|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 17:05:40 GMT -6
Some people think that if a parent murdered and ends up behind bars for how ever long that a child of that parent needs to visit that parent. Please tell me how this benefits the child. To me a child doesn't need that in his or her life. Opinions please.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 24, 2009 17:15:13 GMT -6
I personally do not agree with it. However, as some level it is good for the children to see the penalty for not obeying the law (regardless of sentence). It is up to the other parent to teach this lesson and there is the rub. It comes down to personal freedoms. People get to make choices even bad ones, but you are free to make those choices. So, you get to take your kids to a prison and I am not going to stop you. While I do not agree with the decision to expose children to this; I disagree even more with government intrusion on private life and freedoms.
Welcome to America.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Feb 24, 2009 17:20:49 GMT -6
It depends entirely on the individual child. For some, it's beneficial to see the parent; for others, it's beneficial to write them out of their life entirely, and everything in between.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 24, 2009 17:25:30 GMT -6
Some people think that if a parent murdered and ends up behind bars for how ever long that a child of that parent needs to visit that parent. Please tell me how this benefits the child. To me a child doesn't need that in his or her life. Opinions please. We've had a debate about murderers that's why I won't bring up any argument you probably won't like about the rights of criminals. But one thought: Every kid has the right to know where it comes from even if it is unpleasant because it's part of your identity. It's better to have a filthy hold in your life than none at all. With hold I don't mean the imprisoned person but the knowledge of where you come from and who you are. It can give you a good example for what is right and what is wrong and what the consequences are if you choose to do the latter, the hardcore way though. It's up to the children and the people taking care of it to decide whether it's good to meet the biological parent in that case because it's definitely not healthy for every kid and at every age.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 17:42:34 GMT -6
While I do not agree with the decision to expose children to this; I disagree even more with government intrusion on private life and freedoms. Welcome to America. I'm not referring to government intrusion. I just wonder why some people thinks it benefits the child. As a parent I wouldn't. Of course I wouldn't get involved with someone like that.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 24, 2009 17:47:50 GMT -6
As everyone has already stated, it could be a powerful lesson for the child and influence future choices.
What would you tell the child if you were in this position? Would you tell them the truth? And what if the child asked to visit their incarcerated parent?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 17:49:20 GMT -6
quote author=honeyroastedpeanut board=general thread=25454 post=488127 time=1235517930] Good idea. Can't a child be told when he or she is old enough to understand?
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Feb 24, 2009 17:51:02 GMT -6
It depends entirely on the individual child. For some, it's beneficial to see the parent; for others, it's beneficial to write them out of their life entirely, and everything in between. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 17:53:40 GMT -6
Some visits aren't a lesson of Daddy or Mommy did something wrong or bad. It would depend on the age of the child. If the child was old enough to understand then I would tell the truth. Chances are if a child had a parent such as that and could remember them, I would think the memories wouldn't be good.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Feb 24, 2009 18:19:06 GMT -6
While I do not agree with the decision to expose children to this; I disagree even more with government intrusion on private life and freedoms. Welcome to America. I'm not referring to government intrusion. I just wonder why some people thinks it benefits the child. As a parent I wouldn't. Of course I wouldn't get involved with someone like that. Your last sentence hit a nerve to some degree. Some people don't realize that they're involved with "someone like that" until it's too late. When that's the case, those people don't need our judgment.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Feb 24, 2009 18:25:45 GMT -6
The thing about kids is that there's always that conflict. Even kids that were abused by a parent will still long to see mom or dad and want their approval. (Anyone ever read "A Child Called It" and its sequels? Prime example.) Younger kids especially have trouble reconciling that mommy or daddy did something bad because mommies and daddies aren't SUPPOSED to hurt other people.
Good chance that a child in that situation would ask to visit. In that case, I think that being honest with the child just might include taking him/her to prison for the visit, but it also includes talking honestly (and age-appropriately) about WHY the parent is there.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 24, 2009 20:02:20 GMT -6
Just because the child wants to see the parent doesn't mean it's necessarily good for the child to see the parent. A child may want to see the parent whose rights were terminated, does that mean the child should see the parent because that's what the child wants?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Feb 25, 2009 12:05:28 GMT -6
I'm not referring to government intrusion. I just wonder why some people thinks it benefits the child. As a parent I wouldn't. Of course I wouldn't get involved with someone like that. Your last sentence hit a nerve to some degree. Some people don't realize that they're involved with "someone like that" until it's too late. When that's the case, those people don't need our judgment. some don't, that's true. but I believe most do or can and I think almost all would if they didn't delude themselves into not believing the signs and maybe it's just a father/cop/over forty thing
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Feb 25, 2009 18:00:58 GMT -6
It depends entirely on the individual child. For some, it's beneficial to see the parent; for others, it's beneficial to write them out of their life entirely, and everything in between. I agree. I agree too.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 25, 2009 18:43:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Feb 25, 2009 19:10:18 GMT -6
I have read this. Can you respond to me without namecalling?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 25, 2009 19:17:56 GMT -6
I have read this. Can you respond to me without namecalling? Don't you have some input on how good this is for children?
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Feb 25, 2009 19:23:30 GMT -6
I have read this. Can you respond to me without namecalling? Don't you have some input on how good this is for children? Sure, but I don't like the way you are sidestepping and avoiding responding to the point I made about the use of the DP when LWOP might be an option. I never said how good it is for children. I never said that they absolutely need to go to their fathers in prison as well. I stated that LWOP would not have the outcome of children standing at their father's (the murderers) grave.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 25, 2009 19:26:17 GMT -6
I have read this. Can you respond to me without namecalling? Certainly! First, the link posted by Stormy was very clear to me. Lady's post, while filled with emotion, is very much to the point and from someone with first hand knowledge. The following threads specifically from Joe and JBS answer the question as well. I thought I did a fair job of explaining the topic of children of convicted murders. This was all done without name-calling (well 90% name calling - Lady was pretty fired up). Your point has no merit. It is based on your personal feelings, not law, and facts. When faced with facts you run and cry foul. Sorry, that isn't going to work here. You do not listen, you do not respect those that have and opinion and then in the end you say you agree, but when the argument is presented to you, you will not admit that is sound. There are people here that obviously have the personal experience to ferret out those that do not. I am sorry to say that it seems to me you fit in the latter group. I will put this as plainly as I can... Don't go away mad, just go away.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Feb 25, 2009 19:29:49 GMT -6
I have read this. Can you respond to me without namecalling? Certainly! First, the link posted by Stormy was very clear to me. Lady's post, while filled with emotion, is very much to the point and from someone with first hand knowledge. The following threads specifically from Joe and JBS answer the question as well. I thought I did a fair job of explaining the topic of children of convicted murders. This was all done without name-calling (well 90% name calling - Lady was pretty fired up). Your point has no merit. It is based on your personal feelings, not law, and facts. When faced with facts you run and cry foul. Sorry, that isn't going to work here. You do not listen, you do not respect those that have and opinion and then in the end you say you agree, but when the argument is presented to you, you will not admit that is sound. There are people here that obviously have the personal experience to ferret out those that do not. I am sorry to say that it seems to me you fit in the latter group. I will put this as plainly as I can... Don't go away mad, just go away. Are here anti's you like?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 25, 2009 19:33:06 GMT -6
Don't you have some input on how good this is for children? Sure, but I don't like the way you are sidestepping and avoiding responding to the point I made about the use of the DP when LWOP might be an option. I never said how good it is for children. I never said that they absolutely need to go to their fathers in prison as well. I stated that LWOP would not have the outcome of children standing at their father's (the murderers) grave. I never really called you a name, but I said I thought you were nuts. Why does that bother you, if you believe in what you believe in? I think anyone is a little off if they think the murderer's family is going to go through the same thing that the victim's family did and that murderous or any type of violent parent is worth visiting. Sorry you take that personal but that's how I feel. However, why should that stop you from stating an opinion if you stand by it?
|
|
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 19:36:19 GMT -6
I have read this. Can you respond to me without namecalling? Certainly! First, the link posted by Stormy was very clear to me. Lady's post, while filled with emotion, is very much to the point and from someone with first hand knowledge. The following threads specifically from Joe and JBS answer the question as well. I thought I did a fair job of explaining the topic of children of convicted murders. This was all done without name-calling (well 90% name calling - Lady was pretty fired up). Your point has no merit. It is based on your personal feelings, not law, and facts. When faced with facts you run and cry foul. Sorry, that isn't going to work here. You do not listen, you do not respect those that have and opinion and then in the end you say you agree, but when the argument is presented to you, you will not admit that is sound. There are people here that obviously have the personal experience to ferret out those that do not. I am sorry to say that it seems to me you fit in the latter group. I will put this as plainly as I can... Don't go away mad, just go away. Hey where did I call anyone a name ? I just made reference to my relationship to the DP to save her from saying anything stupid that would cause her to stick her foot in her mouth ....I was just being courteous .
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 25, 2009 19:37:08 GMT -6
Are here anti's you like? You just don't listen and you don't read any farther than the first point you don't agree with. Here is a thread (without calling you personally a name) that expresses my point. It is past pro vs. anti. 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 SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 25, 2009 19:41:29 GMT -6
Certainly! First, the link posted by Stormy was very clear to me. Lady's post, while filled with emotion, is very much to the point and from someone with first hand knowledge. The following threads specifically from Joe and JBS answer the question as well. I thought I did a fair job of explaining the topic of children of convicted murders. This was all done without name-calling (well 90% name calling - Lady was pretty fired up). Your point has no merit. It is based on your personal feelings, not law, and facts. When faced with facts you run and cry foul. Sorry, that isn't going to work here. You do not listen, you do not respect those that have and opinion and then in the end you say you agree, but when the argument is presented to you, you will not admit that is sound. There are people here that obviously have the personal experience to ferret out those that do not. I am sorry to say that it seems to me you fit in the latter group. I will put this as plainly as I can... Don't go away mad, just go away. Hey where did I call anyone a name ? I just made reference to my relationship to the DP to save her from saying anything stupid that would cause her to stick her foot in her mouth ....I was just being courteous . She (somebody) cries foul anytime anyone including a convicted murder/felon is called a name. I am trying to be polite as well, but the clock is ticking. Moreover, I got the distinct feeling you are not thin skinned.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Feb 25, 2009 19:56:34 GMT -6
Sure, but I don't like the way you are sidestepping and avoiding responding to the point I made about the use of the DP when LWOP might be an option. I never said how good it is for children. I never said that they absolutely need to go to their fathers in prison as well. I stated that LWOP would not have the outcome of children standing at their father's (the murderers) grave. I never really called you a name, but I said I thought you were nuts. Why does that bother you, if you believe in what you believe in? I think anyone is a little off if they think the murderer's family is going to go through the same thing that the victim's family did and that murderous or any type of violent parent is worth visiting. Sorry you take that personal but that's how I feel. However, why should that stop you from stating an opinion if you stand by it? Well, I don't think people like it to be named nuts in general, do you? I find it hard to use arguments over here because it is as if everything I say is explained as "she loves murderers and is therefore not paying respect to MVS". I don't love murderers. In fact, I hate it what they've done and I think they should be severely punished. I only try to discuss the dp when there is LWOP available as well. That's all. Furthermore, I do respect all of you. I have given pro's here as many as I possibly could to express this. I respect you. To me there are no nuts on this board...
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Feb 25, 2009 19:57:35 GMT -6
Certainly! First, the link posted by Stormy was very clear to me. Lady's post, while filled with emotion, is very much to the point and from someone with first hand knowledge. The following threads specifically from Joe and JBS answer the question as well. I thought I did a fair job of explaining the topic of children of convicted murders. This was all done without name-calling (well 90% name calling - Lady was pretty fired up). Your point has no merit. It is based on your personal feelings, not law, and facts. When faced with facts you run and cry foul. Sorry, that isn't going to work here. You do not listen, you do not respect those that have and opinion and then in the end you say you agree, but when the argument is presented to you, you will not admit that is sound. There are people here that obviously have the personal experience to ferret out those that do not. I am sorry to say that it seems to me you fit in the latter group. I will put this as plainly as I can... Don't go away mad, just go away. Hey where did I call anyone a name ? I just made reference to my relationship to the DP to save her from saying anything stupid that would cause her to stick her foot in her mouth ....I was just being courteous .
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Feb 25, 2009 19:59:59 GMT -6
Just because the child wants to see the parent doesn't mean it's necessarily good for the child to see the parent. A child may want to see the parent whose rights were terminated, does that mean the child should see the parent because that's what the child wants? Again, it depends on the individual child and family. I hate to make blanket statements about what's good for ALL kids because there's usually an exception. Honesty about the parent's situation sets a good example for the kids - it says "we talk about things in this family, even if they're not comfortable to talk about. We don't try to hide things or ignore them." Honesty may or may not include visiting a parent if the child feels that they need to see them in person.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Feb 25, 2009 20:02:43 GMT -6
Your last sentence hit a nerve to some degree. Some people don't realize that they're involved with "someone like that" until it's too late. When that's the case, those people don't need our judgment. some don't, that's true. but I believe most do or can and I think almost all would if they didn't delude themselves into not believing the signs and maybe it's just a father/cop/over forty thing Is that an opinion based on fact or feeling? I'm curious. There are plenty of people who are murdered by their significant others. Would you say that they were deluding themselves and bear some responsibility for their own murders?
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 25, 2009 20:04:17 GMT -6
Certainly! First, the link posted by Stormy was very clear to me. Lady's post, while filled with emotion, is very much to the point and from someone with first hand knowledge. The following threads specifically from Joe and JBS answer the question as well. I thought I did a fair job of explaining the topic of children of convicted murders. This was all done without name-calling (well 90% name calling - Lady was pretty fired up). Your point has no merit. It is based on your personal feelings, not law, and facts. When faced with facts you run and cry foul. Sorry, that isn't going to work here. You do not listen, you do not respect those that have and opinion and then in the end you say you agree, but when the argument is presented to you, you will not admit that is sound. There are people here that obviously have the personal experience to ferret out those that do not. I am sorry to say that it seems to me you fit in the latter group. I will put this as plainly as I can... Don't go away mad, just go away. Are here anti's you like? I would say that he appears to respect Lady, who by the way lives up to her screen name and she's an anti.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Feb 25, 2009 20:06:29 GMT -6
Are here anti's you like? I would say that he appears to respect Lady, who by the way lives up to her screen name and she's an anti. That's good to know. Thanks.
|
|