|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 15:29:46 GMT -6
Fathers also go to prison for murdering their children so your point is moot. We don't keep violent murderers alive because they need to have their children visit them in prison. I think it would be best for their kids to forget them along with the rest of society. Moot? We are talking about children who are alive here, not dead, not murdered. And no, this subject is not about the murderers, this is about their children. And, whether you like it or not, children tend to want their parents to be alive. There can be exceptions, of course, but as long as parents don't hurt their children, their children love them and want them to be around. The only children that want this are the people involved who make them feel this way. I'm really tired of people like you who think we need to keep murderers alive because they hold some nurturing value for their children. If this guy would have really cared he wouldn't have been trying to harm others. He would have been there for his family. When I married I knew exactly what type of man I was marrying. He'd never do anything like the scenario mentioned. He is a good man. And when it came to our daughters he wanted to be there in their life. He wouldn't have wanted to have to be their father from behind prison bars. Just because some thug's sperm impregnated a woman doesn't mean he's fit to be a father. It seems as if some women will let any type of thug father their children. Please spare me positive points of this thug.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Feb 24, 2009 16:38:04 GMT -6
Moot? We are talking about children who are alive here, not dead, not murdered. And no, this subject is not about the murderers, this is about their children. And, whether you like it or not, children tend to want their parents to be alive. There can be exceptions, of course, but as long as parents don't hurt their children, their children love them and want them to be around. The only children that want this are the people involved who make them feel this way. I'm really tired of people like you who think we need to keep murderers alive because they hold some nurturing value for their children. If this guy would have really cared he wouldn't have been trying to harm others. He would have been there for his family. When I married I knew exactly what type of man I was marrying. He'd never do anything like the scenario mentioned. He is a good man. And when it came to our daughters he wanted to be there in their life. He wouldn't have wanted to have to be their father from behind prison bars. Just because some thug's sperm impregnated a woman doesn't mean he's fit to be a father. It seems as if some women will let any type of thug father their children. Please spare me positive points of this thug. Please spare me positive points about killing children's fathers when LWOP is an option as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2009 16:56:11 GMT -6
The only children that want this are the people involved who make them feel this way. I'm really tired of people like you who think we need to keep murderers alive because they hold some nurturing value for their children. If this guy would have really cared he wouldn't have been trying to harm others. He would have been there for his family. When I married I knew exactly what type of man I was marrying. He'd never do anything like the scenario mentioned. He is a good man. And when it came to our daughters he wanted to be there in their life. He wouldn't have wanted to have to be their father from behind prison bars. Just because some thug's sperm impregnated a woman doesn't mean he's fit to be a father. It seems as if some women will let any type of thug father their children. Please spare me positive points of this thug. Please spare me positive points about killing children's fathers when LWOP is an option as well. Please spare many of us the memorized, repetitive crap that MVFFR spews. I finally figured out who the members of this little group remind me of. Mooneys. You know the cult from the 70s.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 17:00:58 GMT -6
The only children that want this are the people involved who make them feel this way. I'm really tired of people like you who think we need to keep murderers alive because they hold some nurturing value for their children. If this guy would have really cared he wouldn't have been trying to harm others. He would have been there for his family. When I married I knew exactly what type of man I was marrying. He'd never do anything like the scenario mentioned. He is a good man. And when it came to our daughters he wanted to be there in their life. He wouldn't have wanted to have to be their father from behind prison bars. Just because some thug's sperm impregnated a woman doesn't mean he's fit to be a father. It seems as if some women will let any type of thug father their children. Please spare me positive points of this thug. Please spare me positive points about killing children's fathers when LWOP is an option as well. Oh I'll be happy to spare you. I wouldn't want to interfere with you delusional positive thinking on how beneficial a violent murdering parent is to a child's life. I'd also be happy to end this discussion with you, because I think you're nuts.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 24, 2009 17:23:04 GMT -6
I'd also be happy to end this discussion with you, because I think you're nuts. Thank you for bringing this to a merciful end.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 24, 2009 18:08:58 GMT -6
Please spare me positive points about killing children's fathers when LWOP is an option as well. Oh I'll be happy to spare you. I wouldn't want to interfere with you delusional positive thinking on how beneficial a violent murdering parent is to a child's life. I'd also be happy to end this discussion with you, because I think you're nuts. You make a generalisation there Snowy. Oh by the way, much as you may disagree with somebody, she is not nuts, so i assume thats your way of sidestepping and avoiding actually responding to the valid point she made about the use of the DP when LWOP might be an option. As you know I have no issue with namecalling but its a pity when you do it at precisely the point where you could respond to a post if you had a response to make that made sense?
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 24, 2009 18:25:47 GMT -6
No she wouldn't have unless she would have watched her father be stabbed to death. I don't think that's how murderers are executed here last time I checked. You know what I mean. By what SueZann did, ask for LWOP instead of the dp for the murderer of her father, she managed to spare the murderer's daughter for missing her father as well. This girl couldn't do anything about her father becoming a murderer, right? Children love their parents when they are still children. This girl, whose father became a murderer, loved him anyway. Because of SueZann she still has a father... I knew of that case first hand, the kid was involved with us shortly before that event. He still refuses to speak to Ms Zann.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 18:45:07 GMT -6
I see no reason to keep murderer alive because a child needs to visit them in prison. I see no benefit in a parent like that. If the parent was so great why were he or she out committing crimes instead of being home or out earning a living like the rest of us?
Is the first time you've seen me say that I don't think a murderous parent should be kept alive because they may have a child?
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 25, 2009 8:10:46 GMT -6
Oh I'll be happy to spare you. I wouldn't want to interfere with you delusional positive thinking on how beneficial a violent murdering parent is to a child's life. I'd also be happy to end this discussion with you, because I think you're nuts. You make a generalisation there Snowy. Oh by the way, much as you may disagree with somebody, she is not nuts, so i assume thats your way of sidestepping and avoiding actually responding to the valid point she made about the use of the DP when LWOP might be an option. As you know I have no issue with namecalling but its a pity when you do it at precisely the point where you could respond to a post if you had a response to make that made sense? Then I will disagree. First, we are not going to agree on the DP. We can agree to disagree. This means the discussion of DP vs. LWOP is tabled. Second, the children of the condemned are considered by the court and jury. Any defense lawyer worth their salt will parade the family out, show photos, videos; provide testimony, expert witnesses, etc. to show the value the guilty may still have in their children's lives. Now, having said that, I do not agree with the use of the condemned's families as a ploy to save their wretched hides. They did not consider their families when they committed the crime. They most likely have not had any positive involvement up to this point and then they will shamelessly use their children much like they used the victims. The children, to a certain extent, become victims as well and they truly are innocent bystanders. The remaining parent and attorneys will use these innocent bystanders and then justify this act in the name of saving a life. The children are used a pawns; plan and simple. In my point of view, if you use children as a means to and end in this situation then you fit the same mold as those that would use children as a means to and end in ANY situation.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 25, 2009 8:30:37 GMT -6
Storm, you are a bad ass girl. Saying that, sub, you have to admit Storms last sentence was pretty much to the point and endex dont you think when you think about it. Your fighting a losing battle my friend here, but have you say if you wish and stand by them, just dont expect everyone to agree .
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 25, 2009 8:37:45 GMT -6
I have no illusion that this is an argument without end. And following your advice, I will retire to other environs.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 25, 2009 9:45:35 GMT -6
You make a generalisation there Snowy. Oh by the way, much as you may disagree with somebody, she is not nuts, so i assume thats your way of sidestepping and avoiding actually responding to the valid point she made about the use of the DP when LWOP might be an option. As you know I have no issue with namecalling but its a pity when you do it at precisely the point where you could respond to a post if you had a response to make that made sense? Then I will disagree. First, we are not going to agree on the DP. We can agree to disagree. This means the discussion of DP vs. LWOP is tabled. Second, the children of the condemned are considered by the court and jury. Any defense lawyer worth their salt will parade the family out, show photos, videos; provide testimony, expert witnesses, etc. to show the value the guilty may still have in their children's lives. Now, having said that, I do not agree with the use of the condemned's families as a ploy to save their wretched hides. They did not consider their families when the committed the crime. They most likely have not had any positive involvement up to this point and then they will shamelessly use their children much like they used the victims. The children, to a certain extent, become victims as well and they truly are innocent bystanders. The remaining parent and attorneys will use these innocent bystanders and then justify this act in the name of saving a life. The children are used a pawns; plan and simple. In my point of view, if you use children as a means to and end in this situation then you fit the same mold as those that would use children as a means to and end in ANY situation. Superb!
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 25, 2009 9:46:33 GMT -6
I have no illusion that this is an argument without end. And following your advice, I will retire to other environs. Too bad. You're intelligent.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 25, 2009 9:47:41 GMT -6
Storm, you are a bad ass girl. Who me? ;D
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 25, 2009 9:48:53 GMT -6
I have no illusion that this is an argument without end. And following your advice, I will retire to other environs. Too bad. You're intelligent. Thank you but, discretion is the better part of valor my dear, and while I support your argument I cannot continue this endless argument. It is to no avail and I have little else meaningful to add.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 25, 2009 9:57:33 GMT -6
Too bad. You're intelligent. Thank you but, discretion is the better part of valor my dear, and while I support your argument I cannot continue this endless argument. It is to no avail and I have little else meaningful to add. Most arguments on here are endless, which probably is why they steer off into other directions. ;D
|
|
Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Feb 25, 2009 11:21:26 GMT -6
He still wouldn't have gone through what he put them through. His death would have been peaceful. I guess you could say that the murderer would die unwillingly but that's a chance you take when you murder and know what the consequences could be. But the daughter of this murderer wasn't to blame, right? Yet she was about to suffer the same way as SueZann, when her father should have been executed. This is a misconception that really irks me . The pain a inmates family member suffers , whether it is a child , parent or sibling of a murderer ,can't even begin to compare to the pain a MVS suffers . Please don't even lump them in the same category . When you do that ,I feel it is very disrespectful to the MVS, and that irks me even more . You seem to forget the reason that both sides is suffering is because of the actions and choices one man/woman made when they CHOSE to murder another human being . Quit trying to make the daughter of a murderer out to be a victim in the same sense of a MVS because it just don't float here . Yeah in case you don't know , just so you don't fit your foot in your mouth by saying anything stupid , I just happen to be a sister of a death row inmate so I am not just blowing smoke up your @ss .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2009 11:30:19 GMT -6
But the daughter of this murderer wasn't to blame, right? Yet she was about to suffer the same way as SueZann, when her father should have been executed. This is a misconception that really irks me . The pain a inmates family member suffers , whether it is a child , parent or sibling of a murderer ,can't even begin to compare to the pain a MVS suffers . Please don't even lump them in the same category . When you do that ,I feel it is very disrespectful to the MVS, and that irks me even more . You seem to forget the reason that both sides is suffering is because of the actions and choices one man/woman made when they CHOSE to murder another human being . Quit trying to make the daughter of a murderer out to be a victim in the same sense of a MVS because it just don't float here . Yeah in case you don't know , just so you don't fit your foot in your mouth by saying anything stupid , I just happen to be a sister of a death row inmate so I am not just blowing smoke up your @ss . Lady, you are one in a million.
|
|
Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Feb 25, 2009 11:32:31 GMT -6
Aww Ty Sharon Long time no see . Hope all is well with you .
|
|
Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Feb 25, 2009 11:41:13 GMT -6
Children do visit their fathers in prison, young children, adult children... Yes I seen it time and time again ,children visiting their father on DR . In one case there was 2 children , the little boy was 4 and the little girl was 2 visiting their Daddy on DR . Have any idea how heart breaking it is to see a 2 yr old little girl standing on the ledge pounding on the glass and crying for her daddy to hold her ? Imagine what it is like explaining to her why he can't hold her ? Why would anyone subject their children to that sort of pain ? It is one thing if the parent is going to be released one day , but what is the purpose of taking a really young child to DR week after week with the same result ? My brother only knows my oldest son, he never knew the two younger ones . I never took my son with me to visit my brother until he was old enough to grasp why my brother was there ,and by that time he was 20 yrs old .
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 25, 2009 11:52:24 GMT -6
Children do visit their fathers in prison, young children, adult children... Yes I seen it time and time again ,children visiting their father on DR . In one case there was 2 children , the little boy was 4 and the little girl was 2 visiting their Daddy on DR . Have any idea how heart breaking it is to see a 2 yr old little girl standing on the ledge pounding on the glass and crying for her daddy to hold her ? Imagine what it is like explaining to her why he can't hold her ? Why would anyone subject their children to that sort of pain ? It is one thing if the parent is going to be released one day , but what is the purpose of taking a really young child to DR week after week with the same result ? My brother only knows my oldest son, he never knew the two younger ones . I never took my son with me to visit my brother until he was old enough to grasp why my brother was there ,and by that time he was 20 yrs old . I defer to Lady. Her experience and eloquence speak volumes more than I ever could.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Feb 25, 2009 11:52:48 GMT -6
I do not agree with the use of the condemned's families as a ploy to save their wretched hides. They did not consider their families when the committed the crime. I agree with you, but I wouldn't deny their children the right to visit their "wretched hides" in prison. A visit (maybe more) might help some children. I'm thinking of the children, not the inmates. Maybe, if nothing else, a child simply wants to say goodbye. That's fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 25, 2009 11:59:41 GMT -6
I do not agree with the use of the condemned's families as a ploy to save their wretched hides. They did not consider their families when the committed the crime. I agree with you, but I wouldn't deny their children the right to visit their "wretched hides" in prison. A visit (maybe more) might help some children. I'm thinking of the children, not the inmates. Maybe, if nothing else, a child simply wants to say goodbye. That's fine with me. I was thinking of editing that comment, but obviously spent too much time in personal debate and now I must let it stand since you correctly pointed it out. I agree also and I would not deny it and but would hope that people exercise the same parental/adult thought process used by Lady to arrive at that decision. It had been implied in earlier posts that it was some sort of right of the condemned and should be the basis for commutation of sentence from death to LWOP. I simply lost my head and allowed my rhetoric to become too pointed and sardonic.
|
|
Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Feb 25, 2009 12:11:23 GMT -6
I do not agree with the use of the condemned's families as a ploy to save their wretched hides. They did not consider their families when the committed the crime. I agree with you, but I wouldn't deny their children the right to visit their "wretched hides" in prison. A visit (maybe more) might help some children. I'm thinking of the children, not the inmates. Maybe, if nothing else, a child simply wants to say goodbye. That's fine with me. They really need to take the age and maturity level of the child into consideration before they take a child to visit someone on DR . What is the purpose of a child ,especially a child under the age of 13, visiting someone on DR ? DR visiting is not a walk in the park . It is a scary experience even for me and I was an adult . I had nightmares for the longest time ,after my first few visits ,when he was as Luke ,back in the day . I mean when you are going to what they call the death house you have trained guns on you during the entire ride back to the section ,in which you are open and exposed by riding in a golf cart . Imagine what is going through a childs head seeing bob wire electric fences and a gun tower with a guns site set on them . Now if the child is mature enough to request a visit and it is not the parent or family members guilting them into visiting that is a different story ,but in most cases from what I seen in all my years of visiting ,the kids didn't really want to be there and the pain on thier faces was apparent . Seeking closure and answers is one thing,if that is what the child wants , but to use the child to make the inmate feel better or to cheer them up is just wrong in my opinion . To use the fact the inmate has children in the court process is wrong . Lets dress them up and parade them into the courtroom day after day, like trained seals to gain sympathy from the jury . Yeah sounds harsh, but it is how I feel . I am so grateful my brother never had children . He would of never allowed them to visit , if he did . Got to give him props for that . Edited to add .....Now at one time ,a church I was involved in ,helped the womans prison set up a kid friendly visiting area, but this was for mothers who would evenually walking out of prison by their own accord and not being carried out in a body bag .Big difference . They have kid friendly areas set up in some of the mens prisons too ,to make visiting easier ,but once again these men will be walking out of prison alive ,and not carried out in a body bag .
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Feb 25, 2009 12:16:20 GMT -6
I agree with you, but I wouldn't deny their children the right to visit their "wretched hides" in prison. A visit (maybe more) might help some children. I'm thinking of the children, not the inmates. Maybe, if nothing else, a child simply wants to say goodbye. That's fine with me. I was thinking of editing that comment, but obviously spent too much time in personal debate and now I must let it stand since you correctly pointed it out. I agree also and I would not deny it and but would hope that people exercise the same parental/adult thought process used by Lady to arrive at that decision. It had been implied in earlier posts that it was some sort of right of the condemned and should be the basis for commutation of sentence from death to LWOP. I simply lost my head and allowed my rhetoric to become too pointed and sardonic. No, no, I don't think you lost your head at all, and I agree with what you had to say for the most part. I just wanted to explain that I was thinking of the children, not their parents. My hope is that these children are wanting and needing to see their parents in prison, and not being pushed.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Feb 25, 2009 12:18:13 GMT -6
I agree with you, but I wouldn't deny their children the right to visit their "wretched hides" in prison. A visit (maybe more) might help some children. I'm thinking of the children, not the inmates. Maybe, if nothing else, a child simply wants to say goodbye. That's fine with me. They really need to take the age and maturity level of the child into consideration before they take a child to visit someone on DR . What is the purpose of a child ,especially a child under the age of 13, visiting someone on DR ? DR visiting is not a walk in the park . It is a scary experience even for me and I was an adult . I had nightmares for the longest time ,after my first few visits ,when he was as Luke ,back in the day . I mean when you are going to what they call the death house you have trained guns on you during the entire ride back to the section ,in which you are open and exposed by riding in a golf cart . Imagine what is going through a childs head seeing bob wire electric fences and a gun tower with a guns site set on them . Now if the child is mature enough to request a visit and it is not the parent or family members guilting them into visiting that is a different story ,but in most cases from what I seen in all my years of visiting ,the kids didn't really want to be there and the pain on thier faces was apparent . Seeking closure and answers is one thing,if that is what the child wants , but to use the child to make the inmate feel better or to cheer them up is just wrong in my opinion . To use the fact the inmate has children in the court process is wrong . Lets dress them up and parade them into the courtroom day after day, like trained seals to gain sympathy from the jury . Yeah sounds harsh, but it is how I feel . I am so grateful my brother never had children . He would of never allowed them to visit , if he did . Got to give him props for that . Totally agree with you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2009 13:05:45 GMT -6
After seeing bits of this thread yesterday, I decided to see what I could find out about the effects on children when parents are incarcerated offenders. What I found from reading about a dozen sources is that they are not necessarily better off just because they can visit the offender - that Lady is right it can cause more trauma and problems than even the death of that parent would, in a significant number of cases in the studies I read about. A universal consensus seemed to be that the child who has the most stable and loving and supportive environment in their everyday life is less likely to have behavior problems, delinquency, falling grades, trauma issues, etc. - but there are a significant number who still do. So, to me at least, no one can automatically assume that the child is better off seeing the parent in prison. Is this really a surprise to anyone? I don't think it would be a surprise to most. The caregiver they have, that considers the child's needs first and foremost - that is the person that will help them to overcome the horrible experience of having a parent incarcerated, and still have a rewarding life. I wouldn't want any child to be prevented from seeing that parent if they want to. I would hope and pray their caregiver is allowing it for the right reasons - what the child needs, which may have nothing at all to do with what the offender wants. I do wish the scumpals and activists who are merely using them in their political agenda would leave them alone, and out of their arguments. That is what I find most disgusting of all - the way they will use them as political pawns. This isn't the first time we've witnessed that on this site, and on the murderer supporter websites as well. If only we did not have to miss our loved ones. If only the murderer's children that there may be never had to visit them in jail or know they were executed. If only the proven brutal vicious murderer had never done that in the first place - it is all on the murderer - no fault of the sentence that the law has imposed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2009 13:07:18 GMT -6
I agree with you, but I wouldn't deny their children the right to visit their "wretched hides" in prison. A visit (maybe more) might help some children. I'm thinking of the children, not the inmates. Maybe, if nothing else, a child simply wants to say goodbye. That's fine with me. They really need to take the age and maturity level of the child into consideration before they take a child to visit someone on DR . What is the purpose of a child ,especially a child under the age of 13, visiting someone on DR ? DR visiting is not a walk in the park . It is a scary experience even for me and I was an adult . I had nightmares for the longest time ,after my first few visits ,when he was as Luke ,back in the day . I mean when you are going to what they call the death house you have trained guns on you during the entire ride back to the section ,in which you are open and exposed by riding in a golf cart . Imagine what is going through a childs head seeing bob wire electric fences and a gun tower with a guns site set on them . Now if the child is mature enough to request a visit and it is not the parent or family members guilting them into visiting that is a different story ,but in most cases from what I seen in all my years of visiting ,the kids didn't really want to be there and the pain on thier faces was apparent . Seeking closure and answers is one thing,if that is what the child wants , but to use the child to make the inmate feel better or to cheer them up is just wrong in my opinion . To use the fact the inmate has children in the court process is wrong . Lets dress them up and parade them into the courtroom day after day, like trained seals to gain sympathy from the jury . Yeah sounds harsh, but it is how I feel . I am so grateful my brother never had children . He would of never allowed them to visit , if he did . Got to give him props for that . Edited to add .....Now at one time ,a church I was involved in ,helped the womans prison set up a kid friendly visiting area, but this was for mothers who would evenually walking out of prison by their own accord and not being carried out in a body bag .Big difference . They have kid friendly areas set up in some of the mens prisons too ,to make visiting easier ,but once again these men will be walking out of prison alive ,and not carried out in a body bag .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2009 13:10:43 GMT -6
You make a generalisation there Snowy. Oh by the way, much as you may disagree with somebody, she is not nuts, so i assume thats your way of sidestepping and avoiding actually responding to the valid point she made about the use of the DP when LWOP might be an option. As you know I have no issue with namecalling but its a pity when you do it at precisely the point where you could respond to a post if you had a response to make that made sense? Then I will disagree. First, we are not going to agree on the DP. We can agree to disagree. This means the discussion of DP vs. LWOP is tabled. Second, the children of the condemned are considered by the court and jury. Any defense lawyer worth their salt will parade the family out, show photos, videos; provide testimony, expert witnesses, etc. to show the value the guilty may still have in their children's lives. Now, having said that, I do not agree with the use of the condemned's families as a ploy to save their wretched hides. They did not consider their families when they committed the crime. They most likely have not had any positive involvement up to this point and then they will shamelessly use their children much like they used the victims. The children, to a certain extent, become victims as well and they truly are innocent bystanders. The remaining parent and attorneys will use these innocent bystanders and then justify this act in the name of saving a life. The children are used a pawns; plan and simple. In my point of view, if you use children as a means to and end in this situation then you fit the same mold as those that would use children as a means to and end in ANY situation. Agree wholeheartedly
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 25, 2009 14:15:42 GMT -6
After seeing bits of this thread yesterday, I decided to see what I could find out about the effects on children when parents are incarcerated offenders. What I found from reading about a dozen sources is that they are not necessarily better off just because they can visit the offender - that Lady is right it can cause more trauma and problems than even the death of that parent would, in a significant number of cases in the studies I read about. If you don't mind, Janet, I'd like to interject a little bit, since I have some personal experience relative to this issue. As you know, my present wife has done time in prison. At no time during her incarceration did she want her family members to visit, particularly her two children. She was too ashamed, no less so than after she turned herself in and went back to prison voluntarily after a parole violation. Now you can say she wanted her kids to stay away out of fear -- specifically the fear of having to explain to them why she was in prison. VSP, however, is a terrible place. She would have loved to see her children, if only for a few minutes, while she was there. I prefer to think she prevented the visits because she didn't want her kids to see her in such a place. Can anyone here blame her? I can't question the motives or wisdom of any murderer who wants his/her children to visit. I don't put anything past a murderer. I do question, though, the motives of anyone else would want anyone's kids to visit a murderer. I don't see how that can possibly benefit a child.
|
|