Children having children

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/12/mom-who-glued-toddler-hands-is-monster-dallas-woman-faces-life-sentence-for/

This woman(?) has four other children and is aged 23. The probably means she had her first one at around age 17. Other than the woman's family, no other parent was mentioned in the article.

Look what that roll with honey can cost!

[Meg 368]

Let me guess . . . an "abstinence only" sex education, no access to contraceptives, and no way to get an abortion when she knew she already had more kids than she could handle.

I do not understand how it is more "moral" for a child to be put into these circumstances.

[LivingInThePast 364]

What were the circumstances, though, Meg? Was she raped, or simply irresponsible?

[Meg 368]

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that she was irresponsible. How it is more "moral" for a child to be put into these circumstances?

[LexusInfernus 908]

99 years? thats ridiculous. That she gets prison time I can understand, but 99 years? Its not like she killed the child. Hell, even if she did kill the child, it would still be ridiculous to give her a life sentence. Life is for first and second degree murder, not a mom who cant take it anymore and snaps because you know, shes 23 and part of a dysfunctional family and has to raise 4 children pretty much on her own.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

American jurisprudence is a little out of whack, especially in Texas. She will be eligible for parole in 30 years or so, if she survives that long. One wonders if any of the social safety net knew anything about her.

[Easy Bakes 253]

That was a pretty viscous way to treat a child regardless of how old or what situation the girl was in.the punishment fits.

hopefully the other kids will be placed with a decent family.

5 kids do they not know who the fathers are?

  Edited October 13, 2012 by Easy Bakes  

[LexusInfernus 908]

How can you say the punishment fits? Murderers get less jail time than this girl, and they did something that actually got someone killed. And imagine it like this, if she had beat up a 23 year old guy like that, she wouldnt have gotten nearly as much jail time as she got now. Its just this overreaction people have every time a child is involved. Rape a child, death penalty, rape an adult, 10-20 years in jail and youre done. Hit a child, go to jail, hit an adult, maybe a fine and some community service. Beat up a child, life in prison, beat up an adult, a few years in jail. Im not saying that when you go after a child, you shouldnt be punished a little harder for it than if you would go after an adult, but this is just ridiculous. We are treating children like they are some sort of untouchable demi gods but we no longer care about them once they grow old enough and dont look so cute anymore.

Tell me objectively, why is beating up a child any different than beating up an adult?

[Easy Bakes 253]

because a child cannot defend itself from an adult.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

This is an exorbitant sentence. It will surely be overturned on appeal. The proper sentence is impossible in the U.S. namely mandatory sterilization and removal of all children from her custody. This kind of Draconian sentence could only occur in a more primitive society.

[hym 358]

Tell me objectively, why is beating up a child any different than beating up an adult?

The child is effectively defenseless. In traditional Western criminal justice philosophies, attacks against those who cannot defend themselves are often regarded as particularly heinous and thus warrant stiffer punishment. Criminologists generally recognize that one of the functions of a criminal justice system is to act as warning to others should they consider engaging in the same activity. To do that, someone has to become the example, and she is the example.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Tell me objectively, why is beating up a child any different than beating up an adult?

The child is effectively defenseless. In traditional Western criminal justice philosophies, attacks against those who cannot defend themselves are often regarded as particularly heinous and thus warrant stiffer punishment. Criminologists generally recognize that one of the functions of a criminal justice system is to act as warning to others should they consider engaging in the same activity. To do that, someone has to become the example, and she is the example.

Im 23 and Im effectively defenseless. Ive had no self defense training, Im not particulary strong nor do I look very intimidating. If I end up in a fight, I will almost surely lose such a fight. Will the courts punish whoever attacked me just as harshly as they would in case I was 10 instead of 23? I doubt it. Anyone who gets beaten up in a fight to the point that he or she ends up in the hospital is essentially defenseless, or otherwise they wouldnt end up in the hospital. But society has decided that after a certain age people are automatically big enough to fend for themselves and that means that the people who attack them will suddenly get lighter punishments? How is that justice?

I understand that we think that children are more vulnerable than adults, and I understand that we punish those who attack kids harsher than we do with people who attack adults. But the disparity between these punishments is getting ridiculous? I mean, is beating a child to the inch of its life that much more severe that it warrants a punishment that is usually reserved for people who committed first and second degree murder? And thats not even counting in the particular circumstances of this mother. This is bad, but murder is worse, whether it involved a child or not.

[Meg 368]

Im 23 and Im effectively defenseless. Ive had no self defense training, Im not particulary strong nor do I look very intimidating. If I end up in a fight, I will almost surely lose such a fight.

Are you honestly claiming that you are as defenseless as a 2 year old?

In addition to the physical factor, you have some chance of removing yourself from the situation. That child had no chance at all.

I mean, is beating a child to the inch of its life that much more severe that it warrants a punishment that is usually reserved for people who committed first and second degree murder?

I am totally okay with it. Anyone who would beat a child to within an inch of her life deserves to be put away.

I will admit that my opinion has been affected by being on a jury for a felony child abuse case. Getting the inside details on a case like that is sickening.

This is bad, but murder is worse, whether it involved a child or not.

umm . . . not necessarily, imho. Is it better to murder someone like, oh . . . let's say Timothy McVeigh, than to beat an innocent toddler to within an inch of her life? (We did murder Timothy McVeigh, btw. The judicial system found that to be appropriate.)

[LexusInfernus 908]

Are you honestly claiming that you are as defenseless as a 2 year old?

In addition to the physical factor, you have some chance of removing yourself from the situation. That child had no chance at all.

My physical maturity only means that I can get more beatings before I collapse. As for removing myself from a dangerous situation, that highly depends on the situation itself. If cornered or surrounded, I have as much opportunity to run away as a two year old. Anyone who gets jumped and beat up clearly dont have the possibility to retreat to safety as they would have done so and thus not end up half dead in a hospital. To say that they have a better chance to remove themselves from the situation is implying that they did not take that chance and effectively puts a part of the blame on the victim.

I am totally okay with it. Anyone who would beat a child to within an inch of her life deserves to be put away.

I will admit that my opinion has been affected by being on a jury for a felony child abuse case. Getting the inside details on a case like that is sickening.

I have no doubt that it is sickening. But if you would have been in the jury for an assault or abuse case involving an adult Im sure you would have felt that the details of such a case are sickening as well.

And to clarify, Im not saying that this women should get to walk away, or that anyone who attacks a child should just get to walk away. Clearly what she did was wrong, and she deserves to be punished for it. Im merely questioning whether she should receive the same kind of punishment as a murderer who actually killed someone.

umm . . . not necessarily, imho. Is it better to murder someone like, oh . . . let's say Timothy McVeigh, than to beat an innocent toddler to within an inch of her life? (We did murder Timothy McVeigh, btw. The judicial system found that to be appropriate.)

In general, the people that end up being murdered are not all Timothy McVeigh's or other mass murderers or serial killers, but innocent people.

In any case, you are saying that the near death of some young child is equal in horror and consequence as the actual death of someones child. At least, that is what the Texan justice system is saying. That seems rather skewed to me, and not very fair to the families that actually lost their loved one forever.

[hym 358]

Im 23 and Im effectively defenseless. Ive had no self defense training, Im not particulary strong nor do I look very intimidating. If I end up in a fight, I will almost surely lose such a fight.

There is a distinction between those who cannot defend themselves and those who do not know how to defend themselves. What you have described is an individual who has the capacity to defend himself, but lacks the knowledge to do so effectively. In contrast, the 2 year old girl lacks both the capacity to defend herself and the knowledge that she is allowed to defend herself. This would make her part of the "weakest members of society" as the concept is sometimes referred to, and as I said, attacks against these individuals are often considered as deserving especially severe punishments. The fact that the assault was executed by the individual who is supposed to serve as the girl's guardian makes the attack even more deserving of an especially severe punishment.

But society has decided that after a certain age people are automatically big enough to fend for themselves and that means that the people who attack them will suddenly get lighter punishments? How is that justice?

Becoming an adult confers various rights, privileges, abilities, etc. The adult has those rights, privileges, and so forth because it is reasonably believed that the adult is able to use them in a responsible manner. Most adults recognize that children are often unable to properly use those rights, privileges, abilities, etc., and so laws are often written to provide them an additional degree of protection. (Similar provisions are often provided for the crippled, elderly, mentally handicapped, and others who would fall under the "weakest members of society" concept.)

Unless we are going to hold absolutely everyone to the same standard (which society has never done and with good reason) some people are going to receive more protection than others.

I understand that we think that children are more vulnerable than adults, and I understand that we punish those who attack kids harsher than we do with people who attack adults. But the disparity between these punishments is getting ridiculous? I mean, is beating a child to the inch of its life that much more severe that it warrants a punishment that is usually reserved for people who committed first and second degree murder? And thats not even counting in the particular circumstances of this mother. This is bad, but murder is worse, whether it involved a child or not.

Although her punishment is unusual in that most individuals do not receive a sentence that long, her sentence is completely in line with the punishments that the law allows.

[Duke87 1,070]

It's easy to point to the age and number of children since those things stand out. But, I say, so what? My grandmother had her first child when she was 17 and her fifth when she was 22. Her family wasn't in the best state financially but there was never any abuse or mistreatment and all the kids (there were eventually seven) turned out just fine.

Though, her children were all born within wedlock by the same father. Not sure if that's the case here...

Regardless, though, I don't see this as a case of someone who was too young to be having kids. It's a case of someone who shouldn't have been having kids, period. If you are capable of savagely beating a child at 23, you'd be just as capable of it at 33 or 43. A decent human being wouldn't do such a thing at any age.

The sad part is that this stuff does get passed on. I believe her when she says she was abused by her parents. I mean, she learned that behavior form somewhere, right?

I have trouble with the idea of throwing anyone that young in prison for the rest of their life, but a prison sentence is certainly appropriate. If I were the judge I'd have given her 25 years. Long enough for her kids to grow up and for her to hit menopause so this sort of thing can't happen again. And then it's safe to release her, because really - obviously she shouldn't be handling children, but I don't see how she's a threat to anyone else.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Tell me objectively, why is beating up a child any different than beating up an adult?

The child is effectively defenseless. In traditional Western criminal justice philosophies, attacks against those who cannot defend themselves are often regarded as particularly heinous and thus warrant stiffer punishment. Criminologists generally recognize that one of the functions of a criminal justice system is to act as warning to others should they consider engaging in the same activity. To do that, someone has to become the example, and she is the example.

Im 23 and Im effectively defenseless. Ive had no self defense training, Im not particulary strong nor do I look very intimidating. If I end up in a fight, I will almost surely lose such a fight. Will the courts punish whoever attacked me just as harshly as they would in case I was 10 instead of 23? I doubt it. Anyone who gets beaten up in a fight to the point that he or she ends up in the hospital is essentially defenseless, or otherwise they wouldnt end up in the hospital. But society has decided that after a certain age people are automatically big enough to fend for themselves and that means that the people who attack them will suddenly get lighter punishments? How is that justice?

You also have option of calling the police on whoever assaults you,and are more physically capable of removing yourself from an abusive situation then a toddler . A 2 year old is physically incapable of defending itself against an adult. and is supposed to be being protected by the parent not assaulted by them, and are not even able to comprehend that's not how they are supposed to be treated.

  Edited October 15, 2012 by Easy Bakes  

[Duke87 1,070]

Also worth pointing out that a 2 year old is a lot more fragile than an adult and doesn't take as much force to seriously hurt or kill.

[Meg 368]

To say that they have a better chance to remove themselves from the situation is implying that they did not take that chance and effectively puts a part of the blame on the victim.

No, I'm saying that an adult has "some chance" compared to a toddler, who has no chance.

I have no doubt that it is sickening. But if you would have been in the jury for an assault or abuse case involving an adult Im sure you would have felt that the details of such a case are sickening as well.

Yes, that would be sickening as well. The case I was on involved the sexual assault and permanently disfiguring beating of a 3 month old baby. Call me what you will but I find that more sickening.

umm . . . not necessarily, imho. Is it better to murder someone like, oh . . . let's say Timothy McVeigh, than to beat an innocent toddler to within an inch of her life? (We did murder Timothy McVeigh, btw. The judicial system found that to be appropriate.)

In general, the people that end up being murdered are not all Timothy McVeigh's or other mass murderers or serial killers, but innocent people.

In general, you are correct. But I am not willing to say ALL murders are worse than betting an innocent toddler to within an inch of her life.

In any case, you are saying that the near death of some young child is equal in horror and consequence as the actual death of someones child. At least, that is what the Texan justice system is saying. That seems rather skewed to me, and not very fair to the families that actually lost their loved one forever.

As was mentioned earlier, they are trying to make a point, to make an example of her.

Keep in mind we don't know the whole story here. This toddler could be brain damaged for life. That could be worse than death.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

It's easy to point to the age and number of children since those things stand out. But, I say, so what? My grandmother had her first child when she was 17 and her fifth when she was 22. Her family wasn't in the best state financially but there was never any abuse or mistreatment and all the kids (there were eventually seven) turned out just fine.

Though, her children were all born within wedlock by the same father. Not sure if that's the case here...

Irrelevant. Your grandmother, and mine (who had nine children, eight of whom lived) was living in a different age. Our grandparents lived in an era of the family and extended family so she had lots of help.

This woman had no help, apparently, except from her parents who were not very good at teaching her how to be a parent. She is an example of their tutelage.

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but once things have cooled down in the great state of Texas, I am sure that cooler heads will prevail on appeal. What kind of sentencing act allows sentences of 99 years? That judicial system needs an overhaul.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Unless we are going to hold absolutely everyone to the same standard (which society has never done and with good reason) some people are going to receive more protection than others.

Which is rather unfair. If I get beaten up, society is essentially telling me that Im less worth than a child or handicapped person, and that attacking me is seen as better than as attacking a child. Its also telling me that its at least partly my own fault because Im expected to be able to retreat or defend myself, which clearly was not the case if I get beaten into the hospital. Self defense is not some kind of intellectual right that you can think about and comprehend the consequences, its a situation you are usually forced in against your will where you must make snap shot decisions and where the room for deliberate actions is extremely limited. Giving some people extra protection, especially by such a large degree is, while in reality only a few people can defend themselves more effectively than this group that we labeled as weakest members of society is therefor not very fair.

Although her punishment is unusual in that most individuals do not receive a sentence that long, her sentence is completely in line with the punishments that the law allows.

In line with the law does not mean its just or fair.

No, I'm saying that an adult has "some chance" compared to a toddler, who has no chance.

Clearly the people who end up in the hospital had no chance as well. Else they wouldnt be in the hospital.

As was mentioned earlier, they are trying to make a point, to make an example of her.

Keep in mind we don't know the whole story here. This toddler could be brain damaged for life. That could be worse than death.

And what a great example they are making of her. 'Look kids, if you are abandoned your whole life by the people and institutions that are supposed to help and protect you, dont expect any better from the justice system!'

[Meg 368]

I wish life was "fair" but it isn't and it can't be. "Fair" is subjective. What is fair to one person might not be fair to another.

[hym 358]

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but once things have cooled down in the great state of Texas, I am sure that cooler heads will prevail on appeal. What kind of sentencing act allows sentences of 99 years? That judicial system needs an overhaul.

The judge could have sentenced her with anything from probation to life in prison. The law is written so the punishment can be matched to the severity of the crime. On some level, she is fortunate that she didn't kill the girl, otherwise the offense might have been elevated to capital murder with the possibility of the death sentence.

As for the possibility of appeal, her "court of last resort" is the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Historically, unless it can be shown that the defendant's Constitutional rights were violated, odds of the court granting the appeal are slim.

Which is rather unfair. If I get beaten up, society is essentially telling me that Im less worth than a child or handicapped person, and that attacking me is seen as better than as attacking a child.

That may be, but the justification for it is no different than the justification for hate crime laws. Some individuals of society are considered easier targets for aggression, so (as the argument goes) the punishment for assaulting those individuals must be more severe to ensure that they are able to enjoy the same degree of safety enjoyed by the rest of society at large.

Giving some people extra protection, especially by such a large degree is, while in reality only a few people can defend themselves more effectively than this group that we labeled as weakest members of society is therefor not very fair.

The girl is getting that "extra protection" because of the sentencing of the judge, not because the law requires it. The judge could have merely sentenced her to probation. The law is written to permit the punishment to scale to the severity of the crime.

In line with the law does not mean its just or fair.

Is it fair that the daughter was basically tortured by her mother?

'Look kids, if you are abandoned your whole life by the people and institutions that are supposed to help and protect you, dont expect any better from the justice system!'

Or the message could be, "Parents, if you have the audacity to assault your children, expect to receive punishment befitting the monstrous nature of your crime."

The warning isn't to children. It's to the adults.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Someone used that four letter word: "fair". The only "fair" I am aware of is the county fair that happens at the end of the farming season. To enter into a consideration of "fair" as applying to ethics and morals is a futile exercise. The world is not fair, it just is.

People are always assigning emotional terms to things. It is a failing of the human personality. E.g. Guns are bad. False. Guns have no volition and so can't have any emotion attached to them. They are things. It is like blaming the ocean for someone drowning in it.