Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.
If no evidence existed that drug use was a factor in the child's death, why was it even introduced in court??..again it's only there in inflame passions and SUGGEST that this mother was some sort of deviant indivisual.
The point is that they have charged her, they havn't convicted her of anything, and they will need evidence to support their case. If she is innocent of "depraved-heart murder" then I am sure she will go free. But I am sure the state is going to spend all their resources to prove that the womans thoughtless actions led to the death of a human-being. And if that is the case, I think she should be punished. It wasn't exactly first-degree murder, but it was definitely criminal negligence of the highest order.
Why is it that you are so passionate about letting this cocaine-addicted, scum of a woman walk free?
The point is that they have charged her, they havn't convicted her of anything, and they will need evidence to support their case. If she is innocent of "depraved-heart murder" then I am sure she will go free. But I am sure the state is going to spend all their resources to prove that the womans thoughtless actions led to the death of a human-being. And if that is the case, I think she should be punished. It wasn't exactly first-degree murder, but it was definitely criminal negligence of the highest order.
Why is it that you are so passionate about letting this cocaine-addicted, scum of a woman walk free?
Oh, you know her? I assume you just made an assumption based on jack squat.
She's 15. She is not yet a woman. Why hasn't the daddy been charged? Oh, men don't get pregnant.
The train of thought with the conservatives on this thread is in indicator of just how nuts they have become.
One of you, just one of you prove to us this baby was born still born because of cocaine.
One of you, just one of you prove that the woman in AL being charged had still born baby because of drugs.
The bottom line is these kinds of attacks via misuse of a law meant to protect women and fetuses are barbaric. Guess who they target? The poor, the uneducated, and women of color.
Hey men! How many still births are there in this country every year?
The young lady in question needs serious counseling not a jail cell. Society failed her on many levels. Putting her in prison only compounds that failure.
Yes, let's put her in jail, then if someone has a miscarriage in the future and has smoked, drank, worked out or anything else even in the least bit in the future, we can jail them.
Oh, you know her? I assume you just made an assumption based on jack squat.
I don't know her, but lets really think about this issue for a minute. This happened in 2006, she isn't serving jail-time right now, there is just a case being brought against her for what they believe "MIGHT BE" a case of basically a form of negligence that resulted in the death of an unborn child.
As of right now, theres no proof that the stillbirth was caused by her negligence or drug addiction. If there continues to be no proof of any wrongdoing on her part, either the charges will be dropped, or she will be found not guilty.
On the other hand, from her lifestyle at the time the stillbirth occurred, there is plenty of reason to believe that her lifestyle may have caused the death of her unborn child. If I was a betting man, knowing that she was cocaine-addicted, I would easily bet that her lifestyle was directly or indirectly related to the death of the fetus.
Moreover, babies that come from drug-addicted mothers tend to have a whole slew of health problems, as well as greatly increasing their lifelihood of also being addicted to drugs later in life.
The problem you people seem to have is that, you don't want to hold her accountable at all, and I just don't understand it. She was doing things that were harmful to herself and to her child, these things are themselves illegal(cocaine usage). And you seem to just disregard it as a conservative witch-hunt? Get over yourselves.
Quote:
She's 15. She is not yet a woman. Why hasn't the daddy been charged? Oh, men don't get pregnant.
First, the daddy might not even be a cocaine-addict. Secondly, I understand that men don't get pregnant and that women think it is so unfair. But the reality is, that is just life. There is more pressure on women to be decent people than there is pressure on men to be decent people. Does that mean men don't have to be decent people? Thats not what I'm saying at all. But while men aren't held responsible in cases like this, they also have almost no rights when it comes to that baby. If the woman wants to abort the baby, she can do it and theres nothing the father can do about it. Women are almost always favored in custody battles also, and really they should be(they tend to have a more nurturing instinct).
Quote:
The bottom line is these kinds of attacks via misuse of a law meant to protect women and fetuses are barbaric. Guess who they target? The poor, the uneducated, and women of color.
Do you know what I hate about this argument? Most people seem to believe this is some kind of attack on women. But women are just as likely as men to be against abortions.
As for the discussion of "women of color". Of course, abortions tend to be aimed at people who basically should not be having children because they either aren't married or aren't financially capable. "Women of color" tend to be uneducated, and uneducated people tend to be poor, and poor people are more likely to have an abortion. But to say that these laws are intended to target these groups specifically is being dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePR
Yes, let's put her in jail, then if someone has a miscarriage in the future and has smoked, drank, worked out or anything else even in the least bit in the future, we can jail them.
I don't think cocaine use is quite the same thing as smoking or working out. Generally speaking, people who are 15-years old, pregnant, and have a cocaine addiction are probably doing many other dangerous activities. I understand we can't exactly jail any woman who doesn't just lay on her side for nine months until the child pops out. But I think you are trivializing the situation.
If a woman who was seven months pregnant, and decided to jump on a trampoline, while knowing that it would probably cause severe harm or death to her unborn child, should there be any penalties for that woman? Should a woman ever be held responsible for the death of her unborn child as long as it isn't viable?
That is the argument that you people seem to be making. And I just don't agree.
I just don't have much sympathy for people anymore. I feel like the immorality of the world is growing with each passing day, and most people seem to be more and more interested in themselves and what makes them happy, that they don't care to think about anyone else. This girl is a perfect example of the "me me" culture, even if her baby didn't die, I still think she should be prosecuted for endangerment. Make an example of these people, or that kind of behavior will continue.
As for the age situation, I get tired of these kids who think they are basically immune to the laws just because they are under the age of 18. I know plenty of people who have no qualms with getting into fights, stealing, robbing, drinking, or anything else because they know they won't get into trouble for it.
I don't think cocaine use is quite the same thing as smoking or working out. Generally speaking, people who are 15-years old, pregnant, and have a cocaine addiction are probably doing many other dangerous activities. I understand we can't exactly jail any woman who doesn't just lay on her side for nine months until the child pops out. But I think you are trivializing the situation.
If a woman who was seven months pregnant, and decided to jump on a trampoline, while knowing that it would probably cause severe harm or death to her unborn child, should there be any penalties for that woman? Should a woman ever be held responsible for the death of her unborn child as long as it isn't viable?
That is the argument that you people seem to be making. And I just don't agree.
I just don't have much sympathy for people anymore. I feel like the immorality of the world is growing with each passing day, and most people seem to be more and more interested in themselves and what makes them happy, that they don't care to think about anyone else. This girl is a perfect example of the "me me" culture, even if her baby didn't die, I still think she should be prosecuted for endangerment. Make an example of these people, or that kind of behavior will continue.
As for the age situation, I get tired of these kids who think they are basically immune to the laws just because they are under the age of 18. I know plenty of people who have no qualms with getting into fights, stealing, robbing, drinking, or anything else because they know they won't get into trouble for it.
But that's the thing, where do you draw the line. If you punish her for "killing her baby" by use of cocaine by accident, then all accidental deaths from unwise moves should warrant the same response. If you want to charge her for use and possession of cocaine, go right ahead, but she still is under 18.
But that's the thing, where do you draw the line. If you punish her for "killing her baby" by use of cocaine by accident, then all accidental deaths from unwise moves should warrant the same response.
Not at all. Why the hell would they do that? The law always draws a distinction between what it views as a bona fide accident (particularly when it involves matters beyond peoples agency - very much not the case here) versus criminal recklessness.
No prosecutor should ever be going after an accident, nor acts which don't rise to the level of criminal recklessnes, unless they were acting in a purely rogue capacity, for sake of vindictiveness or some other agenda in which they would disregard this well understood bright line legal distinction.
This idea that they are going to prosecute an expectant mother because she got pushed down the stairs (beyond her agency), or even if she fell on their own, simply because the mother was not wearing as a precaution, super-duper traction shoes, or that she was not walking around wearing a space-age whole-body inflatable impact protection suit to protect the baby, simply has no merit.
One has to really desperately overreach and dream up fantastical scenarios in a vain attempt to intentionally blur the line between accident and criminal negligence.
If this ridiculous argument ever had any merit whatsoever (and this exact argument almost always comes up when these incidents being discussed here happen), then there simply would be no concept of criminal recklessness at all, and nobody would ever be prosecuted for it.... because the concept would have been discarded. But it hasn't been discarded. And the reason it has not been discarded is largely because these amateur attempts to "disprove" the concept of recklessness by intentionally blurring the line between an accident and criminal recklessness, is simply not persuasive to those who have studied these concepts, including both lawyers as well as philosophers who focus on ethics and legal philosophy.
So, no, lawyers and prosecutors are simply not going to be confused between a person who might perhaps slip on a banana peel that was not reasonably visible versus a person who might habitually sniff lines of cocaine, such that they would treat them the same way, and apply the same legal standard to both.
Not at all. Why the hell would they do that? The law always draws a distinction between what it views as a bona fide accident (particularly when it involves matters beyond peoples agency - very much not the case here) versus criminal recklessness.
No prosecutor should ever be going after an accident, nor acts which don't rise to the level of criminal recklessnes, unless they were acting in a purely rogue capacity, for sake of vindictiveness or some other agenda in which they would disregard this well understood bright line legal distinction.
This idea that they are going to prosecute an expectant mother because she got pushed down the stairs (beyond her agency), or even if she fell on their own, simply because the mother was not wearing as a precaution, super-duper traction shoes, or that she was not walking around wearing a space-age whole-body inflatable impact protection suit to protect the baby, simply has no merit.
One has to really desperately overreach and dream up fantastical scenarios in a vain attempt to intentionally blur the line between accident and criminal negligence.
If this ridiculous argument ever had any merit whatsoever (and this exact argument almost always comes up when these incidents being discussed here happen), then there simply would be no concept of criminal recklessness at all, and nobody would ever be prosecuted for it.... because the concept would have been discarded. But it hasn't been discarded. And the reason it has not been discarded is largely because these amateur attempts to "disprove" the concept of recklessness by intentionally blurring the line between an accident and criminal recklessness, is simply not persuasive to those who have studied these concepts, including both lawyers as well as philosophers who focus on ethics and legal philosophy.
So, no, lawyers and prosecutors are simply not going to be confused between a person who slips on a banana peel versus a person who might habitually sniff lines of cocaine, such that they would treat them the same way, and apply the same legal standard to both.
I'm not saying that she didn't know that she was doing cocaine, obviously. I am saying that she didn't know that she was harming the baby. It's not like she had the intention of doing cocaine to cause a miscarriage.
I'm not saying that she didn't know that she was doing cocaine, obviously. I am saying that she didn't know that she was harming the baby. It's not like she had the intention of doing cocaine to cause a miscarriage.
I don't think it likely she had that specific intention, either. *shrugs* But the nature of certain types of criminal recklessness is that the recklessness itself may fulfill the mens rea requirement if the act when judged by a reasonableness standard leads to the conclusion that a reasonable person would understand that their actions would lead to a likely outcome of danger (e.g. if you drop coins from the top of the Empire State Building observation deck onto the sidewalk down below where people are walking, or if one throws objects off the local highway overpass during traffic for fun [kids do this from time to time]..... even if the person did not specifically intend to cause harm to others, per se, that person is still expected to understand that certain reckless actions can have a harmful outcome.)
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 07-05-2011 at 11:27 PM..
You people still have not shown a nexus between the alleged cocaine use and the still birth. The burden of proof should lie with the prosecution.
Plus, everyone is focused on the 15 y/o. How about the mother of 3 in Alabama that had a stillborn that they knew was a high risk pregnancy, not because of drugs, but because it was a down's syndrome baby? And six months after the baby was born pre-maturely then the prosecutors come at her with accusations she used drugs with NO evidence? Ask yourself why.
Who are these people trying to pin murder, manslaughter or whatever on women who have stillborns, and premature babies that die. And who are they targeting? Soccer moms with blond ponytails?
Yeah, didn't think so. These ultra right wing nuts need to shove it where the sun never shines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
