(V'ger) Steri-lize....steri-lize...(/V'ger)
 

In-depth in reference to the parents' drug use, criminal history, and history of abusing a previous child:
Parents' criminal and abuse history


Jesus, WTF's wrong with these people?

Can't really blame social services on this one, because the parents lied as to where they were living, for one thing. That puts the "oh, but they were poor , and living in the basement of a house...it didn't have electricity or anything, so it's not their fault." B-F-S.



OOooooooooohhhh, shit like this just burns me up!


Sidhe

What's your point, Sid? Yeah, that's a pretty awful story. Agreed, "We we're poor" is no even a faintly legitimate excuse. So just what are you trying to convey here?

"While in labor and waiting for a taxi ride to Hopkins, Swann reportedly gave birth to one of the twins, but left the newborn in her pant leg, which should have been another red flag, according to city health officials."

Red flag? naahhh.

My point is that these are the kinds of people who should not be allowed to have children.

Let's see...abuse of a previous child, who was subsequently taken by child services; extreme abuse of the two one-month-old infants, which probably included starving them (if you looked at the weight of the children); drug use while pregnant; and what the hell's up with leaving the kid in her pants leg?

They should rip her plumbing out. That's how I feel, and I'm not sorry for it.

People don't think about this, because it isn't in their faces all the time--it tends to get relegated to page five of the newspaper, and to a sound bite on the news--behind which sports star got busted doing coke and the latest fashions...but dammit, somebody should be watching out for these poor kids!


Sidhe

http://www.szilagyi.us/images/Simpsons/HelenLovejoy.jpg

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!

:D

I don't know about ripping their plumbing out. But if they ever got out of jail (and they'd be there for the rest of their lives, dealing with "Bubba" if I had any say about it); I'd make it a condition of their release that they be on Norplant and whatever the male equivalent is. They'd be subjected to mandatory checks at surprise intervals just like someone on parole for drug charges and that would be for LIFE or in the case of the woman, until about 6 doctors independently agreed that she was well beyond menopause.

Works for me.

I'm of the opinion that you need to stop sticking your nose in other people's genitals.

Good thing it's still free America then, huh?:p

http://www.nbc6.net/news/3393052/detail.html

*sigh*

I'm Canadian, your paltry constitution doesn't apply to me.

Oh yeah...in Canada, you even let prisoners vote...:rolleyes:

http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/15112002/n3.shtml

Damn right, they should be allowed to vote!

I don't even know why I'm arguing this.

So far you've posted about 20 random rape and assault stories followed by you *sigh*ing and demanding sterilisation.

Who are you hoping to convince?

Good quote.

ok, just curious. why do you think prisoners should maintain this right?

i think the reason we don't let them vote is that they are in a situation where others exert control over them. hypothetically a warden could cause all of his prisoners to vote for x candidate in exchange for some privilege. that could totally skew the results.

edit: added 2nd paragraph.

They should be able to vote because no person is in ANY position to withdraw voting rights from another citizen.

A democracy is based on the voice of the people, and as soon as somebody has the ability to snuff that voice, regardless of whose voice it is, democracy has failed.

These people are in jail, they're not dead. As long as someone is alive, they have rights as a human being.

Let's see....the prisoners make their "living" breaking laws...so let's give them the right to elect the people who both make the laws and enforce them?

Riiiiiiiiiight....

Regardless of how "uncomfortable" it makes your regular Joe.

don't you think it would be pretty easy for a guard to induce people under his control to vote the way he likes?

and besides, they are in prison for a reason. there are consequences to actions.

A democracy should be based on the voice of the people who uphold that society, not the ones who prey on it.

These people are in jail. While they are in jail, they should not have the right to affect the society in any way. The reason they're in jail is because they have affected society adversely. Therefore they should be stripped of all but the right to food, water, clothing, and shelter. When they've paid society back and are once again free, then they should regain the rights of a citizen.


Sidhe

Those consequences do not squelch the basic right of human beings, as much as some would like them to.

I don't care how much you hate prisoners, you don't get to stamp on their rights as human beings.

Sidhe, when you became batshit crazy, did you hear a snap?

What about all the people in jail in China for believing in Democracy?

What about the people we put in jail for minor drug offences? Smoke a joint and you're out of the loop? Or murderers who are WRONGLY convicted and thrown in jail?

Being in a building you can't get out of does not make a person a piece of shit on your boot, Sidhe.

Get off your horse.

Nowhere have I said that I "hated" prisoners. However, prison is supposed to be punishment. While they are there, they should be afforded the aforementioned basic rights. The point of being in prison is to remove the person from society. If that's so, then they should be removed completely, until they've served their sentence. They shouldn't have the rights bestowed upon the free members of society until they are once again free members of society.

i don't hate prisoners. at the current time i have a cousin and an uncle in prison for different reasons. they chose to break the law. they have lost their rights in many areas.
since the idea of a guard or warden exerting undue influence on prisoner's votes, how about this one:

politician in area with a large number of prisoners runs for office with one of his ideas being that he will free prisoners that fall within categories x,y, and z. prisoners would undoubtedly vote for this person. they should not have the option to influence this election because that is basic bribery. "you get me into office, i'll get you out of jail"
bad idea.

i think it was more of a mild burbling. rofl.......funny, carb, funny

this is from the official parker bros monopoly rules. it is not a large leap from buying and selling property to voting. We sold a car to a guy in jail once. his wife had power of attorney. they paid cash. ;)

You're acting as if you assume that everyone in jail is innocent. Not everyone is.

Like I said before, prison is supposed to be a place people don't want to go to....a punishment. But they have more privileges than law-abiding citizens do:

free medical care
free law library and representation
three meals a day, a place to sleep, clothes to wear
a gym
cable tv

Hell, I can't afford that stuff, yet they get it?
We treat our prisoners better than we treat our homeless. That's bullshit.

Prison is a punishment, period. They get enough perks as it is, especially federal prisoners. They shouldn't have the privilege of voting.

Then let their wives vote.:p

I suggest a stern letter to your congressman! They DEFINITELY would change things then!

We're not in China. And while I think certain drugs should be legal, and jail time for them is BS, the simple fact remains that they ARE illegal, and if you get busted, that's not my problem. And as far as wrongful convictions, I've stated my opinions on that (for example DNA should be MANDATORY, not optional).


I have my opinions, and I didn't just pick them out of a hat. I've thought about them, and why I believe them. Merely because I have firm opinions, which happen to disagree with yours, does not make me wrong--or batshit crazy, as you so eloquently put it.

i think you;re missing the point. if the area is populated with enough prisoners to influence a vote, then that area should make decisions based on what is important to the majority of people in that area.
suppose there was a county that had a population of 1000 people. 600 of them are in prison. 400 of them are not. an election is held, and one politician's platform is prison reform and living condition improvement within the jails. the other runs on a platform of cracking down and reducing the funding of the prisons. 600 prisoners all vote for politician #1. 100 of the non imprisoned people also think there should be better living conditions in the jails. 300 people vote for politician #2. 700 votes to 300 votes. if the prisoner's votes are stricken, #2 wins by a lot. and the majority suffers. NOT DEMOCRACY.

I bet if you got dragged away to sing sing for a bogus reason, you'd change your whiny tune in a hurry, Sidhe.

Preach it, jim. Democracy shall not suffer for the conveniences of the middle class.

twice?

what you are apparently missing is that we have certain inalienable rights. you can't lose your rights. if we were a nation of criminals ( meaning that the criminal population outnumbered the non criminals) then we should make our decisions that way. government for the people by the people. not goverment for the good people by the good people.

What do you mean by this? That everyone must have DNA? That every murderer must leave DNA evidence at the scene of the crime? That DNA evidence must exist and be presented for there to be a murder trial?:confused:

your opinions being firm and thought upon as opposed to random doesn't make them not wrong either.

I'm not whining. I'm stating an opinion. Besides, I've been sent to prison for something I didn't do. Luckily, I was released a couple of days later when it was discovered that the accusers had a history of falsely accusing four or five people of the same bullshit. The judge threw it out and threatened the accusers with jail if they brought one more false accusation to waste his court's time.

That in cases which involve long prison terms or the death penalty, DNA testing should be mandatory, paid for by the state. It should not be only if the accused can afford it.

edit: and LJ, it doesn't mean they're wrong, either, just because they aren't liberal.

wait. lemme go make some popcorn.

Maybe the world would be safer if everybody inserted their johnson into a little remote controlled guillotine and you had your finger on the controls?

This isn't a police state!

And when there is no DNA evidence to test...?

Oh, please....


Yes, I believe that people who abuse their children should not be able to create more victims. I believe that drug addicts who give birth to drug-addicted babies who will have mental and physical problems for life should not be able to create more victims. I believe cold-blooded murderers should die in the same way they murdered their victims. I believe that prison should be a punishment, and I believe that society as a whole is more important than the predators who would destroy it.

I'm not sorry I believe these things, and if you're looking for some kind of apology, don't hold your breath.

I have a daughter who is a hell of a lot more important to me than the Bundys, the child molesters, and the other random murderers out there. Anything that will make society safer for her has my approval.

edit: this was a reply to CB, not Jinx.

I've never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene. Unless he's dressed in a full body condom, it's extremely unlikely that there is no DNA evidence.
Same with rape and molestation. However, as to these two, there's more than one way to determine guilt. Those ways should be utilized. That's one of the reasons I think previous behavior should be allowed to be put before the jury. For example, if someone has prior convictions for rape or molestation, the jury should know that. It shows a propensity. As it goes now, prior records are not allowed as evidence, so juries give light sentences, thinking that it's a first offense.

edit: I use these examples because they're most likely to have long prison terms or be eligible for the death penalty.

you callin me a liberal? i'll call you a fascist if you are.

sidhe, you claim to be smart. you take an extrememly simplistic view of things. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth doesn't work. that civilization failed.

sterilizing people is fraught with more peril than not.

don't be stupid, ya moron.

They may have left something, but it may not have been discovered. If you think the authorities find something every time, you're sorely mistaken.

Who wants to start a poll? The question: Should Sidhe reopen her forum?

There is nothing wrong with a simplistic view of things when it IS simple.

And the eye for an eye civilization didn't fail; we got rid of it because we wanted to be more sympathetic to the criminals, rather than the victims. If we still had forms of public humiliation, I'll bet we wouldn't have as many repeat offenders. But noooo....we don't want to give them low self-esteem....

I'm also not advocating sterilization per se...however, I see nothing wrong with enforced birth control for child molesters, child abusers, and drug abusers who have a history of giving birth to addicted children.


And there's no need to namecall merely because I don't agree with your opinion. I thought you had more class than that.

Nope, I didn't say that. However, authorities generally don't close their eyes, spin around, and point to pick out a suspect, either. There's usually something to cause them to look at a particular person, or people.

Fair enough. But you did make a rather unusual claim. You honestly have never heard of a case where no physical evidence was left? Because it does happen.

Yes, I've heard of a few cases in which no DNA evidence was found. Not to say that it wasn't there, but it just wasn't found. However, other evidence was found that helped the police to focus on a small group of people.

For instance, Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker. He was hard to catch merely because he was a serial killer who did not have any particular preference in victims; there was other evidence that helped to find him, though. Not the least of which was that he couldn't keep his mouth shut. That's more common than people think.

Back to the subject of the thread, though, for those who don't agree with enforced birth control, what DO you think should be done with reference to child abusers, child molesters, and drug addicts who have a history of giving birth to addicted babies?

Just keep on letting them have kids? I don't understand what you feel should be done to protect these children.

Many have expressed (in the death penalty thread) that we should start with the children to prevent crime. But if we continue to allow abusers and molesters to have children, then we'll continue to have criminals who were abused or molested as children and use this as an excuse to avoid culpability. And the drug-addicted babies--they'll have mental and physical problems for the rest of their lives...what about them?


Sdihe

firstly, it was a howard stern reference. i forget that while he's a lot of places, you may not listen to him.

secondly, i wasn't calling you a moron because you disagree. i was calling you a moron because you are a moron.

thirdly, if you had any clue, you'd know that i am not above name calling, and have very little class.

seventh, you know as well as I do that you frustrate me because you open up discussions about random shit, preach about it, and refuse to listen when the things you have obviously overlooked or discounted are brought to yuor attention. I enjoy a good argument, but trying to talk to you is like berating my cat.

( i left out 4th, 5th, and 6th to make you wonder about the things that are going unsaid here.)

I listen. Doesn't mean I have to change my original opinion, though. Merely because people disagree doesn't mean that the reasons behind that disagreement are strong enough to change my original opinion.

I'm not for indiscriminately throwing people in prison or enforcing birth control. But when someone confesses to a crime, or are caught on videotape, or are otherwise nailed to the wall, I believe they should be punished. When people have histories of abusing, molesting, or exposing to drugs innocent children, I believe they should not be able to have kids. That doesn't make me a moron.

All I ever hear about are the rights of the prisoners, as if they're all innocent. Very rarely does anyone stand up for the rights of the victims. Whenever I put up something like the death penalty thread, the victims are thrown out the window in favor of the criminals. And the title of that thread, btw, is "Why the death penalty should be enforced," not why it shouldn't be enforced, and therefore I place comments and information there upholding that opinion. I'm not forcing anyone to read or agree or uphold my opinion, merely stating it and bringing reasons for that opinion to the attention of others.

In a criminal case the victim has no rights with regard to the accused. The state is the absolute proxy. The victims aren't at the mercy of the state, so their rights aren't relevant.

What she motherfucking said! :D

I was thinking the same thing. They have all these programs out there that shows how far crime solving has come in the last...what 20-30 some odd years and how they can pick up a "fingerprint" of some sort from just about any crime scene, even when it may appear that no evidence can be found. *shrugs*

Now hon, in all fairness, how many times have we watched something like "Forensic Files" and they manage to find something in the most unlikely of places? I know you are not saying just because nothing was found that nothing CAN be found...right?

XOXO :D

It's people like LadySyc who daily renew my faith that the human race will not degenerate into a "what else can we do for the criminal to make jail a warmer, fuzzier place" society.

:beer:


Sidhe

Ah, once again, television comes to rebut the troublesome cold-hard facts.