04-23-2008, 06:46 PM | #21 | |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Quote:
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
04-23-2008, 07:05 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Terri Shaivo was much worse.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
04-23-2008, 07:06 PM | #23 |
Active LDS Ute Fan
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nantucket : )
Posts: 2,566
|
|
04-23-2008, 07:17 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
This is an entirely different conversation than the topic started by Mike, though there is a bit of overlap. On the one hand, a society may say that it isn't worth the price to |
|
04-23-2008, 07:18 PM | #25 |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Oh yeah. Good point.
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
04-23-2008, 07:19 PM | #26 |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Could be. No conflict for me on that one, however.
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
04-23-2008, 07:21 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
This is a good post, and I agree with much of what you said. However, I do feel there needs to be reasonable suspicion on the part of law enforcement prior to taking someone's children away. I haven't followed the case that closely to know if it existed or not. I have heard through my short review of the matter that the phone tip originally leading police to the compound was fraudulent (though police, if they didn't know it was fraudulent, may still have had reasonable suspicion to intervene and may even now have reasonable suspicion after the fraud of the phone call was revealed). I will also say that due process shouldn't be bartered away (and I don't know that you indicate it should be). When you talk of trade-offs in the law, you are right; they do and they must occur. That said, due process shouldn't be the subject of those trade-offs. A temporary deprivation of rights isn't necessarily a violation of due process. Due process is just that- a process. There must be a fair and equitable system in place for handling difficult issues like this, but if a fair and equitable process is followed, I don't see a loss of due process where a temporary deprivation of rights occurs. Last edited by Cali Coug; 04-23-2008 at 07:24 PM. |
|
04-23-2008, 07:43 PM | #28 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Agree with Dan's post except the last sentence. My understanding of due process is way higher than a 1. I have less understanding where the state's special interest in protecting minors is involved. UtahDan is right though that depriving parental rights temporarily in order to ensure against risk or possiblity of continued abuse and afford due process isn't a violation of due process. He's also right in that people who read CNN or Fox or the local paper and draw ultimate conclusions are fools. I've had some recent experience in fact and can tell you that they are mostly interested in printing the sensatioal and prurient and sensationalizing innuendo or easily explainable events. They aren't interested in reporting about competence or honesty or good and consciencious work or decisions. The good hard and honest and fair work that goes on most places in this country doesn't make the newspapers.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
04-23-2008, 07:57 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
PS I should also add that it is understandable that we all have narratives in our minds about certain subjects and we try to sandwhich what we learn into what we already believe. This is just a subject too complex to allow that.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo Last edited by UtahDan; 04-23-2008 at 08:01 PM. |
|
04-23-2008, 08:00 PM | #30 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Wow, I knew it was easy to get into law school, but I didn't know it was that easy.
The point is that the law specifies what is required to take a child away, even on a temporary basis (btw, how long do you think "temporary" is?). I provided the criteria, and for the vast majority, the one that was applies is "immediate danger." The argument that a 6 month old boy is being groomed to be a rapist, and therefore needs to be taken away from his parents under the criteria of "immediate danger" boggles my mind. This due process only in appearance. Yes, there was a warrant, yes there was a judge, yes there was a hearing. At the very least, the hearing was only pro forma. Any bets on how long "temporary" custody by the state is going to be? If my 6 month old was taken away for a year or two, that would be an incredibly long time. This is crazy. Punish those that have committed crimes. Do not punish people that have not committed crimes. It's as simple as that. |
Bookmarks |
|
|