Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    No excuses made and no quarter given in this instance, but addicts are
    known to go to extreme lengths to feed their habits [_anything_
    addicts, not just cocaine]
    
    I tend to think the judge was a bit lenient given that the charges
    might well have included drug trafficking, white slavery involving a
    minor, rape ... the list could be endless.
    
    My inherent bias as one who has been raped forces me to point out that
    killing the perpetrators does not un-rape the child.  My gut cries out
    for retribution, but my conscience does not allow me to condone it.
    
    Rather than focus on the perpetrators [thinking 'insects'...] why not
    focus on what is being done for the child.
    
      Ann

    re .1 - According to the story that I saw, the child is now in the
    custody of her father and his current wife. When the verdict was handed
    down, the mother sneaked a glance at the daughter. The daughter would
    not look at the mother.

    Wait two years. Somebody will make a made-for-TV movie.

 Pretty sick, if you ask me.

 According to news reports, mom got life, the rapist got 40-60 years. Is this
a case of gender discrimination, or did they each get appropriate sentences?

 The Doctah

    I didn't read about this in the paper.  How did it come about that
    she traded letting somebody rape her daughter for cocaine?  Did
    she say to the drug dealer, Here, I'll let you rape my daughter
    if you give me some cocaine?  It seems weird.
    
    I think the drug dealer is just as guilty as the mother.  He *could*
    have told the mother that he didn't want to rape a 13 yr. old, that
    he would prefer cash instead.  He could also get a job instead of
    selling drugs for a living.  If anything he's probably more guilty
    than the mother.  The mother may be addicted to the point that she's
    so desperate she's lost her mind and isn't capable of caring about
    her daughter.  (Obviously the case.)
    
    I don't think either one deserves the death penalty.  (Exactly how
    brutal the rape was would determine what I thought the penalty should
    be.)
    
    Lorna
    

    Because of a mother's special responsibility toward her daughter, I
    believe that she becomes the perpetrator and the rapist the accomplice
    in this situation.  Dunno.
    
    Hooray for the judge,
    Marge

Sorry if this sounds insensitive

DEATH penalty for both is the only verdict I would want to see.

As the father I would probably do it myself if the courts didn't.
Amos

    re .4 - circumstances

    Again according to the story I saw (CNN), the mother wanted to buy
    drugs (I think it was crack), but didn't have the cash. She waked her
    daughter in the middle of the night, took her to the crack dealer's
    apartment, and left them alone for a couple of hours, in exchange for
    getting the drugs she wanted.

    	On CNN, judge said that woman would be incarcerated "for
    	the remainder of your natural life." They mentioned that
    	he modified this to life in prison, which means she will
    	be eligible for parole.
    
    	After the man was sentenced to 40-60 years, he passed out.
    
    	Scott

Which is worse; life or 40-60 years? Like, when's the first hearing, does it
influence what type of prison you get sent to, stuff like that.
	Mez

    
    >767.8<
    If he passed out in court,what do you think will happen when he
    gets to prison.From what I hear,the one thing that they hate in
    prison is a child Rapist and a child molester,this guy will be 
    in a living hell,which I think is terrific,as far as the mother,
    she has to live with it for the rest of her life.
    
              JM
        
    
    
    
    

    Did anyone notice the age of the mother? She is 29, that means that
    she was only 14 or so when she gave birth to her daughter.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    	When I hear things like this happening my stomach starts turning
    	and anger sets in.  I beleave (my own feelings) that when someone
    	like the Dear mother in this case has chosen what is more important
    	to her and thats her "addiction" to cocaine.  I sincerly beleave
    	when a person chooses to be weak that is "their" responsiblity
    	for what ever happens after that, I'm so tired of so much scum
    	getting off on "temporary insanity" and out they are to ruin
    	more peoples lives...  I beleave that if these people where
        punished and yes I mean the "death penalty" then maybe the scum
        that is wondering around the streets would think twice.  I have
    	heard alot of people say what good happens from killing the criminal
   	to the victim, The victim- nothing, they are the ones that have
    	to life the rest of there life fighting within-side to go on,
    	but maybe just maybe some of these criminals might think twice
    	if they new that they would NOT get off if they did such a crime.
    	
    	You can say yes this poor victim hopefully will go in life and live
    	happily ever after but beleave me it takes years to over come
    	and some never do...  But at least if our criminal justice
        sysytem made things a little bit more harsher these criminals
    	would take another look before acting.
    
    
    	Sorry for the rambling but...

    
    	Zina

    In regard to the fairness of the sentence, I would probably put a
    higher penalty on the one who proposed the idea.  I'm not sure how much
    higher I would make it, though, since you don't have to say "yes" to
    everything proposed to you.

    Re .12, how do you know the mother isn't another victim who was
    unable to overcome her rotten childhood?  If she had a baby at 14,
    how old was she when she had sex for the first time, and who was
    it with?  Does anyone really ever "choose" to be weak?  Or are people
    "weak" because they needed help and never got it?
    
    I think there is a difference between allowing someone to get hurt
    because of a problem or weakness that you have (in this case the
    drug addicted mother allowing her daughter to be raped), and
    deliberately murdering someone because you want to steal money from
    them, or because you have decided you hate them.  I don't think
    the death penalty is warranted in the first case.  There also is
    a difference between what this woman did and what a serial killer
    does.  A serial killer is apt to hurt anybody so it's not safe to
    have them walking the streets.  But, basically, this woman has shown
    only that she can't be trusted as a parent.  Her daughter should
    not remain in her custody and the mother needs help for her problems,
    but not the death penalty.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .14 (Lorna)
    
    � Re .12, how do you know the mother isn't another victim who was
    � unable to overcome her rotten childhood?
    
    The problem here is one that has, I think, been central to a number
    of the discussions going on.  Because we can use that same model
    for *any* criminal or anti-social behavior.  We could ask, "How
    do we know the <criminal> isn't another victim who was unable
    to overcome a rotten childhood?"  It's well established that a
    majority of convicted criminals come from dysfunctional situations.
    Perhaps the childhood of that serial killer was unimaginably brutal
    and that individual never got desparately needed help.  
    
    Steve

     I think that it would be possible to say "how do you know?" for any
    crime. Alot of people have screamed about Milken's amassing $550
    million in a single year- how do you know it wasn't because of his
    childhood? 
    
     The problem with the "how do you know...?" question is that it could
    be used (in extreme) to absolve all criminals of all responsibility.
    Well, this guy got beat up by his father, so that's we he killed his
    kid. And this guy had a mean mother, that's why he is now a slasher of
    women.
    
     There still exists freedom of choice. When someone makes choices that
    society views as unacceptable, they must pay society's penalty.
    
     Let's say that we started a note about the most horrible crimes we
    ever heard of. We all debated and came up with some real horror stories.
    Then I go out and outdo the worst one. Who's going to ask about my
    childhood then? Who's going to say "maybe he was just sick?" Who is
    going to say that I should be out in x years?
    
     I think that society as a whole would be far better off if everybody
    were held accountable for their actions. Instead of having to penalize
    society as a whole to protect them from criminals, we could simply
    punish the criminals and allow non-criminals more freedom.
    
    The Doctah

    What I don't understand is if the drug dealer wanted sex for the
    cocaine, why didn't the women who wanted the cocaine have sex with
    him?  I can't imagine that sex (rape) with a 13 year old child could
    be THAT MUCH better than sex with a 29 year old cocaine addict.
    Sex is too easy to get to have to rape anyone!!  Flame me if you
    want to, but I would just about guarantee that anyone that set off
    one night in search of someone to go to bed with could find someone
    before the night was over and possibly without much effort.  These
    are just the cold, hard facts of life and sex.  I just get so mad
    when I hear stuff like this, I could just scream!!!!!

    Re .15, .16, the way I see it, it depends on the degree of the crime
    whether the bad childhood argument can be used.  If a drug addict
    allows her daughter to be raped so she can get drugs, I find it
    disgusting and horrible, and I feel sorry for the daughter, but
    I am also able to feel some sympathy for the mother, who, herself,
    has had a rough life.  I think they both need help.  I don't think
    the mother should be sentenced to death.  On the other hand, if
    a person (male or female) goes out and brutally kills 14 women,
    who are random strangers, and buries them beside the highway, then
    by this time I think the person has committed crimes so bad that
    his/or her bad childhood is no longer an excuse.  I think it's a
    matter of degree in regard to the crimes committed.  Some people
    have said that the mother and the drug dealer should both be executed.
     I think it is extreme to suggest the death penalty for crimes other
    than murder.  What happened sounds horrible, but they didn't murder
    the girl.
    
    Lorna
    

    Make the mother serve the first year of her sentence in a
    male prison With men who have been locked a long time.
    She might know some of the feelings her daughter had.
    

    re .17 -
    
    Which gets us back to rape not really being about sex but about
    power nad violence.  
    
    As to the choice of a 16 year old vs a 29 year old - there are men
    who prefer sex with children, this guy may be one of them.

    re .17, maybe the mother is rather worn out and dragged out looking
    by this time, with the life she may have led?  Maybe the drug dealer
    is into young girls?  Maybe the daughter looks a lot better than
    the mother?  
    
    Re .19, people have such vengeful ideas it scares me.  I can understand
    locking someone up or even the death penalty in some cases, but
    I just can't get into enjoying the idea of somebody being tortured.
     I think it's a little sick.  It isn't just .19, it's things I've
    heard friends and others say lately.  People thinking up various
    sick revenges they've thought up for people, etc.  My mind just doesn't work
    that way, and I'm glad.
    
    Lorna
    

    re. -.19:
    
    Can't speak from experience, but from the lore on the street the
    mother isn't going to be a heck of a lot better off in a woman's
    prison.                         
    
    And I can imagine, given the feelings this topic has generated among
    "civilized and socialized" women, just how the women inmates will
    receive the new-comer.
    
    Karen

    
    
    	OK re 18,21 
    
    
    	Lets let these people who had a terrible childhood and then
    	decide not to help them selfs "because NO ONE can make a person
    	heal inside if that person will not allow it to happen"  and
    	let them get away with ruining a persons life for while and
    	and then a few more times and then decide its "OK" to punish
	them more harshly...  Please are you willing to let these
    	"Poor" people hurt you instead of the next person because
    	you beleave they should be sent away for a "little" awhile and
    	then let out agian?  I'm sorry about getting so upset but there
    	are so many criminals using this excuse and then they go out
    	and hurt more people because they where hurt when they where
    	younger!!!  In my mind thats no excuse to hurt the next person...
	
    	I won't get into what happened to me as a child because that
    	is personal but because of what happened to me do I have the right
    	to go your house and do the same thing to you and then get a slap 
    	on the hand and shame, shame on you??  Of course not!!!!  Instead
    	I "decided" to heal because that power is within everyone but
    	only if they want it to be, other wise they choose the easy
    	way out...
    
    	Zina

    re .23, I just don't understand how you can be so certain that this
    "power to heal" is within everyone.  I don't understand how you
    can know for certain what is within anybody besides yourself.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .24
    
    obviously all of us aren't capable to draw from what is inside oneself
    but this shouldn't be used as an excuse.  Our society has set guide
    lines to live within and some people aren't equiped to do this, so
    we should be removing them from our society in one form or another
    so that the rest of us that can cope with ourselves can live without
    the threat of some repeat offender victimizing another life.  Lets
    end the chain somewhere... it is only as strong as its weakest link.
    
    Zina

    
    Re: .23 & .25 and being ultimately responsible for one's self
    
    Yes, it's true that many children have horrible, terrifying
    childhoods, and that they very often grown up to do horrible,
    terrifying things to themselves and others.  And it is true that 
    we can only save ourselves.  Personally, I think it's possible 
    for a person to be abused beyond salvation; I don't know if I 
    believe that the human spirit is indomitable.  And even if the
    spirit IS indomitable, it may not help the person in a 
    concentration camp.

    I think it's possible (though not probable) to take into account 
    the hard knocks that have made a hardened man or woman without 
    excusing whatever horrible things it is that they have done.  I 
    wish it were possible to remove damaged people from a situation 
    (e.g., the situation of being a free person) where they can do 
    others harm and, once removed, put in a place where they might be 
    given the opportunity to heal themselves and then, if they are 
    successful to any appreciable degree, to be given the opportunity 
    to make amends to those that they have hurt, or their survivors, 
    or given the opportunity to be of benefit to society, while still 
    being removed from it.  Some people might be able to rehabilitate
    themselves.  And if they didn't change, then they could just stay
    there, removed from others.  
    
    (I don't mean that prisoners should have "luxuries", but I think 
    they should have decent food (nourishing to the body); adequate 
    opportunity for physical activity, whether that be a job or 
    exercise, or both; adequate medical care; opportunity to learn 
    (availability of books and teaching to the high school level, 
    perhaps beyond); adequate shelter (adequately heated, ventilated, 
    dry, in repair, with quarters of the minimum size required by a 
    human being to stay sane); some means of contact with the outside 
    world (radios and newspapers); safety (from cruel guards, from
    themselves, from other prisoners, from disease, from drugs).  It
    would be good if prisons had a scheme whereby the prisoners' labor
    supported or allayed the cost of the prison's operation.)

    Prisons don't afford this.  I'm no authority, but what I've heard 
    about prisons leads me to believe that they are staffed by cruel 
    guards, run by corrupt officials, and overcrowded beyond belief; 
    they are dangerous places full of drugs, disease, life-threatening
    violence, and unspeakable cruelty.  I think that only a small 
    percentage of extraordinary individuals can ever "get better" in 
    them.

    I don't think it's necessary to be vengeful to punish.  And I
    don't think that being treated with respect as a human being, in
    such small ways as I mentioned above, negates punishment.

    CQ

    One problem with rehabilitation:
    
    I was watching some talk show about a year or two ago and they had
    on some psychiatrist who decides when prisoners are 'healed and
    well enough to function in society'. Just previously to this show,
    there had been some heinous (sp) crime involving someone who was
    'healed' being let out. 
    Anyways, this guy states when asked how come this happened, answers;
    
    'In about one out of 10 times we are wrong'. He said it in all
    seriousness and with a straight face. I thought to myself, you
    asshole (pardon my french) would you go to the airport and get on
    a plane if one in 10 of them was going to have a major malfunction
    and crash? After all, flying is an imperfect science!
    
    In this case, the child got LIFE with a brutal mental memory. The
    mother is only getting 10-20 years before parole.
    
    Steve

    r.18
    
    In my opinion, that mother is even worse than killing her daughter.
    Therefore, death sentence is not too much for her.
    
    Stephen.

    Perhaps we, as a society, need to turn the question around in order
    to develop answers to the question of what to do about those who
    grow up under horrible circumstances and then commit horrible acts.
    Instead of concentrating on those who commit crime, we should ask
    how those who grow up in these circumstances and *don't* commit
    crimes are different.  What is it in their belief structure or
    environment which makes going to school better than taking drugs?  
    Which makes a legitimate job better than dealing?  Which makes
    standing alone better than joining a gang?  Which encourages
    responsibility for oneself over searching for love in sex at too
    young an age?  There are those who manage to survive and become
    contributing members of society in even the bleakest circumstances.
    What makes them different?  How can we encourage others to follow
    the contributing rather than the destructive road?
    
    And punishment for taking the destructive road is probably part
    of the answer.
    
    Alison
    

    re .29
    
    I think you are absolutely right.  We tend to focus so much on what to
    do when things go wrong that we forget to look at how to make sure
    things go right to begin with.
    
    From behavioral psychology we know that consistently, in learning new
    things:
    
      o Positive reinforcement (You did the right thing!  I will reward
           you!)  is MOST effective.
    
      o Negative reinforcement (You did the right thing!  I will stop
           doing some annoying thing to you!)  is next most effective.
    
      o Punishment (You did the wrong thing!  I will do something bad to
           you!)  is LEAST effective.
    
    It seems that society is more easily structured around punishment
    rather than positive reinforcement.
    
    Sorry this is getting off the track -- I may start a new note around
    this topic.

        <<< Note 767.30 by CADSYS::PSMITH "foop-shootin', flip city!" >>>
                          -< positive reinforcement >-

>    From behavioral psychology we know that consistently, in learning new
>    things:
>      o Positive reinforcement (You did the right thing!  I will reward
>           you!)  is MOST effective.
>      o Punishment (You did the wrong thing!  I will do something bad to
>           you!)  is LEAST effective.

I suppose this is a nit, but as I mentioned before, I am a psych buff...
 
This is not at all what I have learned in the psychology I have
studied.  Actually, in terms of establishing a desired behavior pattern,
"punishment" (positive or negative) is the most effective and efficient 
way of setting the pattern, and also is the hardest to extinguish the effects 
of that conditioning.  ("punishment" means the bevavior is decreased, 
"reinforcement" means the bevahior is increased.  "Negative" means a stimulus 
was *withdrawn*, "positive" means a stimulus was added.  Therefore negative 
punishment means decreasing a behavior by taking something away - like freedom.
Positive punishment is what most of us are familiar with - spankings, fines,
and the like.)

There are a lot of reasons for this - one is that "positive reinforcement"
is hard to maintain.  Eventually the subject becomes "used" to the reward,
and instead of viewing it was a reward, it/he/she see's its *absence* as
a punishment - that is, positive reinforcement can easily become negative
punishment in the maintainance stage.

Also "positive punishment" produces a "fear" response, if done right.  "Fear"
is *self-reinforcing* and incredibly hard to extinguish, therefore it's
great for maintaining desired behavior patterns.

Anyway, I am not saying that "punishment" should be used.  I am pointing
out the flaws with using Behavioral Psychology to justify one method or the
other.  The basic premise behind the development of Behavioral Psych is
that what actually goes on inside a subjects head is irrelevent, even
a meaningless concept in fact.  Behavioral Psych does not take into account
such things as emotional damage done by the various conditioning techniques.
(For obvious reasons, in human subjects, this is important.)
 
Somethings tells me I oughta go unpack my textbooks if I am going to start
spouting psych theory...
  
>    Sorry this is getting off the track -- I may start a new note around
>    this topic.

If you do, I'll be there.  Using Behavioral Psych with human subjects is
a great pet peeve of mine... :-)


D! 

Moved by mod
    
               <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 774.0                   Another possible crime                   No replies
AWARD1::HARMON                                       20 lines  31-AUG-1989 10:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As I've read through this note the thought keeps coming to me that
    there is more than just the crime of rape for cocaine.  I feel there is
    the crime, or call it the possible crime, that a child's life has been
    drastically changed.   The possible crime that this child has lost that
    unconditional trust in a parent; she no longer has the choice of when
    and to whom to give up her virginity; she may live in fear of men or
    may never fully trust a man or may not be able to relate to a man
    because this violent act creeps into her memory at unexpected (and
    inopportune) times; 5, 10 or even 30 years from now when something out
    of the blue triggers the memory and she tells a friend about it and
    they say that it was so many years ago you should have forgotten about
    it....I don't think you ever forget about something like that.  You 
    learn to deal with it, but forget...I don't think so.  This child now
    must live with the acts of her mother and the dealer.  You can hang
    them out to dry for eternity, but it will never give this child, or
    any victim of a violent crime, their innocence again, the feeling of
    trust in a parent or maybe even humankind, and peace of mind.
    
    P.
    

    re: .31
    Very interesting (I'll definitely start another topic, just want to
    keep this one reply near its source).  I agree that behavioral psych is
    flawed, and your points are well taken.  Yes, punishment is stronger
    than reinforcement, and reinforcement is trickier to keep up.
    
    What I was trying to say was that reinforcement is good when you want
    someone to DO something; punishment is good when you want someone NOT
    to do something.  It's been a while, but our assignment in college was
    to teach pidgeons to peck at a triangle -- throwing stones at them for
    NOT pecking would have accomplished nothing, whereas rewarding them
    with birdseed for pecking taught them very quickly.  The technical term
    was "shaping behavior".
    
    The problem I suppose is that in the real world, environments are not
    as controlled as they were for those pidgeons.  The mother was addicted
    to a powerful reinforcement tool -- crack -- which she could
    self-administer for doing *anything*.  For instance, bringing her
    daughter to an apartment to be raped.  Maybe this sideline isn't so far
    removed from the base note at all.  Wasn't there a study done where
    rats pressed a bar 10,000 times or something in return for one jolt of
    cocaine, and starved to death?
    
    Addiction is not an excuse or a justification for inhumane treatment of
    any person or any animal, but the situation -- when someone addicted to
    a strong mind-twisting chemical does horrible things -- is complex. 
    
    (BTW, the college I went to was strong on two fairly cold branches of
    psychology (behavioral psych and psychobiology), which gives me
    perspectives I wouldn't have thought of on my own.)
    
    Pam

Hey, deja vu... Is it just me, or is there a pattern here, that someone
posts a basenote describing some human tragedy, and then there's a
"*Now* do you believe in the death penalty?" question...
I don't know if it's accurate, but it's just the impression I got --
I couldn't figure out what the point, question, or whatever of
telling these stories was otherwise.

To me, these postings just make me sadder about the world -- they
certainly also stretch my compassion, but to me I'm a better person
if I can be compassionate than if I can't.  Loving is good, hating
is bad, it's very simple to me, and something to strive towards.

I don't need to know how or why  it happened to know that people
should be treated with respect and compassion, or to know that
sometimes "dangerous" people need to be somehow segregated from the
general population to avoid hurting other people.  Whether or not
the "criminals" are nice people or had lousy parents doesn't change
how I think *I* should be.

	MKV

    
    
    I agree with .12, My strong feelings are that the scum who commit
    awful crimes wether it be rape, murder, or selling your child for
    dope should get the Death penalty, and that it should be a strongly
    enforced law. I feel that if it was strongly enforced that we would
    all be supprised at how few tempoary insane and mentally ill people
    there really was out there, I would bet that they all would think
    more than twice about commiting one of these crimes if they new
    for sure they'd recieve the death penalty.
    
    Not to sound uncarring, but i've personaly exsperienced, an alcoholic
    up bringing, both parents, I was raped at 12 by a man staying with
    us and i was in a reabilatation hospital for Drugs and alcohol my
    self at age 15.. and I have never stolen, raped or murderd anyone,
    but if i was to would it be o.k. because of my child hood?
    I say BULLSH*T!!!
    
    Dawn
    
    

    I don't think *ANYONE* is saying that it's "OK" to steal, rape or
    murder if you had a bad childhood or are addicted.  It's never OK to do
    those things.
    
    There's three conversations going on here:
    
      1 the mother and the dealer are scum and deserve punishment
      2 we should think about the daughter and what she went through
      3 how can we prevent things like this from happening?
    
    Please don't mistake the "how can we prevent this" for a disagreement
    that "the mother and the dealer are scum"!  
    
    *******************************************************************
    I'm discussing the third.
    
    The point I'm making is that we always concentrate on what to do if
    the worst happened, instead of thinking of ways to change society so
    that the worst doesn't happen so frequently.
    
    One solution is:  "kill 'em all!"  That would do the trick, but what
    would that make us?  Exterminators?  I'm on the fence about the death
    penalty myself.  My mother is violently against it; I can see both
    sides of the argument.  I don't know what I think.
    
    				QUESTION
    
    If you had a lousy childhood but have turned out well, what made you
    avoid a bad life?  What experiences made you determined not to follow
    in your parent's footsteps?  What goals or things were you thinking
    about when you chose the right thing to do?  We sometimes take for
    granted people like you.  But if we can figure out what made you turn
    out all right, maybe we can figure out a different way to deal with
    people who are causing problems for others.
    
    For instance, someone in my family had an alcoholic father and a
    schitzophrenic mother.  Yet she has grown up to be responsible:  to
    work and marry and be a wonderful mother to her son.  What made her
    different from her sister, who is not doing so well?  

    
    
     The only answer that i have for you is knowing what is right from
    wrong!
    
     I would suspect that people can think for them selves, and also
    that they know right from wrong..
    I watch alot of talk shows and documentries on rape and murder and
    all you ever here is how much of a high they got while doing it,
    and that because of that high they become addicted to hurting people,
     I think that anyone that is addicted or gets a *HIGH* out of hurting
    someone does not deserve to be here..
    
     I guess that my thoughts say that wheather we've had an awful past
    or not, we know right from wrong, and if we no it's wrong we should
    not do it..
    for myself i went into a shell for years, and yes there are times
    that I am still botherd by my past. but theres still no excuse..
    
    

RE .34
    
    Well this is my second attempt (stupid network problem trashed my
    1st one)

As I entered the base note, let me respond to the question about is this
a capital punishment note. 

NO

Now it is/was put in here to make people think about the crime, the punishment,
and other related items. We all have different views, ranging from one side
to the other. To each of us our view, or 'groups' view seems correct.

As individuals, and as society, we must make choices, and draw up limits
as to what is acceptable behavior. The 'do your own thing' theory, if not
bounded by limits leads to anarchy or civil war as in Lebanon.

It is very easy for all of us to sit at our terminals and say that we should
excuse the mother, or execute the mother of this child. Dawn, who has lived
through at least part of this nightmare is correct IMHO. 

I do believe that your environment (for lack of an all encompassing term)
when you grow up (more so than when you are older) has a lot to do with
who you are, how you act, how you feel. It, IMHO does not excuse you from
everything.

Steve

    
    Yes, I do believe in the death penality. No, I do not believe in
    torturing the individual first. I would also spend the money that
    would be spent for incarceration of the criminal on the treatment of
    the victum instead.

    
    
    re:38  Steve what does IMHO stand for?
    
     Just curious.
    
    Dawn

    In My Humble Opinion
    
    I have seen that used here I think before

   My childhood was lousy, but I like to think I turned out OK. The factors
that made me avoid a "bad life" were:


   1: I didn't like hurting people because I knew what it felt like to
      be hurt myself.

   2: I didn't let anything interfere with my education, because I'd 
      heard about how important an education was for those who wanted to
      "be somebody".

   3: I  didn't disrespect adults because I wanted to be respected.

   4: I didn't take drugs because I'd heard and seen what drugs did to
      people in my neighborhood.

   5: I avoided committing crimes because I didn't like what I'd heard
      about jail.

   But the main reason why I didn't do any of the above things was because I 
knew that:

   6: If my mother ever learned that I was being "bad", she would KILL ME!
                            ;-)


                                                    -Robert Brown III

    I think, tooooo often, when children are very young and threatened
    to behave, the "idle threats" that flow from parents mouths are
    a bit much to believe. (i.e. "You behave or I'll break your leg")
    
    Sure, Ma, break my leg....
    
    or, "If you misbehave, I'LL KILL YOU!!!
    
    Right, kill me....
    
    
    
    When my folks made a threat, it was a threat that they could fulfill.
    Such as, "Behave or I'll slap you upside the head". 
    
    Well, didn't you know it, I misbehave and got slapped upside the
    head. They never broke any of my bones, and I'm still alive, but,
    sure remember the slaps when I was wrong.  I turned out OK.  I have
    lot of respect for fellow persons and definetly know right from
    wrong.  When we did something wrong, we were punished.
    
    Kids that don't know right from wrong, or were reared on "idle threats"
    don't seem to have respect.  For instance, the young punks that
    brutally beat and raped a 29-year old female jogger, in Central
    Park, not long ago.   Quoted as saying, "It was for fun".  
    
    My point is, when we are young and impressionable, it's very important
    that we know right from wrong and the consequences thereafter. 
    I've heard toooo many "idle threats" to young-ones and kids 'ain't
    so dumb.  They actually do know if you can pull it off or not.
          
    

    
    
    
    	Hi,
    		I have to agree with the persons who would like to
    	see them executed.  Its alright saying what about their childhood
    but you could take that argument into forever.....and the number
    of criminals will increase again and again.  If the death penalty
    was a threat I am positive some of these criminals would think again.
    
    To me the bottom line is................people know the difference
    between right and wrong no matter what their background is....
    
    
    

    
    re just about all of you:
    
    Well, I *don't* agree that the mother should get the death penalty.
    The rapist - that's another thing, the death penalty, life
    imprisonment, or or whatever is deserved, depending on the brutality
    of the rape.
    
    The mother is obviously (to me, at least) mentally incompetent (due
    to her drug addiction) to stand any kind of a fair trial.  There are
    *many*, *many* precedents for this (mental incompetence as a defense).
    In such cases, the defendant is usually (?) forced to undergo treatment
    for his or her incompetence, and in this case, this woman *really*
    needs it.  Doesn't sound to me like she had a fair trial, given all
    the precedents.
    
    And BTW, *who* committed the rape anyway?  Not her, but the drug dealer
    scum.  At the most, she was an accomplice (which, of course, is also a
    crime).  But *who* got a stiffer sentence?  The woman!!  This belongs
    as a classic in the "Sexism is alive and well..." note.
    

    re - .44
    
    > depending on the brutality of the rape
    
    Let me get this straight - are you implying that there's such a thing 
    as a *non-brutal* rape???
    
    > The mother is obviously (to me, at least) mentally incompetent (due
    > to her drug addiction) 
    
    Which also makes her *that* much more dangerous!
    
    > And BTW, *who* committed the rape anyway?  Not her, but the drug dealer
    > scum.  
    
    She may as *well* have.  She wakes her first-born daughter out of sound
    sleep, and hands her own flesh and blood over to the candy man as her
    own personal payoff.  IMHO, this kind of person makes "mother" a dirty 
    word.
    
    > But *who* got a stiffer sentence?  The woman!!  This belongs as a 
    > classic in the "Sexism is alive and well..." note.
    
    No way.  She got what she deserved.  And, from what statistics say
    about what happens to men in prison who rape young girls, so will he.
    Would you think the sentence would be any fairer if the daughter had
    *died*??
    
    submit/queue=blood_pressure/simmer
    
    Carol

    RIGHT!!!!
    
    What about the sentence in life that the daughter got?????
    
    Was that a fair trial???????

    	RE: .44  
    
    	> Well, I *don't* agree that the mother should get the death penalty.
   
    	I agree with you.  
    
    	> The mother is obviously (to me, at least) mentally incompetent (due
    	> to her drug addiction) to stand any kind of a fair trial.  There are
    	> *many*, *many* precedents for this (mental incompetence as a defense).
    	> In such cases, the defendant is usually (?) forced to undergo 
    	> treatment for his or her incompetence, and in this case, this woman 
    	> *really* needs it.  Doesn't sound to me like she had a fair trial, 
    	> given all the precedents.
    
    	Agreed, again.  It appears to me that the judge was unable to keep
    	from having an emotional response to the idea of a mother taking
    	her child to a rapist voluntarily.  If the judge acted out of
    	emotion (rather than precendent), then the chances are good that
    	the mother did not receive a fair trial.
    
    	> And BTW, *who* committed the rape anyway?  Not her, but the drug 
    	> dealer scum.  At the most, she was an accomplice (which, of course, 
    	> is also a crime).  But *who* got a stiffer sentence?  The woman!!  
    	> This belongs as a classic in the "Sexism is alive and well..." note.
    
    	As sorry as I feel for what the daughter went through, I agree that
    	giving the mother a *stiffer sentence* made no sense at all (except
    	as an emotional reaction to the idea of the crime.)
    
    	It appears highly unlikely that the mother received a fair trial.

    re - .47
    
    > It appears highly unlikely that the mother received a fair trial.
    
    If so, then it means that the punishment *fit* the crime.
    
    Carol
    

    	RE: .48
    
    	Wait a minute here.
    
    	*No* crime is fair!  So, does that mean that *NO* trial should ever
    	be fair either?
    
    	Why do we bother with trials at all then (when it would be so much
    	easier and cheaper to just throw people into dungeons for the rest
    	of their lives)?
    

    re - .49
    
    My statement in .48 was qualified with an "if".  You state your opinion
    that you think the trial for the mother was unfair, I state my opinion
    that it *was* fair.  
    
    I do not believe that the judge reacted emotionally.  I think the judge 
    was very objective and took into consideration the very likely possibility 
    that, if given a chance, the mother would do the very same thing to her 
    other two daughters to finance her habit.
    
    And, personally, I think the mother got off pretty easy.  There's a
    good possibility (and a fear expressed by other members of her family) 
    that she will get out early for good behavior.  Early enough to 
    potentially regain custody of her two youngest daughters and possibly 
    start the cycle all over again.
    
    Carol

    There was a piece on NPR's "Morning Edition" this morning that
    described the dramatic upturn in abandoned and abused children due to
    the crack cocaine epidemic.  
    
    According to the coverage, it is not young girls doing this, but
    rather women in their 30's who formerly were nurturing parents...many
    with several older children at home who had received good care prior to
    this.  They may have used drugs "recreationally" in the past, but since
    they have become crack addicts, they have lost their nurturing
    mentality altogether.  In some cases, babies were left at churches or
    at the hospital (often addicts themselves).  In other cases, drug
    dealers would bring children to the welfare office...these children had
    been left by their mothers as collateral against a dose of crack, but
    the mothers never returned for their children.
    
    This is a continuing series on NPR.  Tomorrow morning, they will focus
    on the grandparents and other family members who are now assuming the
    role of parent for many of these children.  Many others are in foster
    homes or in group homes.
    
    Marge

    	RE: .50
    
    	> You state your opinion that you think the trial for the mother 
    	> was unfair, I state my opinion that it *was* fair.  
    
    	A good case was made (by someone earlier) that the trial was *not*
    	fair.  All I've seen others say so far seems to add up to the idea
    	that some people simply don't *care* whether the trial was fair or not.
    
    	In my opinion, every person in this country deserves a fair trial
    	(whether everyone happens to hate and despise a particular individual
    	because of the nature of the person's crime, or not.)
    
    	In this case, I think that the mother was punished more than the
    	rapist because of a value judgment that the court made about her
    	(because of her expected role as a woman in our society.)  
    
    	In a way, it reminds me of the action of the judge who gave *light*
    	sentences for murdering gay men because he felt that such men
    	were somehow "asking" to be murdered by virtue of a lifestyle that
    	was repugnant to the judge.  In both cases, sentences seem to have
    	been meted out based on value judgments shaped by prejudice.  
    
    	> I do not believe that the judge reacted emotionally.  I think the 
    	> judge was very objective and took into consideration the very 
    	> likely possibility that, if given a chance, the mother would do 
    	> the very same thing to her other two daughters to finance her habit.
    
    	How would the mother get such a chance, though?  What is the likeli-
    	hood that a court would give custody of the younger daughters to
    	this mother after what's happened? 
    
    	Or, was the court saying to the mother, "Well, knowing how stupid 
    	*we* are, there's a chance that if you were free, we'd give you 
    	custody of your daughters.  So to protect your daughters from *our* 
    	stupidity as a court system, we're going to put *you* into prison 
    	for a longer time to keep *ourselves* from making a mistake.  It's 
    	easier to make *you* pay for our stupidity than it is to try to 
    	change our own system."
    
    	> And, personally, I think the mother got off pretty easy.
    
    	Well, her sentence is easier than having gotten the death penalty,
    	but that's about it.  She will likely spend five or six times
    	as long in prison (or *more*) than most rapists and some murderers
    	spend.  I wonder why that is.
    
        > There's a good possibility (and a fear expressed by other members 
    	> of her family) that she will get out early for good behavior.  
    	> Early enough to potentially regain custody of her two youngest 
    	> daughters and possibly start the cycle all over again.
    
    	Again, why not fix a system that could potentially return those
    	daughters to this mother (rather than keeping a woman in prison as
    	a way to keep the courts from making this possible mistake)?
    
    	The condition of the courts (such that such a mother *could* get
    	custody of her daughters back after what's happened) is not the
    	fault nor responsibility of this one woman.  If the courts are
    	that screwed up, imprisoning her for the next several decades
    	isn't going to help countless other children who could suffer for
    	the courts' mistakes.

>    	A good case was made (by someone earlier) that the trial was *not*
>    	fair. 

 I disagree. By all accounts, the mother is guilty. Her jury was picked fairly,
with the consent and advice of her lawyer. The trial was fair.

 The sentence, on the other hand, may or may not have been fair. The trial was.

 The reasoning behind the lengthy sentence was twofold (as I understand it).
The mother's continual lying throughout the court proceedings coupled with
her apparent carefree attitude about the whole thing lead the judge to the
harsh sentence. She was only sorry she got caught.

 In any case, her sentence will never be fully served. This (to me) is a
fundamental flaw in our justice system. (That few criminals ever serve the
sentence they were given.)

 The Doctah

    	RE: .53  Doctah
    
    	> By all accounts, the mother is guilty. Her jury was picked fairly,
	> with the consent and advice of her lawyer. The trial was fair.
    
    	Well, without having access to the transcripts from the trial,
    	we're both just speculating about whether or not the trial was
    	fair.  Neither of us can say one way or the other with certainty.
    	(Myself, I still have serious doubts about it.)
    
    	> The reasoning behind the lengthy sentence was twofold (as I 
    	> understand it). The mother's continual lying throughout the court 
    	> proceedings coupled with her apparent carefree attitude about the 
    	> whole thing lead the judge to the harsh sentence. She was only 
    	> sorry she got caught.
    
    	How many decades is she being charged "per lie" or "per expression?"
    
    	Richard Nixon lied continually, and he was *pardoned*.
    
    	Oliver North lied, and his sentence didn't involve a *single night*
    	in prison.
    
    	I don't recall either one of those 'gents' *ever* showing a
    	single *ounce* of remorse about what they did, do you?
    
    	Or is it more *acceptable* for some people to lie and behave arrogantly
    	about their crimes than it is for others?

Suzanne,

	What possible connection do Richard Nixon and Oliver North have to
case under discussion?  For example, I don't recall Nixon ever appearing
in court...

						--D

    I agree with CSC3::CONLON....
    
    Cocaine/Crack does awful things to people.  It turns people into crazy
    men/women.  With this drug, people you've known well all your life 
    become someone you don't know at all.  This woman was clearing hooked
    and not of sound mind because what the drug does to you.  I definitely
    believe she should be punished for doing what she did, but give me a
    break.  The rapist (no matter what's going to happen to him in the
    pen) should be the one who got life.  I believe the judge was bias 
    against the woman too.  After all, Joel Steinberg, drug induced that
    he was, KILLS an innocent child and doesn't get half the sentence this
    women got.  
    
    Although I'm disgusted by what this women did, what the rapist did; I
    am also just as disqusted by what the judge did.
    
    Anna
    

    	RE: .52
    
    	> A good case was made (by someone earlier) that the trial was *not*
    	> fair.  

	Baloney.  It went through the same procedures as any other trial.
	They picked a jury, the lawyers presented their cases, the jury
	weighed the evidence, gave a guilty verdict, the judge passed 
	sentence.
    
    	> In my opinion, every person in this country deserves a fair trial
    	> (whether everyone happens to hate and despise a particular individual
    	> because of the nature of the person's crime, or not.)

	I agree, here.  And, believe it or don't, I didn't pass my own 
	personal judgement on the woman until I heard the court's final 
	verdict.
    
    	> In this case, I think that the mother was punished more than the
    	> rapist because of a value judgment that the court made about her
    	> (because of her expected role as a woman in our society.)  

	So, as a mother she should have no more responsibilities or morals
	than any other "joe" off the street.  The sentence should not
	reflect the fact that she handed over her first-born child to 
	another moral degenerate.  The sentence should not reflect the
	fact that she reneged on her obligations, betrayed every trust
	that was placed on her, and just simply didn't give a heartfelt
	damn about what happened to her daughter, is that right?

	As I understand it from the news accounts, she told the "candy man" 
	that she "didn't have the money right now, but if I give you my 
	daughter for the night will you give me some blow to tide me over?"
  	By this act she admitted that she would stop at *nothing* to get
	her fix.

	And I believe this illustrates that she instigated this atrocity
	and got what she justly deserved.  Sure, the dealer could have 
	said no, but she still gave up her kid first.

    	> How would the mother get such a chance, though?  What is the likeli-
    	> hood that a court would give custody of the younger daughters to
    	> this mother after what's happened? 

	It's more likely than any of us would like to believe!  There are
	numerous documented cases of proven child abusers who have regained
	custody of their children due to technicalities or declaration of
	rehabilitation.  And many of these children then ended up *dead*.
    
	> She will likely spend five or six times as long in prison (or 
	> *more*) than most rapists and some murderers spend.

	Just remember that it was *her* idea to turn the kid over in the
	first place.
    
    	> Again, why not fix a system that could potentially return those
    	> daughters to this mother (rather than keeping a woman in prison as
    	> a way to keep the courts from making this possible mistake)?

	*Sigh*  I only wish it were that easy.
    
    	> The condition of the courts (such that such a mother *could* get
    	> custody of her daughters back after what's happened) is not the
    	> fault nor responsibility of this one woman.  

	No, it isn't, but this particular woman even *said* that what she
	did wasn't a big deal.

	> If the courts are that screwed up, imprisoning her for the next 
	> several decades isn't going to help countless other children who 
	> could suffer for the courts' mistakes.

	Maybe, maybe not.  But I happen to think that the court made the
	right decision in this case.  This example may serve to deter other
	junkie-moms from handing their kids over for payment.  It may not.
	I don't know.

	And keep in mind that this court has also protected her from enraged
	vigilantes who would gladly run her butt up a flag pole and then 
	some.

    	RE: .57
    
    	>> A good case was made (by someone earlier) that the trial was *not*
    	>> fair.  

	> Baloney. 
    
    	Unless *you* now have the transcripts from the trial, you're making
    	an assumption that the trial was fair.  I suspect otherwise.
    
    	> So, as a mother she should have no more responsibilities or morals
	> than any other "joe" off the street.  The sentence should not
	> reflect the fact that she handed over her first-born child to 
	> another moral degenerate.  The sentence should not reflect the
	> fact that she reneged on her obligations, betrayed every trust
	> that was placed on her, and just simply didn't give a heartfelt
	> damn about what happened to her daughter, is that right?
    
    	If what you are suggesting is that the mother *should* be judged
    	more harshly because she failed to live up to what society regards
    	as WOMEN'S main reason for existence in our society, then I disagree.
    	As bad a crime as this was, I don't happen to think that a failure
    	to "mother" well is the most heinous crime a woman could ever commit
    	(regardless of the emotional rhetoric one uses to describe the
    	obligations one *ought* to feel when one becomes a mother.)
    
    	Fathers who repeatedly rape their *own* daughters over periods of
    	decades don't get the kind of sentence that this mother got, so
    	I have to question whether the woman was sentenced for breaking
    	the law as much as she was sentenced for breaking what society
    	regards as central to the very reason why women exist: to mother.
    
    	> By this act she admitted that she would stop at *nothing* to get
	> her fix.
    
    	If this is true, then she was obviously extremely sick and very
    	deeply in the throes of drug addiction.  She needs help, not
    	several decades in prison.
    
    	> And I believe this illustrates that she instigated this atrocity
	> and got what she justly deserved.
    
    	There are millions of drug addicts in our country who are quite
    	possibly capable of committing other atrocities for the same
    	reason that this woman did it.  Do you think we have the facilities
    	to throw millions more people into prison for several decades each?
    
    	>>How would the mother get such a chance, though?  What is the likeli-
    	>>hood that a court would give custody of the younger daughters to
    	>>this mother after what's happened? 

	>It's more likely than any of us would like to believe!  There are
	>numerous documented cases of proven child abusers who have regained
	>custody of their children due to technicalities or declaration of
	>rehabilitation.  And many of these children then ended up *dead*.
    
    	This woman is not responsible for a system that would allow this
    	to happen.
    
    	>>Again, why not fix a system that could potentially return those
    	>>daughters to this mother (rather than keeping a woman in prison as
    	>>a way to keep the courts from making this possible mistake)?

	> *Sigh*  I only wish it were that easy.
    
    	They could "fix" the system for this one woman (by following up
    	on the case until her children are too old to be in anyone's 
    	"custody.")  Putting her in prison for several decades was not
    	their only option.  It was, however, emotionally satisfying
    	for the nature of the woman's crime (for some/many observers.)
    
    	> This example may serve to deter other junkie-moms from handing 
    	> their kids over for payment. 
    
    	This example serves to illustrate to women that society will
    	punish women more severely than men for deeds done during drug 
    	addiction (simply because women bear and give birth to children, 
    	while men do not.)
    
    	Sounds like another way to attempt to put more controls on what
    	*women* do (simply because we are women and we have certain 
    	biological obligations to our society that count more than almost
    	anything else we could ever do as human beings.)

I really wish people who are so sure about who came out better than whom would
answer my question for a few facts a bunch of replies back.

How do those sentences really translate to what will happen? Time, place, etc.
	Mez

RE .59
>> anyone entertained by the notion of throwing me a little evidence?

(Based on the last 50 or so replies) - what do facts have to do with this 
discussion? Besides, who needs facts when opinions are so easy to come by?

    	RE: .58
    
    	> Unless *you* now have the transcripts from the trial, you're making
    	> an assumption that the trial was fair.  I suspect otherwise.

	I've got just as much data as you do and am basing my *opinions* on
	said data just as much as you are.  I assume the trial was fair.
	You assume the trial wasn't fair.  Where's the difference?
    
    	> If what you are suggesting is that the mother *should* be judged
    	> more harshly because she failed to live up to what society regards
    	> as WOMEN'S main reason for existence in our society, then I disagree.

	*All* factors revolving around one's life are under scrutiny in a
	court of law.  The court will take into consideration the various
	possibilities by which an incident such as this could have been 
	prevented.  The simple fact that she was a mother and the victim
	was her daughter is one of those possibilities.

    	> If this is true, then she was obviously extremely sick and very
    	> deeply in the throes of drug addiction.  She needs help, not
    	> several decades in prison.

	Look, I don't disagree that she needs help, but she isn't going to 
	get it if she doesn't want it.  Her attitude at the trial didn't
	reflect that she wanted it.  So, we have a choice.  Put her in
	rehab and *hope* she turns around on her own, or keep her off the
	streets.  I opt for the latter.  If she showed any desire at all
	to atone for her crime, I'd be willing to give her another chance -
	but you can bet your buns I'd be watching her *real* close.
	
	But, keep one probability in mind - she won't be serving her full 
	time.  	In all likelihood, she'll be out in 6 to 8 years.  Let's 
	hope she'll be clean and will stay that way.  And let's hope that 
	there will be people out there willing to forgive her and give her 
	another chance.
    
	> Do you think we have the facilities to throw millions more people 
	> into prison for several decades each?

	No problem.  Pres Bush has specified building lots more prisons
	for his all out war on drugs.  My personal opinion is that the
	death penalty would be a better deterrent, but I guess this will
	have to do for now.
    
    	> This woman is not responsible for a system that would allow this
    	> to happen.

	No, she's not.  But she *is* responsible for her *own* crime.
    
    	> They could "fix" the system for this one woman (by following up
    	> on the case until her children are too old to be in anyone's 
    	> "custody.")  Putting her in prison for several decades was not
    	> their only option.  It was, however, emotionally satisfying
    	> for the nature of the woman's crime (for some/many observers.)

	I'm all ears - what could be done to "fix the system"?  What do 
	do *you* think should be the just and worthy punishment in this 
	case?

	And, tell me honestly - I don't know if you have kids (I don't,
	unless you count a cat) - but would you trust this woman with 
	your kids? Today?
    
    	> This example serves to illustrate to women that society will
    	> punish women more severely than men for deeds done during drug 
    	> addiction (simply because women bear and give birth to children, 
    	> while men do not.)
    
	Again, I say BALONEY!  I would demand no less punishment were it
	the father that had committed this crime!  But it wasn't!  It was 
	the mother, and she willingly and knowingly gave her child over 
	to the horrors of violation.

	IMHO, saying she was punished more severely for simply being a 
	woman is a cop out.  Saying she was punished severely for simply
	being a mom is a cop out.  Punishing her severely for not using 
	her common sensibilities and endangering the life and interests 
	of a another human being is right on the money.

	"Innocent by reason of drug addiction."  Give me a break.

	Carol

> In all likelihood, she'll be out in 6 to 8 years. 

Aha! One of the numbers I've been looking for. OK; someone on life, what, comes
up for parole in 6 to 8 years? Now, the pusher got 30, if I remember correctly.
When does 30 come up for parole?
	Mez

Sexism is alive and well and living in...me.

This is one of the few times a note in =wn= has actually turned around my
feelings on a subject.  (The other, BTW, was "affirmative action" a while
back.)

When I first heard about this horror on the radio, my first reaction is what
appears to be the reaction of most people who have responded to this note:
That woman should be shot!  How can a mother do this to her child?  True,
I thought that the rapist/drug dealer was also a horrible person.  But I
found myself thinking "The mother is the real villain here.  The drug
dealer raped the girl but *men* *do* *that*, and it's horrible, but it's the
way it is.  but mother's shouldn't *encourage/permit* it!"  I was hoping that
she would get life, or worse, while I realized and didn't particularly care
that the man would get a typical sentance for raping a minor.

This reaction was not fair to men or women.  To men, because it isn't fair
to say that "men do that".  It isn't fair to them to say "His crime isn't
*that* terrible because he did it because he's a man."  Not all men do that,
this turkey did it, not because he was a man but because he was evil, and
the "male species" should not be held responsible for the atrocities of one
of their members.  Rather, the individual should be held entirely responsible,
and his respnsibiity should not be seen as diminished simply because he is 
man.

But it's especially not fair to women.  It's not fair to mothers.  Saying
that the Mother in this case is more responsible than the man is moving 
some of the blame he deserves to her, just because she happens to be a blood
relative.  It's true, what she did was atrocious.  But no more atrocious than
what he did.  Why should the burden fall more heavily on her?

You could say it was because she incured additional responsibility by
having the child.  Yes, she did, and she *shouldn't* have done what she did.
But can we say the law should enforce a parent loving a child?  Should by
having a child you agree that any crime you commit counts double against
you?  Why is it that a desperate, deprived woman is seen as such an incredible
villain, while the man who performed the act is just "being a man".

I think having the mother recieve a *much* stiffer sentance than the man,
the law is reinforcing the idea that rape is so common that it just isn't
a big deal, but that betraying your child is the worst crime you could possibly
commit.

thank you Suzzane.

D!

    re: .63
    
    Without knowing the specifics of the particular state parole laws,
    I'd say that 7 to 8 would be a safe ballpark for parole eligibility
    on a 30 year sentence.  
    
    Steve

	According to news sources, it's on record that her obvious disregard 
    	for what she had done and her flagrant and constant lying throughout 
    	the entire court proceedings were major factors in the judge's 
    	decision to rule a life sentence.  Her sentence has little to do 
    	with the fact that she's both a woman and a mother.
    
	As for the drug dealer/rapist, I would be quite happy to see him
	strung up by the balls upside down with a tube protruding from a 
    	main artery so he can watch his life's blood slowly oozing away.  
    	(Uh, sorry about the weak stomachs out there.)  I feel that way
    	about any convicted rapist or murderer.  Ad-lib on how to hang 'em
    	when it's a woman.
    
    	I'm just tired of hearing about all the little slaps on the wrists
    	that these offenders get for their atrocities.  Nobody seems to be
    	afraid of doing time, anymore.
    
    	And, Mez, from what I've been able to gather, a parole hearing is 
    	normally granted when the sentence as been 1/5th served.  It varies
    	according to prisoner behavior and willingness to cooperate in
    	rehabilitation programs.  
    
    	Carol
    

    
    
    I find this discussion interesting for the number of subtopics that it
    has produced.
    
    1. Fair/not fair trial. 
    
    	These days I find it hard to determine what constitutes a fair
    trial. In this case, I think many peoples objections are about the
    sentenceing and not the trial itself. I agree that the sentencing was
    not fair. BOTH OF THE CONVICTED DEFENDANTS SHOULD GET THE CHAIR!!!!!
    
    2. Prison vs treatment.
     The statement in .58 was :
    
     >>     	There are millions of drug addicts in our country who are quite
     >>	possibly capable of committing other atrocities for the same
     >>	reason that this woman did it.  Do you think we have the facilities
     >>	to throw millions more people into prison for several decades each?
    
    My question to this is "Do you need less facilities to house people
    convicted of drug related crimes that are getting treatment than you
    would need to have to hold them as prisoners?" I think that the
    treatment centers would be more expensive to run anyway (more doctors
    to administer treatment). And I DO think you have to house these people
    somewhere until you define them as "CURED".
    
    3. Accountability/Responsibility.
    
    My personal feeling oon this is that somewhere along the road a
    conscious decision was made to start taking these drugs. Being a junkie
    is no reason to sidestep the blame for your actions.
    
    4. Regaining custody.
    
    For the people who feel she is sick and need help: If she gets the help
    and is defined as cured, Why shouldn't she get her kids back. I
    personally hope she never sees her kids again because I don't think
    she's sick. And I would think the same way if it were a father that did
    this.
    
    I will always approach this kind of subject from an emotional point of
    view. I think logic and negotiation has its place, but when child abuse
    is the subject, my emotions rule my actions. Man (woman) is as much an
    emotional being as an intellectual being. I don't know why many people
    try to hide what they consider their negative emotions
    (anger,hate,rage). These are as valid as the emotions of love, joy and
    sadness. But this is getting off the subject.
    
    ed

    	RE: .64
    
    	> thank you Suzanne.
    
    	Thank *you*, D!  
    
    	

    	As for the woman getting a stiffer sentence because she lied in
    	court (and because she failed to show remorse...)
    
    	Question:  If the woman was such an accomplished liar, why didn't
    	she do the "smart thing" and lie about being remorseful for what
    	she did?  
    
    	Either she wasn't as great a liar as people thought, or else she
    	didn't have a good understanding of the trial process itself.
    
    	It's still quite obvious to me that her sentence was especially
    	stiff because she was the victim's mother (regardless of how the
    	judge tries to explain the rationale he used in sentencing her.)

    re: .69 "accomplished liar"
    
    I don't think anyone said she was an "accomplished" liar, just that she
    lied throughout the trial. Obviously she was a terrible liar if she got
    caught at it.
    
    
    What you say about the sentencing is probably true. I would hope that
    they each got sentenced to a horrible death, but I think the judge
    would have given a father the same sentence that he gave the mother and
    for the same reasons.
    
    ed

    Just a couple of comments -
    
    1)  I don't know of any legal precedents that make drug/alcohol
    addiction/intoxication a defense to a crime.  (The only caveat being
    where the consumption of the substance was forced.)  Knowing what I do
    about the criminal justice system, I have to believe that this woman 
    underwent psychiatric evaluation by doctors chosen by the defense as
    well as by doctors chosen by state, to determine iof she was competent
    to stand trial.  Judges and prosecutors don't want to waste time on a
    trial that is ruled invalid because the qustion of competency wasn't
    answered.
    
    2)  I'm sure that there will be an appeal, and if there are any hints
    of unfairness the verdict will be overturned.  That's one of the
    beauties of our flawed but still better than most of the rest of them
    legal system.
    
    3)  I would be interested in knowing what the maximum penalty allowable
    for forcible rape on a minor child in that particular state is.  It is
    quite possible that the dealer/rapist got the maximum the law allowed.
    This is not to say that the penalties shouldn't be higher, just that
    the judge's hands might have been tied.
    
    4)  A parent has a legal as well as moral obligation to protect a child
    from harm.
    
    5)  Putting aside the possiblity of her present children being returned
    to her - thingk of the possiblity of her getting out, having more
    children who would not automatically be taken from her custody, and
    subjecting them to this type of treatment!
    
    

    re:.45
    
    	� Let me get this straight - are you implying that
    	there's such a thing as a *non-brutal* rape??? �
    
    No, she wasn't implying that, though you might be inferring it.
    What she said -- "depending on the brutality of the rape" -- was
    clear to me. She implied that some rapes are more or less brutal
    than others. Seems to me that, if anything, her statement implies
    that rape has an inherent component of brutality, and that one
    differs from another only in the degree of brutality.
    
    --- jerry

Where _are_ all the TV stories on 'father rapes daughter on cocaine' or 'on
alcohol' or 'not on anything at all'?
	Mez

    re .72:  Yes, that's what I meant.
    
    re Carol:
    
    I understand some of your anger, but I don't understand how you
    can't put your brain on for just *half a second* instead of the
    knee-jerk emotions you *seem* to be wearing continuously, and listen,
    instead of putting words in my mouth, you just *might* understand
    that there's a *better* way than what the judge did!
    
    I *never* said that the woman should go free or that she didn't commit
    the crime.  I *never* said that she didn't have a responsibility to
    care for her child in a decent way.  It's so easy for you to say that
    I said those things so that you can disagree with me so much more easily,
    and feel such DUTIFUL MORAL OUTRAGE!!
    
    I *said* that she should have been found "innocent by reason of insanity"
    (are those the correct legal words?).  Remember Hinckley?  He's *not*
    free, you know!  He's confined to a mental hospital for treatment.  And
    this woman needs something similar, a forced drug treatment program as
    her "sentence".  And certainly, no children should ever be in her care.
    

    To allow the insanity defense to be used in cases of where substance
    abuse is the major factor contributing to said "insanity" would be to
    give criminals carte blanche to commit crimes and escape
    responsibility. Sure, they'd go to a mental hospital, but once they are
    free of their "addiction" they'd have to be let go. I mean, you can't
    restrain a "reformed" substance abuser, can you? Especially not one
    that was found innocent of criminal liability.
    
    No, the insanity defense is not the answer. Anyone when caught
    performing an illegal activity could just say "Sorry, I'm an
    addict/alcoholic." And instead of facing life in prison for murder,
    it'd just be a few months in a hospital. It's an easy choice.
    
    Substance abusers are no less responsible for their actions than the
    rest of us. And we must stress that fact to them. Drug/alcohol use is
    not an acceptable excuse. How many of you would want a spouse abuser to
    be let off because he drank too much?
    
    Criminals must be held responsible for their crimes. I am all for
    rehabilitation, but it should not _replace_ punishment, it should
    _supplement_ it. Supplementing punishment with medical and
    psychological help and detoxification would prevent people from
    claiming addiction problems to escape culpability.
    
    The Doctah

    Re: .74

    >                                 It's so easy for you to say that
    > I said those things so that you can disagree with me so much more easily,
    > and feel such DUTIFUL MORAL OUTRAGE!!
    
    Ellen, I'm not so sure you're not doing the same thing that you're 
    claiming Carol is doing. 

    It's a favorite debater's trick: attribute to your opponent something
    they didn't say, then demolish their non-statements. There are some
    who write here who have their Doctorates in this tactic.
	
   > I *said* that she should have been found "innocent by reason of insanity"
   > (are those the correct legal words?).  Remember Hinckley?  He's *not*
   > free, you know!  He's confined to a mental hospital for treatment.  And
   > this woman needs something similar, a forced drug treatment program as
   > her "sentence".  And certainly, no children should ever be in her care.
    
   And if the mother is detoxed and rehab'd in a year, then what? Should
   she be freed after being in the hospital for one year?

   Also, what if the drug dealer, himself, was a coke junkie, with diminished
   capacity to understand the consequence of his actions (raping the girl)? 
   
   Should he, too, have been found "IBROI", confined to a hospital for a year,
   and upon his successful treatment after a year, released?

     Alan

    	RE: .75  Doctah
    
    	> To allow the insanity defense to be used in cases of where 
    	> substance abuse is the major factor contributing to said "insanity" 
    	> would be to give criminals carte blanche to commit crimes and 
    	> escape responsibility.
    
    	Heard on the news this morning that the mass murderer (who killed
    	6 family members and a co-worker in April) has entered a plea of
    	insanity through drug use (because he used alcohol and cocaine on
    	the night before the murders.)
    
    	This is the man that got court papers about child support from a
    	former wife one day, then went home and killed his current wife,
    	then went elsewhere to kill her mother and her two sisters (who
    	were children,) then killed two of his three baby daughters (his
    	third daughter survived knife wounds.)  He also killed a male
    	co-worker at some point during that same day.  
    
    	Regardless of how this man's case comes out, it would be unacceptable
    	to ever allow him to walk the streets again.  I *don't* think that an
    	insanity plea based on drug use implies that society merely needs to
    	"detox" the person who committed the crime, and then should let the
    	person go free immediately.
    
    	In the case that is the subject of this topic, the initial sentence
    	that the mother received for her crime was life without the possibility
    	of parole (ever!) after having given the rapist 30 years.  Within hours,
        the judge changed the mother's sentence to *allow* the possibility of 
    	parole.  (It would seem that he saw some problems with the original 
    	sentence that he'd given her.)  If the sentence is considered way
    	out of line for the crime, isn't it automatic grounds for an appeal
    	(or something like that?)  I think the judge was wise to make an
    	adjustment in the sentence.
    
    	While I think it's possible that drug use can cause a form of
    	insanity, I don't think it will *ever* be the case that criminals
    	will just get detoxed and then walk away for drastic crimes like
    	rape or murder.  There *are* such things as mental institutions
    	for criminally insane patients who are considered exceptionally
    	violent.
    
    	What it boils down to is that I don't think that the choice for the
    	mother is between life in prison and putting her through detox
    	(to be released in a year.)  Nor do I think that if she (or any
    	other drug addict) were actually *treated* for insanity, it would
    	allow *all* criminals to have carte blanche for whatever crimes
    	they choose to commit (without responsibility) if they claim to be
    	addicts.
    
    	Each case would need to be taken on its own (to determine the best
    	way to protect society while treating addiction/insanity.)  
    
    	As bad as the mother's crime was (to let her daughter be raped in
    	exchange for cocaine,) I don't think it can be easily compared to
    	someone who kills his wife, daughters, four other family members
    	and a co-worker.  I don't think the mother's level of "threat to 
    	society" can be considered to be the same as a mass murderer's
    	threat would be (if allowed to go free someday.)

    re .75 --
    
    Have to agree with the Doctah here --
    
    Now, alcoholism and drug addiction have been viewed as forms of
    insanity (12 Step programs like AA, NA and CA talk about "restoration
    of sanity") but:  insanity cannot negate accountability.
    
    I've heard recovering alcoholics say:  "I wasn't always responsible for
    all of my actions, but I'm accountable for them all."
    
    Maybe she wasn't responsible, but she was/is accountable.
    
    					andrew

    Andrew, I think you, the Doctah, and Carol may be losing sight of the
    point Suzanne is making:  if the person who _committed_ the criminal
    act gets only 30 years, why does the _accomplice_ get life?  (Please
    remember that had no rape occurred, the woman would not, I think, have
    been prosecuted for her attempt at procuring one).
    
    She lied repeatedly?  Expressed no remorse?   Hmmm, what about the
    rapist himself?  Did he freely confess?  Express sadness and shame for
    his behavior in a way that seemed credible?  I would be astounded to
    hear that he did, so where did the disparity in sentencing come from?  
    
    						=maggie

    Perhaps both got the maximum sentence allowed by law? I don't know.
    I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are in that state for those
    crimes.
    
    I can understand the point about the disparity in sentences. Having not
    witnessed the trial itself, I can only go by what the media saw fit to
    tell us. 
    
    The Doctah

>    	Regardless of how this man's case comes out, it would be unacceptable
>    	to ever allow him to walk the streets again.  
    
    Agreed.
    
>    I *don't* think that an
>    	insanity plea based on drug use implies that society merely needs to
>    	"detox" the person who committed the crime, and then should let the
>    	person go free immediately.
    
    The problem is that the finding is "_innocent_ by reason of insanity."
    With that type of verdict, once a person can prove (s)he is sane, there
    is no legal way to prevent them from being released. That is a problem
    with the system. There ought to be "guilty and insane." That way, the
    person would be given psychiatric help and still be accountable.
    
>    	While I think it's possible that drug use can cause a form of
>    	insanity, I don't think it will *ever* be the case that criminals
>    	will just get detoxed and then walk away for drastic crimes like
>    	rape or murder.
    
    I would certainly hope not, but stranger things have happened.
    
>    	What it boils down to
    
    What would you have done if you were the judge and had complete freedom
    over the sentence?
    
>I don't think the mother's level of "threat to 
>    	society" can be considered to be the same as a mass murderer's
>    	threat would be (if allowed to go free someday.)
 
    I don't think that "threat to society" is the only issue. And it isn't
    always quantifiable. Say that the mother got released from prison after
    5 years. She gets hooked on drugs again, and then goes on a rampage,
    killing 8 people in a MacDonalds because they don't make coke spoons
    anymore. All of the people who would never want to see her released
    would be howling "I told you so." If, on the other hand, she became a
    model citizen and helped thousands through her diligent work in
    fighting drug abuse, all that would want her to serve a shorter
    sentence would point to her as a shining example of rehabilitation and
    how she proves that the "give her life-ers" are barbarians. The simple
    fact is that we don't know how she would turn out. We could keep her in
    jail forever and risk losing the next Mother Theresa. We could also let
    out the next Ted Bundy. From what we do know of her, she does not look
    like a very safe bet.
    
    I'm not sure that her punishment was appropriate (as I've said all
    along). It sure seems harsh. But she did a very bad thing. I admit, it
    does seem strange that she got more then the actual rapist, but if she
    were the child's father, I wonder if anyone would question it.
    
    The Doctah

    re: .80
    
    The first news report I saw about this incident quoted the judge
    as saying explicitly that he thought the crime of pimping one's
    daughter, when one's daughter should be able to count on
    protection instead, was a worse crime than simple rape.
    
    --bonnie

    Mark, I don't think we really know (or if so then I missed it in a
    quick scan of the responses in this string) just _what_ they were each
    convicted of in this connection.  Presumably he was convicted of rape. 
    Presumably she was convicted of being an accomplice.  Marge suggests
    that the (culpable) roles were reversed but I dunno if she knows that
    for sure [Marge?].
    
    Let's presume your case, Mark, that they were convicted each of a
    different charge and each got the maximum sentence.  The question still
    remains:  why?  What the hell _could_ this woman have done --under
    law-- that was so much worse than the rape itself?  Certainly being an
    accomplice isn't!  
    
    I really can't imagine what it could be, can you?  [Does anyone here
    actually know?]  So why did the judge try sentencing *her* to a Forever
    term, but not the rapist himself?  If rape is only worth 30 years, then
    why didn't he say to himself, "well, I could give her life but I can
    only give this slimeball 30 so in fairness I can't give her more than
    that".  The only thing I can conclude, absent more information, is the
    same thing Suzanne does:  she got hit because she violated social
    expectations about the Sanctity Of Motherhood, not because her _crime_
    was so much worse.
    
    						=maggie                 

>    The only thing I can conclude, absent more information, is the
>    same thing Suzanne does:  she got hit because she violated social
>    expectations about the Sanctity Of Motherhood, not because her _crime_
>    was so much worse.
 
    Do you feel that social expectations of parents should or should not be
    a factor in sentencing criminals? What do you (=maggie) consider to be
    the proper "sentence" for this woman (ie, you get to be judge:*)
    If the father of this girl prostituted her for crack, what would he
    deserve? 
    
    The Doctah   
            

	<--(.81)
    
�    The problem is that the finding is "_innocent_ by reason of insanity."
�    With that type of verdict, once a person can prove (s)he is sane, there
�    is no legal way to prevent them from being released. That is a problem
�    with the system. There ought to be "guilty and insane." That way, the
�    person would be given psychiatric help and still be accountable.
    
    
    Mark, a person can have an impossible time proving they're sane (it
    being a legal rather than a psychological term).  The fundamental
    criterion is whether, if released, they are likely to wind up doing the
    same or a similarly-unacceptable thing again because of the same
    underlying problem (paranoia, psychopathy, whatever).  If no, then no
    danger.  If yes, then no release.  Yes mistakes do happen, and
    sometimes tragic, stupid, pointless ones, but they still are _mistakes_
    and they happen regardless of what rubric (criminal or mental) is used
    to characterise the perpetrator.
    
    						=maggie

    Re:  what the mother was charged with --
    
    I thought she was convicted of child abuse and the dealer was
    convicted of statutory rape? 
    
    --bonnie

RE .8x    
    
>    Mark, a person can have an impossible time proving they're sane (it
>    being a legal rather than a psychological term).  The fundamental
>    criterion is whether, if released, they are likely to wind up doing the
>    same or a similarly-unacceptable thing again because of the same
>    underlying problem (paranoia, psychopathy, whatever).  If no, then no
>    danger.  If yes, then no release.  Yes mistakes do happen, and
>    sometimes tragic, stupid, pointless ones, but they still are _mistakes_
>    and they happen regardless of what rubric (criminal or mental) is used
>    to characterise the perpetrator.
>    
>    						=maggie
>

    
    I may have mentioned this here before, but I will repeat it.

    I saw a talk show one day when I was home. They had a Psy* (pick
    one) on who judges when people are safe to be let out again after
    being declaired insane for some violent crime. He was on the show
    because someone who was reciently released as 'cured' committed
    murder. Anyway, he made the incredable statement 'about one in (it
    was either 4 or 10, but that does not matter) cases, we are wrong'!
    I was flabbergasted (sp)! Would this jerk (I have other names for
    him which I will not use) go to an airport and get on a plane knowing
    that one in 4 or 10 would fail (crash)? Of course not. So why, with
    such a poor success rate would he let someone go free?
    	I suppose if someone made people who have this responsibility
    accountable, say lose their jobs, they would suddenly achieve a
    better than 1 in 4 or 10 success rate, and the public might be safer.
    
    Steve

    
    This is NOT a defense of the rape laws, particularly the sentencing
    sections, in this country.  However, IF the dealer was convicted of
    statutory rape as opposed to forcible rape it says alot about why his
    sentence was so light. But statutory rape implies that the minor
    consented and was not forced and that doesn't seem to fit with what
    I've seen about the case.
    
    All in all I suspect we are arguing issues with a dearth of facts.
    
 
    Judges are human beings and as impartial as they may try to be, when
    they find something morally repugnant, it has to effect the sentence
    that the person gets.
    
    I once had a conversation with a defense attorney who told me that
    rape is still the easiest crime to defend (this was 5 or so years ago
    but I don't think things have changed) because the closest most men can
    come to this type of a personal violation is to have their home robbed.
    An interesting thought.........  Remember most of the folks who write
    the laws are men.
    
    

    Yeah, Steve, there are some real duds in the field (most are
    psychiatrists :') who seem not to be capable of understanding the
    serious existential consequences of the decisions they take.  If they
    were on the other side of the table, that sort of failure would get
    _them_ labelled.
    
    But they are nonetheless in the minority, thank God.  The vast majority
    of practitioners are careful, conscientious professionals who do their
    best to err on the side of safety and responsibility.
    
    						=maggie

.87 (Steve Keith)
>    . Anyway, he made the incredable statement 'about one in (it
>    was either 4 or 10, but that does not matter) cases, we are wrong'!
[violent/insane criminals judged "cured"]

>    	I suppose if someone made people who have this responsibility
>    accountable, say lose their jobs, they would suddenly achieve a
>    better than 1 in 4 or 10 success rate, and the public might be safer.

Why?  The "science" of psychology, particularly clinical psychopathology
is not very accurate.  This guy simply may not have had the tools to be
able to judge accurately.  It is a judgement call, mostly...

I suspect if his job were made dependent on it, that yes, fewer still-insane
criminals would be declared safe.  But only because fewer people would be
declared safe, which means more people who actually were safe would be
judged unsafe too.  (Anyone taken any signal-detection theory?  The nature of
the signal/noise doesn't change, you just change your criteria, and
simultaneously increase the "hits", while also increasing the "false
alarms.")  I am not saying whether I would consider this a worthwhile cost,
just that I bet the reason for so many "misses" is due more to an inexact
science than to carelessness; the only way to decrease the misses without
keeping more "safe" people locked up is to improve the science.

D!

    I'd be quite pleased to see a response to the very pointed question in
    .81 by Suzanne and the questions in .84 by =maggie. I think this would
    go a long way towards seeing what exactly divides us, and how much of
    this debate is philosophical.
    
    The Doctah

    I wasn't ignoring you, Mark; we seemed to be out of sync, so I decided
    to stop until things calmed down.
    
    Do I think societal expectations about how parents should behave should
    influence sentencing?  No.  Not without societal support for "proper"
    parental behavior.  We're simply too damn good at stressing people til
    they break and then punishing them for it!
    
    What do I consider the "proper" sentence for the woman?  The same
    sentence anyone else who pimped an unwilling child would get, because
    that's what she did.
    
    If the father of the girl prostituted her for crack, he should get the
    same sentence anyone else who pimped an unwilling child would get.
    
    'zat clear up anything, Mark?
    
    Now, should the sentence for pimping an unwilling child be what I
    suspect it currently is, i.e., "not much"?  Hell no.  It should be
    serious time, comparable to kidnapping.
    
    Moreover, should drugs continue to remain illegal and their possession
    and use punished?  No, I don't think so; the cure is getting to be MUCH
    worse for our society than the disease.
    
    But those are different issues.        
                                           						
    						=maggie

re .92:

Clear, concise, and comprehensive.  (And I happen to agree with it. :-)
Thank you, Maggie.

	-Neil

>    Do I think societal expectations about how parents should behave should
>    influence sentencing?  No.  Not without societal support for "proper"
>    parental behavior. 
    
    What kind of support?
    
>    What do I consider the "proper" sentence for the woman?  The same
>    sentence anyone else who pimped an unwilling child would get, because
>    that's what she did.
    
    I don't think that what the mother did was the same as what the guy in
    the big Cadillac does. Maybe it is. It seems that there was an aura of
    kidnapping here. That the mother did not physically rape the daughter
    herself seems to be less of an issue to me- she took her daughter
    forcefully against her will and forced her to provide sexual
    gratification for someone else.  It seems to me to be as bad as doing
    it yourself.
    
    Whatever. In any case, I had wanted to get a specific sentence from
    you. There is no single sentence that pimps get. There are averages,
    highs and lows, allowing for degree of criminality as determined by the
    judge. Ignoring "what anyone else would get" for a moment, what
    sentence do you consider to be fair, just, and reasonable under the
    circumstances? (You are limited only by your imagination and the
    Constitution.)
    
>    'zat clear up anything, Mark?
    
    It's a good start. :-)
    
    Thanks for not ignoring me. :-)
    
     The Doctah

    What kind of support?  A decent job.  Training for parental duties.
    Psychological counselling for stress.  Stuff like that.  Stuff that
    indicates that as a society we take the parental role seriously.
    
    I'm not sure we're in disagreement about the comparability of the
    mother's role and the pimp's...you don't seem to have taken in my
    qualification about unwillingness, and that makes a great deal of
    difference.
    
    Mark, I'm not about to try comimg up with some hard number, that'd be
    foolish!  My whole point is that neither the sex of the offender nor
    her/his relationship to the victim should be a factor in determining
    *whatever* number is used.  Whether the number is too big or too small
    for the offence is a completely separate issue.
    
    You're welcome :-)
    						=maggie

    Maggie, you don't believe that the "duty of care" toward one's child
    should be any different than toward any child?  Why have parents at
    all?
    
    respectfully,
    Marge

    <--(.96)
    
    No, t'be truthful, Marge, I'm not sure it should.  Maybe because it
    seems an inappropriate rule to apply, regardless.
    
    For instance, if I see a toddler about to wander into busy traffic, I
    have no 'duty of care' that would require me to go save the kid.  Now,
    does that make ethical sense?  Not t'me!  Should it make legal sense? 
    Jeez, I'm not sure:  are we better or worse off as a culture when we
    ignore interpersonal needs because we've no legal obligation to address
    them?  What's the purpose of law, anyway?  What's a parent, come to
    that?  
    
    						=maggie

    I guess I just have visions of babies being snatched from their
    less-than-perfect parents to be raised by professional nannies... lots
    of professionalism; no familial love.  
    
    *sigh*
    Marge 
    
    

    Yeah, Marge, I think you hit it, that's maybe what value parents have: 
    love.  The kid's first human relationship.  Or lack thereof.
    
    But I'm foggy about the connection you see between society's response
    to a pregant drunk and having kids snatched away to be raised in
    professionalised creches...I'd think it would be connected in exactly
    the opposite way:  if we can jail the drunk we can snatch the child!  
    What'm I missing?
    
    						=maggie

    Now I'm foggy...granted I haven't read all the 99 responses, but I
    thought we were talking about the mother who prostituted the daughter
    in exchange for drugs, not the jailed pregnant woman string...
    
    I believe that the mother who prostituted her daughter should be more
    accountable than J. Random adult who prostitutes the same child for
    drugs, and that her punishment should reflect that level of
    accountability.  I also believe that the same parent prostituting
    someone else's child for drugs should receive a somewhat lesser
    sentence than if s/he were to prostitute her own child.  
    
    To me, the relationship between parent and child requires that the
    parent protect that child.  Yes, they should also protect other
    children, but the mandate is that they protect their own children. 
    
    If this is not in line with the direction that this note is taking,
    feel free to tell me I'm ratholing... I'll go away cheerfully.
    
    grins,
    m
    
    

Since I originally had Maggie's reaction (.99), may I rephrase Marge's .100?

	If we did not presume some sort of special relationship between 
	parent and child -- if parent were just another adult, who happened
	to live with the child -- then there would be no reason not to take
	a child away from its natural parents and give it to some other 
	adults instead.

	Since we find this scenario implausible, we conclude that there *is*
	a special relationship between parent and child.  But (old clich�)
	every right comes with corresponding responsibilities; so if the
	parental relationship confers special rights on the parent (vis �
	vis other adults) with respect to the child, then it must also
	confer special *responsibilities* with respect to the child.

Is that what you meant, Marge?  It sounds plausible to me.

	-Neil

    ooooooooops, you're right Marge, I feel really embarrassed!  How dumb
    of me.  I dunno how I managed to screw that up so completely...I
    evidently got lost right in the middle...but lessee if I can get it
    right all the way through this time:
    
    Actually, given your response, Marge, I don't know how to do much more
    than acknowledge that I hear you.  I do agree that a parent ought to
    protect its child...but on the other hand, I think adults ought to
    protect children, regardless of any relationship.  Knowing you, I find
    it incredibly hard to believe that you think the toddler wandering into
    the road should have to depend on law or blood for my action (or
    yours!)  Should it?  If no, then where's the parental difference?  If
    yes, then why? 
    
    						=maggie

    Well, that's an aspect of it.  My comment about taking away a child
    from its parent harkens back to Maggie's comments about society's
    requirement to provide proper parental training else there is no
    "greater" responsibility (paraphrased).  I think the greater
    responsibility goes with the territory, training or not... training is
    a nice-to-have.  
    
    Clearly nannies have much better parental training than do most
    parents. If we start talking about society's responsibility
    toward training parents, then isn't the next step for society to remove
    children from untrained parents and place them with trained
    parents-in-absentia, that being more cost effective... group homes with
    a ratio of, say, 5:1 or 4:1 rather than today's 2.2:1 or whatever the
    ratio may be of natural/adoptive parents to child.
    
    rambling,
    Marge
    

    <--(.101)
    
    Neil (and Marge?), if we presume that the parental relationship is one
    of property then I can see that scenario.  But if we presume it's one
    of, hmm, love?  humanity?  I dunno, not property anyhow, then it seems
    to me that the case becomes much less clear:  if the reason we don't
    part parents and children is out of respect for the (presumed)
    emotional bond between them, then why should we punish the parent EXTRA
    just because the bond hasn't formed?  Doesn't seem something that's
    under voluntary control, t'me.
    
    						=maggie

    re .102: (catching up)
    
    no worry...often conversations merge... 
    
    No, J. Random child should not have to rely on legal protections ...
    I think most of us would jump to protect a child, no matter the
    relationship.  I guess what I'm saying is the difference between should
    and must... an adult should protect a child; a parent must protect a
    son/daughter, and the ramifications of not doing so should reflect that
    distinction in my mind.
    
    tnx,
    m
    

    Does anybody have a clue as to the legal responsibility of an adult
    to j.random child? I don't ever remember having any sort of rule or
    teaching to say I MUST help any child but I find it hard to imagine
    not doing so. The barn I board my horse at has a spoken rule that
    any adult riding with a child is the responsible party in the group
    even if the child is the better rider. Whether the child is related
    to you has no bearing.

    I have had EMT training including CPR. It was my impression that if
    I find someone in need of my skills I am legally as well as morally
    obligated to try and save them but that someone who has not had
    training is not. Could the same be true of parents? If you have a
    child you are respnsible if you haven't you aren't? liesl

>    I do agree that a parent ought to
>    protect its child...but on the other hand, I think adults ought to
>    protect children, regardless of any relationship.  Knowing you, I find
>    it incredibly hard to believe that you think the toddler wandering into
>    the road should have to depend on law or blood for my action (or
>    yours!)  Should it?  If no, then where's the parental difference?  If
>    yes, then why? 

 The responsibility that a parent has for a child is different than the 
responsibility any old adult has with respect to that same child. If the
child is neglected by the parent and another adult knows about it but does 
nothing, there are no societal sanctions against the adult, while there are
against the parent. There is a different level of responsibility.

 The responsibility that a random adult has with respect to a child is largely
a function of that adult's internal morality. This is less so in the case of
parents. A parent has certain obligations to her/his child that a passing
adult does not have. It is because of this special relationship between parents
and children that makes parental-offspring crimes liable for more severe
punishments.

 Now, one might question whether the act of getting raped would be any less
traumatic if the girl in question had been "delivered" by another adult. And
the question is difficult to answer. Certainly all of the physical aspects
would have remained. But perhaps, perhaps the psychological effects of the 
assault would have been somewhat less had she been kidnapped and delivered
by another adult rather than a parent. I personally feel that the psychological
damage was probably worse because a parent took part in the crime.

 The Doctah

>    I have had EMT training including CPR. It was my impression that if
>    I find someone in need of my skills I am legally as well as morally
>    obligated to try and save them but that someone who has not had
>    training is not. 

You sure about this?  I know it isn't true of just CPR.  (I've been certified
a couple of times.)  I won't argue about "morally" but "legally"?  (I mean
when you aren't on duty - if you are working an abulance, then that is very
different.)

D!

    I think we're getting a couple things confused here, notably the
    question of legal -vs- ethical.
    
    In the instance at hand, a mother pimped her unwilling minor daughter
    and got a much more severe sentence than did the man who committed the
    subsequent rape.  The judge justified his act on the ground that the
    woman violated her parental responsibility.
    
    My argument is that the woman's responsibility in the matter was not
    that of a parent:  the law does not forbid a parent to pimp its child,
    but rather forbids _any_ adult to pimp _any_ child; her _legal_ failure
    was in her conduct as an adult, not as a parent!
    
    						=maggie

 Absolutely correct, =maggie. However, the law allows for mitigating 
circumstances for practically any crime. For me, it is no great leap of logic to
go the other way as well. It seems consistent, doesn't it? If you can have
circumstances that make a crime less "bad," why shouldn't there be cricumstances
that make a crime more "bad?"

 The Doctah

    Great, Mark:  total up _all_ the factors bearing on this woman's act,
    then.  It's the only fair way, right?

    so where was the father in all this?  shouldn't he also be charged
    because as a parent, he also has legal responibilities?  shouldn't he
    be charged with child abuse or neglect? why wasn't he aware that the
    mother was pimping the child and why didn't he put a stop to it?  why
    is just the mother culpable?  where the heck is his responsibility???
    isn't he classified as an accomplice?
    
    vivian

    That's a question I have too, Vivian... my notes have referred to
    parental responsibility, not maternal responsiblity...
    
    m

    
    Re .106 regarding the legal/moral obligation to act in time of need.
    
    There is none. Legally I (and I am an EMT also) I can ride by a motor
    vehicle accident and am in no way legally obliged to help. If I do stop
    to help, then I AM legally accountable if I do not stay until other
    trained help arrives. Moral obligation is up to the indiviaul, no one
    else can answer that question.
    
    As to the difference between your child and other kids. I think there
    is a bond between the child and parent that is not there with non
    related children.  At least I think the child feels that bond (the
    child will go to the parent before going to a stranger).
    
    ed

    Re - .112, .113
    
    The father is divorced from the mother.  She had custody of their three
    daughters at the time of the rape.  
    
    Carol
    

    In my opinion, the father is involved.  divorce does not legally
    or moraly absolve him of fatherhood. 
    
    vivian

    re: .116 (vivian)
    
    Granted that he has legal/moral obligations of fatherhood, but I
    don't think he can be directly implicated in the pimping charge.
    How, for instance, could he have prevented the mother from 
    prostituting the child, particularly if he was unaware of her
    intent?  Wouldn't that be like saying David Azar's wife was
    directly culpable in the daughter's death?
    
    Steve

    re - Vivian
    
    Granted, he's a father, with fatherly obligations.  And I do believe
    he's fulfilling them now.  But how can he be charged with child abuse
    or neglect (or being an accomplice) when he *wasn't* there and he 
    *didn't* know what was going on?
    
    Carol
    

    Well, ok, I'll step into this one.  I have been hearing over and over
    again about how so many non_custodial fathers are so involved in their
    childrens upbringing, and since this woman is a crack addict, and the
    father must have witnessed this woman high when he was exercising
    his rights as a father and visiting his children, it was his moral duty
    to protect his children.
    
    actually, I feel that both parents are responible for the upbringing of
    a child and neither one is excused with the excuse of divorce. 
    
    re: azar case, I can't comment, the only things I've read regarding the
    case are from this file.
    
    vivian

    .119
    
    I agree.  It's not hard to spot a coke addicit.  In fact, it's pretty
    damn easy.  If this father was visiting with his children on a regular
    basis, I can't believe he didn't know the mother's condition.  He 
    should have made steps to stop this by at least removing his children
    from the situation.  Who knows, he could possibly be an addicit himself
    and therefore felt he didn't have any responsibility.
    
    Anna
    

re: the father's duty...

Well,does anyone have any actual information, or know where some might be
found?

Does he live anywhere near the mother?  Does he have visiting rights?  Did
he perhaps already file for custody, and have his application rejected, or
was still in court when this incident happened?  

Before we go bashing the father's *moral* obligations, let us at least know
for sure what the situation was.

Legally, it is not child abuse to leave the children in the care of an
addict mother.  He *has* to leave the kids there, even if he wants to take
them, if the court awarded her custody in the divorce!  Perhaps he has a
moral obligation to his child, but legally, the whole *point* of custody
is that the guardian awarded custody has the right and reponsibility of
raising the child, and short of appealing the decision, there isn't much a
noncustodial parent can do.

D!

    Mark, I think you may be missing Vivian's point:  if we're so willing
    to talk about "parental responsibility" in the case of the woman, why
    aren't we willing to talk about it in the case of the man?  If a woman
    can have her sentence increased because she failed in her
    responsibility as a mother, why don't we go after the man for failing
    in his responsibility as a father?  Do we assume that he has none?  Do
    we say he's excused if he's not around?  Do we say he's excused because
    failure to prevent some act is unimportant?  What lets him off the hook
    in your mind?
    
    						=maggie

 Vivian et al-

 I can't believe that you are trying to paint the father as the bad guy here
(well, actually I can, but that's another story). It is amazing how far people
will go to justify those people who they are like, and attack people they are
unlike.

 You have made a number of assumptions (all which just _happen_ to put the
father in the worst of all possible lights). Why didn't you do that for the
mother? SEXISM!!!!!!

 "If the father was visiting his children..."

 "the father must have witnessed this woman high when he was exercising
    his rights as a father and visiting his children,"

>divorce does not legally
    or moraly absolve him of fatherhood. "

 Can you see how I might disagree with your premise?

 I know you understand the implications of a divorce. I know you understand the
implications of custody. You really and truly have no idea about the facets of
the case that involve the father (even their existance) because you didn't know
that they were divorced (so I doubt you know what the visiting arrangements
are.)

 I will agree with you on one point, though. IFF the father saw that the mother
was an addict, it was his moral obligation to go through the legal channels
to attempt to remove his children from her care.

 We know nothing of the father whatever. It is very possible that the reason
they got divorced was because he was an unfit father. We just don't know.
It is useless to speculate about those aspects of the case.

 Do you really believe that the system of justice in this state is so perverted
as to ignore a man's crime while punishing a woman's?

 I'm sorry I got so angry and shouted. It just seems like another case of
partisanship to me.

 The Doctah

>if we're so willing
>    to talk about "parental responsibility" in the case of the woman, why
>    aren't we willing to talk about it in the case of the man?

 I am perfectly willing to discuss the father's role in parental responsibility
in the case. I prefer to know the pertinent facts about the father before
making my "judgements" about his role, that's all.

>If a woman
>    can have her sentence increased because she failed in her
>    responsibility as a mother, why don't we go after the man for failing
>    in his responsibility as a father?

 It all depends on what the situation is. We really don't know anything about
the father except that he and the mother are divorced. If he were in a coma
while this were happening, who'd really expect him to do anything? My point is
not that he was in a coma or anything like that- it's just an inkling of how
little we know about the father in this case.

>Do we assume that he has none? 

 I don't really want to assume anything. I suppose, I'd like to think he had 
nothing to do with the whole situation, but I'd feel the same way if the roles
were reversed. 

>Do
>    we say he's excused if he's not around?

 Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on more than his physical proximity.

>What lets him off the hook
>    in your mind?

 Ah, but he's NOT off the hook. Neither is he on. You have to first find out
if this particular fish resides in this pond before we attempt to decide whether
we've failed to catch him or not. :-)

 The Doctah

    Mark, the tenor of your note suggests to me that you have already
    absolved him of responsibility; I offer in evidence your apparent
    inability/unwillingness to appreciate why Vivian raised the issue: you
    ascribed it to sexism rather than regarding it as even a legitimate
    question.                                          
    
    						=maggie

>I offer in evidence your apparent
>    inability/unwillingness to appreciate why Vivian raised the issue: you
>    ascribed it to sexism rather than regarding it as even a legitimate
>    question.                     

 I don't question the legitimacy of the question itself. I question the manner
in which it was raised, and the implication that all factors aligned in the
worst possible way regarding the father's role.

 I certainly wondered about the role of the father. It's a perfectly legitimate
question. On the other hand, I didn't wonder by thinking "Jeez- they should go
after him too- he failed as a parent." I thought "I wonder why the father
didn't do anything to stop this."

 I think this is similar to the David Azar case. I haven't heard anyone claim
that they should go after Mrs. Azar for negligence (nor should I). And she
lived in the same house and saw the kids every day. But I am hearing a (minority
admittedly) claim that the father must have been in some way responsible in
this case. Perhaps my memory has failed me, but did the same individuals
"raise the legitimate question" of the mother's involvement in the Azar case?
Then why is there a difference in this case? I cannot help (being the lazy
individual I am) but think that sexism is involved here (actually, partisanship
is probably a better word). Now it may very well be that sexual partisanship
is not the major issue here- it may not even be present at all, but in my
laziness to find another cause, I can only see the most obvious. Perhaps you
can see a less obvious (and no less important) reason?

 The Doctah

    .127
    
    You're wrong about no one mentioning David Azar's wife responsibility
    to her daughter.  I did. 
    
    Anna
    

    re .-1
    
    I raised the question because it takes two people to make a child.  
    
    at no time did I try and defend the woman for doing what she did. 
    
    Is it because I am a woman that you doubt my ability to question
    without some sort of bias??  
    
    I was wondering why the father, who NOW has custody, was not 
    responsible for his child and why the conversations all appear 
    to say what her responsiblities are and ignore the fathers role 
    completely.
    
    vivian

    opps, anna's reply got in before mine, my note is in response to 
    -2, or to Doctah

>    You're wrong about no one mentioning David Azar's wife responsibility
>    to her daughter.  I did. 

 If I remember correctly, you asked something like "Where was the mother 
during all of this?" (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I don't recall anyone
saying anything about "going after" the mother. (And I interpreted the questions
about the father's role <and corresponding assumptions> to be implying that
we should be going after the father.)

>    Is it because I am a woman that you doubt my ability to question
>    without some sort of bias??  

 Certainly not. I am only questioning the manner in which the subject was 
raised. It seemed to me that you were advocating "going after" the guy. It would
definitely satisfy my personal curiosity if we knew what the arrangement was
between the father and mother/kids.

>    I was wondering why the father, who NOW has custody, was not 
>    responsible for his child and why the conversations all appear 
>    to say what her responsiblities are and ignore the fathers role 
>    completely.

 I guess it also is a question of what you mean by "responsible for his child."
If you mean "why didn't he prevent this crime?" there may be any number of 
reasonable answers (and equal number of unreasonable ones, too.) The way you
ask the question, it seems that you are accusing him of not being responsible
for his child. And I ask you, do you or do you not feel the same way about
him that you feel about Mrs. Azar? And if not, what is the difference, and to
what do you attribute this difference?

 The Doctah

ps- Again I'd like to apologize for losing my cool and shouting.

    Yes, Doctah, I did say "where was the mother during all the this" and
    I also went on to mention whether the child went to her 'well baby' 
    visits and doesn't the mother know what her babies body look like at
    all times, blah blah blah......  If Mrs. Azar had kept the
    appointments, did know what her child's body looked like, why didn't
    she take responsibility at that time.   Just like why didn't the father
    of this child take responsibility when his ex-wife was a coke addicit?
    
    Unless I missed something in a previous note, (which is likely) I don't
    really think anyone feels the father should be put into prison for not
    taking responsibility for helping his children.   Just up and giving
    the children to him when maybe the state should maintain custody of them and
    let them live with the father if he proves he can be responsible.....
    
    Why is the father all of a sudden able to be responsible now, when he
    wasn't/couldn't (I don't really know which) before?
    
    Anna
    

    re Doctah,
    
    It's not the what you said that's getting you in trouble right now.
    It's how you said it, and all the baggage that you tied up with it
    about reverse sexism and other bunk.
    
    Actually, D! Carroll said the same thing that you did, but somehow
    she didn't receive any flames for it.  Why is that?
    

re: Anna

>    Why is the father all of a sudden able to be responsible now, when he
>    wasn't/couldn't (I don't really know which) before?

 This is exactly what I'm talking about. On what basis do you make the 
proclamation that the father was not responsible for his children at the
time of the crime? 

re: Ms. Gugel

>    It's how you said it, and all the baggage that you tied up with it
>    about reverse sexism and other bunk.

 I don't believe I ever mentioned the term "reverse sexism." I believe I said
"sexually partisan." In any case, I remain waiting for an answer to my questions
(acknowledging that the delay is most likely a result of actual work occurring).

>    Actually, D! Carroll said the same thing that you did, but somehow
>    she didn't receive any flames for it.  Why is that?

 Because she didn't challenge people like I did. Also, I raised issues that
tend to make people really examine their position and justify it. D! couched
her objections to attacking the father in much nicer terms. (Which I
appreciated, BTW).

 The Doctah

    Coke addicts are not necessarily that easily detected.  I just learned
    that the guy my niece was living with was a coke addict and I've
    visited them on a few occasions.
    
    Fathers still win custody in a very disproportionately small number
    of cases.  They also lose visiting rights much more frequently than
    I expect is warrented.  Look at the Muribito case in NH.  The mother
    claimed that he had raped the children.  He immediately lost access
    to them for years while he defended his case.  He was found not
    guilty.  Opinions were expressed by those involved that neither
    parent acted responsibly in the trial.  A custody battle ensued
    in which he won custody.  She avoided the finding by taking the
    children.  She was found in Montanna with the children.  Her landlords
    expressed the opinion that she was not a good mother.  The children
    are put in a foster home in NH.  She again charges the husband with
    rape (I thought that double jepardy was against our legal system.
    Once found not guilty, you are not to be tried again.) Anyway, despite
    having successfully been declared not guilty of rape in court and
    having been awarded the custody of the children, he is again denied
    them.  Now they each get access.  The foster mother expresses the
    opinion that Jesse is not good for the children, that she upsets
    them.  They do not sleep the night before or the night after her
    visit.  All goes well with the father's visits.  Jesse has suits
    asking for Mark to be denied all access in all possible findings
    of his guilt.  She also threatens suit against the foster mother.
    (I don't know if this was filed.)  Now I'm not convinced that Mark
    did not rape or molest his children, I just question why there is
    a second round.  Why did the people from Florida just step in now
    to accuse him of such activity decades ago?  Why has he been unable
    to get custody of the children even after he was awarded custody?
    
    My observation is that for several decades, custody battles have
    been decided in the mother's favor in such a preponderance of cases
    that I believe it represents a case of sexism.  I think it is beginning
    to move toward parity, however.  But until recently, custody has
    been considered the mother's right unless she is proven to be unfit.
    The father's fitness for custody was only material if the mother
    was unfit.
    
    My points are:
    
    	1 Coke addiction is not always detected unless you're with the
    addict at all times.
    
    	2. The father's fitness was probably never a factor.
    
    	3. If he was separated from the mother, he probably was not
    in a position to see much.  If he were, I would probably expect
    him to do something, as I would it the case of a mother who was
    around and doing nothing to protect her children.
    
    	I say all this because I definitely detected an unfair attack
    on the father because there was no evidence of his negligence or
    wrongdoing, while there was reason to believe he might not have
    known or even to have been able to do anything about any suspicions
    within the law.  The mother, on the other hand, delivered her daughter
    for rape.  And I use the word "attack" because I did not read, "where
    was the father", but rather various views of how he was (at least
    probably) as guilty as the mother.  The fact that the father did
    not have child custody just reflects the norm, not his lack of fitness
    for custody.  This, like any sexist bias, needs to end.
    
    Bud

    <--(.135)
    
�    She again charges the husband with
�    rape (I thought that double jepardy was against our legal system.
�    Once found not guilty, you are not to be tried again.)
    
    "Double jeopardy" refers to being tried twice on the _same_ charge, not
    on the same _type_ of charge, Bud.  A person found innocent of robbing
    a bank on one occasion could still be tried and found guilty of robbing
    it on a different occasion.
    
    						=maggie

    I think it's very easy to detect a coke head.  Very easy....  People I
    don't even know, I can tell by their sniffing, avoiding of your eyes,
    heads down wiping at their noses, some still have white power stuck
    under there nose, consistently drinking water, parinoida (sp?),
    attitudes.  (Of course I'm not saying everyone that has any of these
    on their own are cokeheads......)  I guess it just takes experience 
    of being around cokeheads.  My brother-in-law who lives in another
    state was an apparent cokehead/crack/drunk ended up getting help at
    one point.  After about a year or so of not hearing from him (not
    unusual not to hear from him) I knew he was back on the stuff after one
    phone call.  I really don't believe you have to be with someone all
    the time to know their drug habits.  
    
    Doctah, I believe the father knew in his heart that his children were
    being raised by a cokehead.  I believe he should have done something
    to stop it before it got to this point.  Even if the court did award
    custody to the mother, if it were my child, I would have done ANYTHING
    to get him out of the situation.  Hell, it seems that in this case, the
    father could have 'bought' his children from the mother; she seemed so
    despate for drug money!  I'm just make my own assumptions here, I don't
    know if the father did see his children on a reqular basis or not;he
    could very well have been out of their lives.  Maybe he really didn't
    know about his ex-wife.  But in my opinion, he did.  Also, I hope my
    son will tell me if he was in a situation like this, I'd do something.
    If this father's children did tell him what's what, he should have
    done something.  The only way I could see if the father hadn't done
    anything to help his children, was if the father is as much of a coke
    head as his ex-wife.  
    
    Anna
    
    

    refering to the question of me "wanting" to find the father guilty, I
    did not. I wanted to know why there was no mention of him regarding his
    responsiblilties. 
    It is very easy to spot a "coker" as mentioned by a previous note, 
    If there was any question as the the fitness of the mother, all 
    he or anyone has to do is call child services and they will 
    investigate. 
    
    I did not say to go "after" the father, I asked where he was. If you
    choose to read the supposed bias or whatever words you want to use for
    sexist, into my question, its something you should examine.  I feel my
    question is just a question, nothing more. if you as a male read more
    into it, it is purely from your own perspective. 
    
    and regarding the Azar case, I cannot say how I feel about the case, I
    don't live in NH, I do not read the papers from there, and 
    
    		*******I have not read the note!*****
    
    my feelings are and will always be, that BOTH PARENTS are responsible
    for their children.  being non-custodial does not relieve anyone, male
    or female of their responsiblity towards their children.  If there is a
    question as to the custodial parents fitness, call social services. if
    you get no results after one call, call again. If you suspect a parent
    is using drugs and endangering their child, call social services. 
    I personally don't care what gender the parent who sold their child
    was, it was a dispicable act.  if the parent had been the father, I
    would still question the whereabouts of the mother. 
    
    is there anything else you want me to explain of my own purely personal
    perspective?  
    vivian

re .137

>    Doctah, I believe the father knew in his heart that his children were
>    being raised by a cokehead.  I believe he should have done something
>    to stop it before it got to this point.

 On what basis do you make this claim? (Why do you believe this? Do you have any
facts at your disposal that would make us better able to see the relationship
of the father?) How do you know he did not do anything to stop it?

>I'm just make my own assumptions here,

 I think it's very dangerous to base any sort of discussion on assumptions,
when the reality may be significantly different. If you want to discuss a
generic case and make all the assumptions you want, I'd be happy to join you.
But if you are going to discuss a particular case, it doesn't make sense to
make critical assumptions (IMO).

>Maybe he really didn't
>    know about his ex-wife.  But in my opinion, he did.

 I can't see how you can say that (given the same information I have).

re: .138

>    It is very easy to spot a "coker" 

 It can be easy, especially if one's use is out of control. It can also be
impossible. 

 If the father had regular contact with his ex-wife, he probably should have 
been able to tell that something was up (judging from her willingness to do
anything to get the drugs.) The problem is, we are not in a position to say
whether he should have or shouldn't have because we lack the information
necessary to make such a judgement.

 The Doctah

    I agree that, if the father was in regular contact with his children
    and his ex-wife, he might have been able to detect the problem.
    (This is assumption because I don't know what contact he was allowed
    to have or whether there was a marriage.  Does anyone?)  
    
    I was not able to detect that my neice's roommate was a heavy coke
    user, but I am told that he was.  Perhaps my inability to detect
    is a result of my not looking for problems or not knowing much about
    drugs.  I have heard the symptoms listed in previous replies, and
    he did not show them.  I know I didn't like him and felt that he
    was not good for my neice, but that was just an unfounded feeling.
    (Or perhaps founded, but I had not identified what the problem was.)
    
    But if the father detected something wrong that would be grounds
    for an investigation of the mother, he should certainly have done
    something.  The something might not have done any good, in fact
    it is entirely possible that he was doing something.  (Again, I
    don't think anyone here knows.)  I recently read about a case in
    which a Nashua minister was jailed for writing to a judge in a custody
    case.  He complained that the testamony of various social service 
    professionals who testafied in a custody dispute should be listened
    to in awarding custody to the father and not the mother.  Despite
    all their testamony, and none supporting the mother, she got custody.
    The minsister got involved because he had been their minister and
    he saw how the children were being mistreated.  This minister was
    jailed for "contempt of court" for writing this letter after the
    case asking for a reversal.  Judicial arrogance!  But my point is
    that the father may not have been able to do anything, and this
    is an area of considerable discrimination against fathers.
    
    I don't object to raising the concern about where the father was
    and why he didn't help.  There is plenty of room for conjecture
    as to what happened and why.  Apparently, there is not any room
    for conjecture about the mother.  If the father had been fighting
    all along for custody, and this incident gave him sudden custody
    then that's wonderful.  If he was living in a new world of "personal
    freedom" from his family responsibilities or was not sufficiently
    concerned about the problems that he was aware of, I agree that
    he too should receive punishment.  So raising the question is
    reasonable, but only looking at the worst senario of his actions
    and motives when he could have just as easily been working hard
    to free his children is not fair or reasonable.  When only one
    possibility is looked at, I am left wondering why the negative
    possibilities alone are examined.  Perhaps the father was in jail
    for objecting just as the minister above was.  There are really
    lots of possibilities.  The cokehead mother could even still be
    the better parent.  Now that's a really frightening thought!
    
    Bud
    that the mother was

              Thank you for the sorely needed objectivity.


                                                  -Robert Brown III

    Yesterday while I was home sick I watched Geraldo - topic mothers who
    lost custody of their children to rich husbands when both of them were
    on cocaine.  
    
    According to one woman the judge said because she was on coke "she was
    a tramp and unfit to be a mother".  Her husband on the other hand was
    just "sowing his oats."   The other woman was also seen as unfit yet
    her husband was excused for using cocaine  - the reasoning - he was
    much older than his wife and was using cocaine to "keep up with his
    younger wife."
    
    In both cases these were very wealthy men (sorry cannot remember the
    names).  Both husband and wife used cocaine.  When they divorced the
    cocaine was used against the women to prove that they were unfit - the
    men got custody even though they were coke addicts as well.  It's
    excusable for men but not for women.  Both of these women have since
    kicked the habit, made some riches of their own and are going back to
    fight for custody of their children.
    
    So a crime is inexcusable when your a mother - but okay when you are a
    father?
                      

    Yes, one of the women was probably Roxanne Pulitizer (sp?).  Not only
    is her ex-husband a cokehead, he was the one that first introduced it
    to her.  
    
    Anna
    

    RE .142
    
    Remarkable!
    
    BUT!
   
    I deem this as a rich vs poor as opposed to mother vs father.
    
    Neither on should have had them!
    Steve

 I had to watch the baby yesterday (she's sick) so I saw a portion of the
program. It seemed to me that the situation had little or nothing to do with the 
actual drug use- it was a case of rich men buying a favorable verdict. Now
I'm not saying that anyone was bribed, but the rich men (yes, Pulitzer as one)
hired high priced sharks (synonym for lawyers) and overpowered the women.

 I appreciated the complaints by the women about "yellow journalism." There's
little doubt that the media has had a negative impact on these women.

 All in all, it's a sad situation where the more privileged ream the less 
privileged. (An all too common occurrance.)

 The Doctah