Comments
cutelyaware t1_j9swk6g wrote
It's a better example of deplorable treatment of prisoners
furiousfran t1_j9uewvh wrote
Whynotbothdotjaypeg
All_cheeki_n0_breeki t1_j9uufxt wrote
This is like the worst possible case to try to make that point with.
Pregnant lady left in a hot car for hours. If her being neglected in this instance or future instances resulted in a miscarriage, would it still be a good example?
Superxstrah t1_j9t0tyu wrote
Is it though? Can't she be temporarily released until the child is born?
JimC29 t1_j9sx2uu wrote
Is this going to be posted here everyday?
PerfektNova t1_j9txdh0 wrote
It's your turn tomorrow
pornosucht t1_j9t3efq wrote
If you ignore the "the fetus is a person" discussion, the critical point remaining is the inadequate medical care.
So in this case it would be easy, ensure proper medical care, topic closed.
Once you make a fetus a person, the legal context gets complicated. Good work from the attorney, their job is to use anything they can to help their client. So no matter if the law or legal philosophy behind it is stupid, if it is there, use it.
Regarding the question if it is acceptable to release her, (again, ignoring the fetus discussion), I think the real question is why she is held in jail in the first place. From what I see in the article, the discussion between prosecutor and defence is, if she acted in self defence or with malicious intent. Does not immediately scream "cold blooded serial killer" to me. So something like house arrest with ankle monitor could be a better approach. But the question is, why this option was not chosen in the beginning.
Iwasrightdamnit t1_j9vfrb6 wrote
People like this also believe that every single opportunity for something to become a moment of anguish is what justice looks like. The fact that being in jail/prison was supposed to be the punishment, but these types believe you deserve all the things that could possible go wrong for you if you so much as blaspheme. I know people that laugh out loud when they read about people getting in fight in prison or being raped or killed in prison because they “deserved everything they get” despite being in prison for something like weed.
[deleted] t1_j9us6nv wrote
[removed]
Mitthrawnuruo t1_j9ubpb5 wrote
The baby is confined in the mother until birth, so the mothers location is irrelevant.
Obviously the baby should receive proper medical care until birth.
And then be placed with a properly family who didn’t commit murder after birth.
KittenKoder t1_j9uotx7 wrote
Or we could just stop pretending a lump of cells is a human being and stop killing people out of revenge.
pornosucht t1_j9uv6ki wrote
Point 1: circumstances and experiences during pregnancy have an influence on the later development of the child, do it is not completely irrelevant. However, I agree that the baby cannot leave the mother until birth, so "imprisonment of the baby" is a very week argument.
Point 2: not only the baby, but the mother as well!
Point 3: the defendant claims, that she was attacked and defended herself and the baby with a single shot. There is no verdict in the case, yet, so far she is only indicted. That means she has to be considered innocent until proven otherwise.
In other words: if she is convicted, then you are right. Until then, the child should stay with the mother, except if there is any indication for neglect or mistreatment. An alternative might be the father, but you should have very good arguments to separate mother and child, and for me, that means you should have very good arguments to keep the mother imprisoned until the process.
spiderat22 t1_j9vgs85 wrote
Jesus, your understanding of all things military industrial complex is coloring your ability to be a human. A mother's mental and emotional state impacts the baby growing inside of her immensely. Maybe step away from your military mindset for a bit and learn some empathy.
[deleted] t1_j9ulrnp wrote
State mandated abortions
[deleted] t1_j9wo41i wrote
[deleted]
thisisinsider t1_j9yrodf wrote
She was charged with second-degree murder last summer, but her attorneys allege in court documents that she was threatened and was "in fear of her life and the life of her unborn child."
isekai-coffee t1_j9uh8wy wrote
how do you even jail a pregnant woman? you want jail facilities to have a maternity ward too? deliver some prison babies?
Top-Spite-7418 t1_j9uqtez wrote
So because a woman got cream pied she's less guilty? Then we open the door pregnant women can do whatever they want without consequence.
Vercentorix t1_j9vnizy wrote
A good indicator of someone who has never had sex is using the term "Cream pied" in a serious conversation.
Top-Spite-7418 t1_j9waesh wrote
If you believe pregnant women shouldn't be jailed.... This isn't a serious conversation.
Crooked_Cock t1_j9tsw48 wrote
Great
So now everyone is gonna do what Elizabeth Holmes did to try and stay out of jail and get knocked up prior to the court date
Good job, government, you never fail to set great examples.
felixlightner t1_j9srdcv wrote
Some arguments, like this one, only deserve a single word response. "No."
PM_ur_Rump t1_j9sw7fy wrote
The law doesn't work that way though. Gotta argue it to the letter.
If a fetus is a person with rights separate from the mother, then it should not be able to be jailed for her crimes.
jordantask t1_j9t1rw0 wrote
Yeah.
I think I agree with that completely.
Kernburner t1_j9sq26c wrote
This is a good example of how fetal “personhood” laws are a ridiculous concept and create a legal slippery slope.