opinion.

Clearly they are both too immature to have a child and most likely did so by accident and married because of it. Is it normal for a mother to go out and slug down 12 shots get picked up by her husband in which (I assume) he trade the baby off to her so he could "get his" as well.

If you had to deal with unfit parents AFTER they had babies and children they were unable to cope with the raising of you'd have a lot institutionalized kids.

I don't believe that most that breed should be allowed to but that would be unconstitutional to take away your rights YAHDA YAHDA YAHDA.

You need a marriage license, a claming license, a dog license, hell in some areas you need a fishing license to carry a knife - yet any idiot can breed.

I don't believe there is a socially acceptable answer or social policy to be created to solve this problem but if it were up to me breeding would be an awarded privilege not a right.

 

[Smurfy]

I am so glad I'm no longer working in the State Child Welfare field. 12 years of that was enough to numb me to these types of stories.

People have way too many rights. Cant force sterilization because of human rights. What about the rights of these dead, neglected and/or abused children?

There should be some sort of parent training required. And fines or some such for people who dont comply. Or maybe invent a parenting license. If yuo dont have one, and you give birth, your child is taken away.

fuck i dont know.

i dont miss this stuff.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I agree - throw the book at her.

Even if she only gets convicted of the charge listed, she should serve no less than the maximum and it's doubtful that she'll be able to reproduce when she is released in 29 years.

Accidents happen, but getting drunk when you are supposed to be taking care of your chiildren is not an accident. Since she has already proven she can't take care of children and obey court orders, her children should be taken away from her.

Throwing the book at her - a 29 years sentence - costs roughly $1.2M of taxpayer dollars. Perhaps it is worth it?

Why don't we just sterilize everyone at birth? Instead of circumscizing, let's do vascetomies. Let's also tie the tubes of babies. If you want to have children, the government will pay for the reversal later on in life, once you've shown that you are ready, willing, and able to be a good parent.

The same people who handle issuance of driver's licenses are going to determine who is a fit parent? LOL.

Or would we use smart government people? Like the same smart people working for the CIA? The people who missed the fall of the USSR? Or maybe the FBI - you know, those guys who knew there were Saudis in flight schools here and didn't do anything about it, leading ot 3000 American deaths.

Just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here.

Even if this could be implemented -

Even if this could be funded at a cost of less than $TRILLIONS -

It would be the biggest abrogation of human rights...ever. The racist and classist implementations there are limitless. So my question for you is?

Why do you think that it should be government's repsonsibility? Thinking this implies that there is an intellectual and moral immaculacy of government that exists nowhere else. This is an incredible thought in the face of stunning incompetence displayed by government at almost all levels.

Why are you so willing to give up your own rights? and other people's?

Why do we need parenting classes if we have made it 100,000 years as a species without them?

Why are you willing to require everyone to suffer bureaucratic intervention into their lives because one of the stupidest people on Earth did something immeasurably dumb? Why should *I* need parentng classes now?

Think about it for a minute before you say the above is immoral or wrong. We neuter animals so they don't reproduce. We don't want to deal with thousands upon thousands of unwanted animals. We are animals, even though we try to separate ourselves from them, we are still animals. If we can control our "animals" from reproducing and giving us the burden of taking care of them when they are unwanted, why can't we place that control on our own kind?

Even the dumbest Hurricane Katrina refugee is 1000x smarter than a dog. That's the difference.

You managed to equate people with animals, and to call for abrogation of my rights (and your own) because some idiot in WI killed her kid.

You will make a fine North Korean.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

You need a marriage license, a claming license, a dog license, hell in some areas you need a fishing license to carry a knife - yet any idiot can breed.

I don't believe there is a socially acceptable answer or social policy to be created to solve this problem but if it were up to me breeding would be an awarded privilege not a right.

Nice to see you around here.

What if we could control the impact of alcoholon the woman's brain, so that drinking did not actually impair her?

Isn't this biochemical solution the easiest of all,and least intrusive? True, the bowling alley and several distillers would suffer a loss, but, might that be worth it?

 

[velvett]

Nice to see you around here.

What if we could control the impact of alcoholon the woman's brain, so that drinking did not actually impair her?

Isn't this biochemical solution the easiest of all,and least intrusive? True, the bowling alley and several distillers would suffer a loss, but, might that be worth it?

LOL

I have no reasonable answers - all I know is that stories like that make me irrate.

Childrearing is much like birthcontrol - and ultimately women need to be more responsible, one because it's their body, two they will be judged harshly for their failures. (No one read into that as a man bash because that is not what I am saying at all.)

If you still have to go out and get wasted you have no right to have a small innocent life to be responsible for.

 

[wutangnomo]

Nice to see you around here.

What if we could control the impact of alcoholon the woman's brain, so that drinking did not actually impair her?

Isn't this biochemical solution the easiest of all,and least intrusive? True, the bowling alley and several distillers would suffer a loss, but, might that be worth it?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic with what I quoted in bold, but how is that the easiest solution??? If anything, that is the most complicated and intrusive.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic with what I quoted in bold, but how is that the easiest solution??? If anything, that is the most complicated and intrusive.

It is only maximum intrusiveness for the criminal.

It is less intrusive than prison, which no one is against. This is a far lower level of intrusiveness than incarceration (which I also believe is intrusive).

This idea only "punishes" the wrongdoer; the governmental intervention ideas punish millions who did nothing wrong. Those are examples of reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

The biochemical solution affects no one else.

 

[gotmilk]

What about the potential for having 4 more prisoners - ie her kids? Kill them too?

I was also wondering on infant's BAC.

I have a cousin who had three kids by the age of 18. Her father barely paid any attention to her and her mom was a drunk. I mean DRUNK as in shitfaced by 9 am and passed out by noon.

The State of Maine eventually took control of her kids and had my cousin sterilized by 19 (an option, not forced).

The funny thing is, my cousin lived in Northern Maine and I live just outside of Portland. I used to play with her kids whenever I was around. They were only 2 and 4 years old.

Anyhow, I bumped into them and they remembered me. They legally changed their names and their adoptive parents live not too far from me. These kids who could barely speak and used to pee outside all the time now are straight "A" students.

I think disfunction can be cut-off if done early enough.

I'd kill off a shitpile of people anyhow. I'm crazy like that. Little kids always have a chance if given the right attention.

If the infant's BAC was high enough, it may have been asleep when the mother passed out and never really felt the suffocation.

 

[big4life]

Like velvett said, maybe people should need licenses to have children.

In my city a couple months ago, we had a woman go to work on a warm day, mid 80's, and leave her infant in the car because she couldn't find anyone to watch him. She checked on him on her break and said he was doing fine. When she left work later he had died. The baby had cooked to death in thecar.

 

[Buddy_Christ]

Throwing the book at her - a 29 years sentence - costs roughly $1.2M of taxpayer dollars. Perhaps it is worth it?



The same people who handle issuance of driver's licenses are going to determine who is a fit parent? LOL.

Or would we use smart government people? Like the same smart people working for the CIA? The people who missed the fall of the USSR? Or maybe the FBI - you know, those guys who knew there were Saudis in flight schools here and didn't do anything about it, leading ot 3000 American deaths.

Just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here.

Even if this could be implemented -

Even if this could be funded at a cost of less than $TRILLIONS -

It would be the biggest abrogation of human rights...ever. The racist and classist implementations there are limitless. So my question for you is?

Why do you think that it should be government's repsonsibility? Thinking this implies that there is an intellectual and moral immaculacy of government that exists nowhere else. This is an incredible thought in the face of stunning incompetence displayed by government at almost all levels.

Why are you so willing to give up your own rights? and other people's?

Why do we need parenting classes if we have made it 100,000 years as a species without them?

Why are you willing to require everyone to suffer bureaucratic intervention into their lives because one of the stupidest people on Earth did something immeasurably dumb? Why should *I* need parentng classes now?



Even the dumbest Hurricane Katrina refugee is 1000x smarter than a dog. That's the difference.

You managed to equate people with animals, and to call for abrogation of my rights (and your own) because some idiot in WI killed her kid.

You will make a fine North Korean.

Hook, line, and sinker. Damn I'm good. I've finally found someone that 100% disagrees with that idea. What's funny (and scary) is I've had quite a number of people say "damn, it's a good idea in theory, but it's wrong and would never happen." Trust me, I am all for people having rights and I am against the government taking away those rights. I do, however, like to think these things up from time to time and wonder what would happen to society if we did something like that, no matter how right or wrong it would be.


It would be completely immoral. I will not dispute that one bit. However, as was previously stated, you need a license to drive a car, to hunt, to fish, carry a gun, you need a background check just to buy a gun, license to practice medicine, all sorts of things...but any 2 idiots can fuck and create a child, abuse and neglect the child, and no one can say or do anything to stop it from happening.

Parenting classes, yup, I think we need them. Why? Because I think a lot of kids today are raised like shit and I don't forsee it getting any better. That's my opinion, of course, but I'm entited to that opinion.


As for this woman, sure, throw the book at her, we as a society like doing that, and we can just create more prisons if we need a place to put her. Or how about we sentence her to death? After all, she killed her own child. If I caused the death of my child, I doubt I'd make it one day before putting a bullet in my head. Here's a better idea - let's provide her with the means to kill herself. If she has any sort of a conscience, she'll do it willingly.

She was directly responsible for her chiild's death. Shouldn't she have to face the same consequences as I would if I walked down the street, pulled out a gun, and shot someone?

 

[javaguru]

In all honesty, I wish the constitution would allow governments and courts to mandate contraception for convicted felons and those receiving public assistance. In this case, the judge should have never allowed custody but hindsight is 20/20. My .02

 

[Buddy_Christ]

In all honesty, I wish the constitution would allow governments and courts to mandate contraception for convicted felons and those receiving public assistance. In this case, the judge should have never allowed custody but hindsight is 20/20. My .02

Agreed, but it would be extremely controversial and probably never happen.

I'm sure we could put together some type of program where people on welfare could EARN a living instead of sucking off the government, and even make it manditory participation or you don't get shit. Whole communities could be established. Plenty of people on welfare have kids, so who's going to watch the kids? Screen applicants that are on welfare, give them the proper courses, they can get paid to do the daycare.

Why should they get money for free? Give them something to do to earn that money, even if it's just cleaning up our parks or picking trash up along the side of the road. IIRC, we did something similar to this following WW2 in order to help people get back on their feet. Sure, it costs money, but they're not doing a damn thing to get that money if they're sitting on welfare.

Don't wanna work? No more free money for you.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Hook, line, and sinker. Damn I'm good. I've finally found someone that 100% disagrees with that idea. What's funny (and scary) is I've had quite a number of people say "damn, it's a good idea in theory, but it's wrong and would never happen." Trust me, I am all for people having rights and I am against the government taking away those rights. I do, however, like to think these things up from time to time and wonder what would happen to society if we did something like that, no matter how right or wrong it would be.

This is what would happen as a society: we would be more quickly overrun by people who do not control birth of children. The decisions about prcreation would be controlled by an imigrant population that is less epxerienced with demoncracy and by and large less educated than those who are American born. We would lack the people to defend ourseves militarily, and lack to numbers of educated people to vote down stupid ideas proposed and accepted by an immigrant majority.

Think of it as pressing a cosmic "rewind" button on human progress. That should help. People think it is a good idea because they are stupid. The breathtaking stupidity of most people frightens me on a daily basis. That said, I would not dare limit their procreation; stupid people don't always produce stupid kids.

It would be completely immoral. I will not dispute that one bit. However, as was previously stated, you need a license to drive a car, to hunt, to fish, carry a gun, you need a background check just to buy a gun, license to practice medicine, all sorts of things...but any 2 idiots can fuck and create a child, abuse and neglect the child, and no one can say or do anything to stop it from happening.

The presence of licensing requirements does not make these things right or moral. It just means that people are willing to accept additional intrusiveness, so stating that "we have all this licensing" does not prove your point. It's an attempt at inductive reasoning, but it's not applicable here.

Parenting classes, yup, I think we need them. Why? Because I think a lot of kids today are raised like shit and I don't forsee it getting any better. That's my opinion, of course, but I'm entited to that opinion.

What exactly would we teach? Scientists don't know anything about brain development, and are only now scratching the surface of the line that defines neural pathways, language, emotions, etc. Since we know nothing about development of the brain, what might we teach? How to be nice to kids? How to be "firm but fair"? lol.

And who might teach it, since no one really knows how the brain develops? Yes, this woman might have benefited from it, but do you suggest that a heart surgeon be made to listen to government bureaucrats before he and his wife might have a child? Seems like a waste.

Most people handle parenting just fine. WHy reduce everything to the denominator of one alcoholic idiot?

As for this woman, sure, throw the book at her, we as a society like doing that, and we can just create more prisons if we need a place to put her. Or how about we sentence her to death? After all, she killed her own child. If I caused the death of my child, I doubt I'd make it one day before putting a bullet in my head. Here's a better idea - let's provide her with the means to kill herself. If she has any sort of a conscience, she'll do it willingly.

She was directly responsible for her chiild's death. Shouldn't she have to face the same consequences as I would if I walked down the street, pulled out a gun, and shot someone?

It's not the same as intentionally killing someone. She should go to prison though, no doubt.

 

[75th]

I honestly dont have an idea that would either give the government more power than it needs, or provide an ability for a slippery-slope effect.

The procreation license has something thats always been in the back of my mind, but people are going to shag if they want to shag...all it will do is create more children processed into government care once they get "repo'd" from their parents.

 

[javaguru]

Agreed, but it would be extremely controversial and probably never happen.

I'm sure we could put together some type of program where people on welfare could EARN a living instead of sucking off the government, and even make it manditory participation or you don't get shit. Whole communities could be established. Plenty of people on welfare have kids, so who's going to watch the kids? Screen applicants that are on welfare, give them the proper courses, they can get paid to do the daycare.

Why should they get money for free? Give them something to do to earn that money, even if it's just cleaning up our parks or picking trash up along the side of the road. IIRC, we did something similar to this following WW2 in order to help people get back on their feet. Sure, it costs money, but they're not doing a damn thing to get that money if they're sitting on welfare.

Don't wanna work? No more free money for you.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has already determined procreation is a "fundamental" right. Which means the government can't interfere with anyone's desire to procreate in any way, including public assistance programs.

 

[75th]

Why should they get money for free? Give them something to do to earn that money, even if it's just cleaning up our parks or picking trash up along the side of the road. IIRC, we did something similar to this following WW2 in order to help people get back on their feet. Sure, it costs money, but they're not doing a damn thing to get that money if they're sitting on welfare.

The ghetto, oxygen-thief mindset would not allow a person to partake in such meaningless (yet somewhat honorable) labor in order to afford new 20" rims for their ride.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has already determined procreation is a "fundamental" right. Which means the government can't interfere with anyone's desire to procreate in any way, including public assistance programs.

What the government can do, is to eliminate public assistance, or restrict it severely to the truly needy.

 

[shamrock11]

We are talking about the same governement here that gives drug addicts more rights than those of us who are not. I live in a state in whcih you can get away with just about anything short of murder if you an addict. I mean as long a you go through some mandiated drug treatment program for like a year and you do no jail time. I knew this chick who had a felnoy forgery charge, three counts of prostitution and is a habitual offender and never spent more than a week in jail. She would miss court date get high all thge time and she still isn't in jail. I know of a bunch more people in the same boat. If a non- drug addict had commited half of those crimes they would be in jial for some serious time.

 

[javaguru]

What the government can do, is to eliminate public assistance, or restrict it severely to the truly needy.

They need to limit it to unemployment benefits; the Supreme Court case I referenced was based on California trying to limit who could receive public assistance. At this rate the US will never escape the "raw deal", I mean "new deal" and be stuck like Germany supporting their social welfare.

edit: I don't belive in social security as it's the lowest paying investment one can have unless you're dirt poor. It should be maintained until we can at least invest in goverment bonds, which have a higher return AND are backed by the full faith and credit of the US goverment, unlike social security,

 

[Buddy_Christ]

This is what would happen as a society: we would be more quickly overrun by people who do not control birth of children. The decisions about prcreation would be controlled by an imigrant population that is less epxerienced with demoncracy and by and large less educated than those who are American born. We would lack the people to defend ourseves militarily, and lack to numbers of educated people to vote down stupid ideas proposed and accepted by an immigrant majority.

Think of it as pressing a cosmic "rewind" button on human progress. That should help. People think it is a good idea because they are stupid. The breathtaking stupidity of most people frightens me on a daily basis. That said, I would not dare limit their procreation; stupid people don't always produce stupid kids.

Do you ever, and I mean ever, entertain a wild idea just for the hell of it?

I acknowledged that it would never happen, it isn't moral, and it isn't right. I know the consequences of such actions would far outweigh the benifits.

The presence of licensing requirements does not make these things right or moral. It just means that people are willing to accept additional intrusiveness, so stating that "we have all this licensing" does not prove your point. It's an attempt at inductive reasoning, but it's not applicable here.



What exactly would we teach? Scientists don't know anything about brain development, and are only now scratching the surface of the line that defines neural pathways, language, emotions, etc. Since we know nothing about development of the brain, what might we teach? How to be nice to kids? How to be "firm but fair"? lol.

And who might teach it, since no one really knows how the brain develops? Yes, this woman might have benefited from it, but do you suggest that a heart surgeon be made to listen to government bureaucrats before he and his wife might have a child? Seems like a waste.

Most people handle parenting just fine. WHy reduce everything to the denominator of one alcoholic idiot?

I'm biased becuase I'm a psych major and I feel that I've learned a lot about development. As far as what we would teach, let's try behavior modification for starters. There's many ways to go about modifying behavior. Toss some theories of development in there too, and there are quite a few of those. No one theory is 100% correct IMO. Some are applicable here, some are applicable there, it varies.

Educating people is not a waste.

It's not the same as intentionally killing someone. She should go to prison though, no doubt.

I agree it wasn't intentional, but she chose her actions which led to the death of her child. She should suffer the consequences.


Furthermore, I don't appreciate you attempting to imply that I'm stupid just because I vocalized a radical (and impossible) thought. Throughout history people have thought up and persued radical ideas. Some have succeeded (and benifitted mankind) and some have failed miserably or harmed mankind. Just because someone thinks about these things in no way implies that they are stupid. I know what I said wouldn't work. I know that it would be impossible, immoral, and illegial to do. I can only imagine the widespread chaos that would ensue if our government even proposed such an idea.

From time to time I like to entertain these radical ideas and wonder "what if" and look at both sides of the arguement (which I have done in this situation). If that's wrong or makes me stupid, then please remove my brain because I have no use for it anymore.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Do you ever, and I mean ever, entertain a wild idea just for the hell of it?

I acknowledged that it would never happen, it isn't moral, and it isn't right. I know the consequences of such actions would far outweigh the benifits.

Yep. I entertain the idea of eliminating social security and medicare. These will never happen, but I entertain them often.

I entertain doing away with public education...good luck on that (politically). It is precisely because i think through these things that I responded so energetically to your posts.

btw thanks for the replies.

I'm biased becuase I'm a psych major and I feel that I've learned a lot about development. As far as what we would teach, let's try behavior modification for starters. There's many ways to go about modifying behavior. Toss some theories of development in there too, and there are quite a few of those. No one theory is 100% correct IMO. Some are applicable here, some are applicable there, it varies.

Sure, you know about development; there is some information out there that can be learned and is valid. I am not disputing that.

But neuroscience still can't understand at a brain level what causes memory, emotion, etc., so the "available" is fairly limited.

Educating people is not a waste.

It is a waste if the curriculum is limited or wrong and does not address the root causes, which in this case is unknown. It is a waste if the student is unable to learn; try teaching rocket science to a retard.

I agree it wasn't intentional, but she chose her actions which led to the death of her child. She should suffer the consequences.

Well, from a legal standpoint, it is not murder, unless maybe it could be called depraved indifference to human life.

I don't have an objection to sterilizing her - she is human garbage who is incapable of anything more than menial labor. I really don't have an issue with it if she were killed. She's pure human shit.

The only reason I cannot support these things is that they set a precedent that I don't care to set.

Furthermore, I don't appreciate you attempting to imply that I'm stupid just because I vocalized a radical (and impossible) thought. Throughout history people have thought up and persued radical ideas. Some have succeeded (and benifitted mankind) and some have failed miserably or harmed mankind. Just because someone thinks about these things in no way implies that they are stupid. I know what I said wouldn't work. I know that it would be impossible, immoral, and illegial to do. I can only imagine the widespread chaos that would ensue if our government even proposed such an idea.

From time to time I like to entertain these radical ideas and wonder "what if" and look at both sides of the arguement (which I have done in this situation). If that's wrong or makes me stupid, then please remove my brain because I have no use for it anymore.

If I think you are stupid, I will say "you are stupid". All I said was that there are lots and lots of stupid people out there. Clearly, this is true and cannot be debated.

I don't think you are one of them. But if I did, I'd tell you.

 

[Mr. dB]

Here's how I would handle this.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/~sdb/Safari-2003/Images/576 Lioness kill 4.jpg

Nice kitty.

 

[Buddy_Christ]

Yep. I entertain the idea of eliminating social security and medicare. These will never happen, but I entertain them often.

I entertain doing away with public education...good luck on that (politically). It is precisely because i think through these things that I responded so energetically to your posts.

btw thanks for the replies.


Sure, you know about development; there is some information out there that can be learned and is valid. I am not disputing that.

But neuroscience still can't understand at a brain level what causes memory, emotion, etc., so the "available" is fairly limited.



It is a waste if the curriculum is limited or wrong and does not address the root causes, which in this case is unknown. It is a waste if the student is unable to learn; try teaching rocket science to a retard.



Well, from a legal standpoint, it is not murder, unless maybe it could be called depraved indifference to human life.

I don't have an objection to sterilizing her - she is human garbage who is incapable of anything more than menial labor. I really don't have an issue with it if she were killed. She's pure human shit.

The only reason I cannot support these things is that they set a precedent that I don't care to set.




If I think you are stupid, I will say "you are stupid". All I said was that there are lots and lots of stupid people out there. Clearly, this is true and cannot be debated.

I don't think you are one of them. But if I did, I'd tell you.

Okay

Neuroscience...a subject I'm dreading. I have to take Behavioral Neuroscience this spring and I am not looking forward to it one bit. Dealing with straight behavior and not trying to find the chemical cause, however, is a different story.

True, education is wasted if the student doesn't want to learn. There are plenty of times I think my own education is a waste until I realize how much I actually am learning.


It actually kind of sucks that this situation isn't considered murder. Unfortunately the legal definition of murder will save her from a life behind bars (or a death sentence). Who knows, maybe she's capable of being rehabilitated. Only time will tell. The real question at this point is what is going to happen with her between the time she's incarcerated and the time she rejoins society. She will rejoin society someday. Will our justice system change her, or will she still be worthless?

This concern of mine is the reason I want to work as a prison counselor. Most everyone is capable of change, it's finding the people that actually want to change and helping them to do so that I want to be involved in.