News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
This will continue happening if the jail sentence is only 30 days...
Jail sentences were never detracting anyone from crimes. Crimes are either planned so the criminal does not think they will be caught or done out of emotion so the criminal does not think about possible punishment
The severity of the punishment is not an effective deterrent. This has been known since a UN study from the 1980s, yet people still cling to the belief that a long prison sentence or the death penalty is a good deterrent.
So long as the punishment is significant enough that it cannot be dismissed (eg a small fine is meaningless to someone wealthy), then the only effective deterrent is the certainty of being caught.
Could you share a link to that study?
I've done a little digging, I think it might be this book: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective.
It was mentioned at the end of this Amnesty International fact sheet (pdf) that it was first published in 1988 then updated, I think there was also a fifth edition in 2015 so maybe there's an even another new one now. I'm not sure if this is exactly the same source I saw previously, but that could be because of the various revisions.
Thank you!
If she's in jail she can't waterboard her kid and put it in the freezer again... Do you motherfuckers even think about what you're saying before you spout off with these tired arguments?
Same if they take away her kid.
Not really, there's still a baby freezing psychopath on the loose in that case. Who knows what she'll do to the next person she blames all her problems on.
If they're not a baby... get a bigger freezer?
Until October 6, when she gets out of jail.
Unfortunately the foster system is also fucked.
This comment chain is in response to that sentence not being long enough. I'd gamble on the foster system over the known lady that puts the kid in the freezer.
The jail sentence has nothing to do with this happening.
This will keep happening while people are forced to bear kids they don't want in financial situations, where nothing can be afforded and everything is shit.
The mother was torturing her child because she needed to vent and her kid seemed like the root of all her problems, not because there were only 30 days of jail sentence.
And with poor access to mental health support.
Every time there's a mass shooting, Republicans say, "guns aren't the problem, mental health is" and then they want to do absolutely nothing about it.
The only conclusion you can make is that they like mentally ill people who torture and murder.
Exactly. Then they'll take that and turn it into fear. Then they'll take that fear and blame the Democrats for it. Then their base with their room temperature IQ will eat that shit up and show up on voting day and vote for hatred and projection while being completely oblivious to the fact it's their party's fault nothing is being done about it.
Celsius or Fahrenheit?
I think that's only been a recent thing they've mentioned; mostly they seem to come out with the 'moar guns' line, or the good guys with guns statement, but that's coming from an outsider so it may well be different from your actual experience.
Well I mean every political party tries to develop their base
She said she actually did it to spite the father...
Yes, I wrote this somewhere else, but my point still stands. The kid seemed as the root of all her problems and the jail sentence did never occur to her.
This is not an excuse (as some people said) it is still a horrible thing to do. I just want to make people aware, that these thing point to systemic problems and not necessarily evil people.
Do you have evidence this woman was forced to bear this child? I didn't read that in the article. And since you provided your opinion of why the mother did this to the child, I know for a fact you didn't read the article.
I do not, but I also rather meant my text as generalization for parents harming their children this much.
Okay, let's look into the article to see if a jail sentence would help.
I would argue, this crime has nothing to do with the sentence and everything to do with the circumstances I and others have mentioned.
And maybe she didn't want to abort, but also maybe she would have chosen to, if it were more accepted and education in that matter was better.
It's accepted in Oregon
A lot of maybes and speculation. Sure, education is never a bad thing, but you're trying to use this horrible situation to push your beliefs. This woman hurt her own child to spite the child's father.
I made no mention of the jail sentence. You made a claim that was false. I responded to it with facts from the article. You responded with some "maybes" and speculation.
I think it's pretty messed up to use this situation to push your opinion how having access to abortion (being "forced" to bear this child) might have prevented this. There's a time and a place for such an argument.
... And apparently the place is not the comment section under the link to the article. Cool.
Have it your way, but be careful to never think about systemic problems too much. It may hurt your brain.
But Oregon has had widely available abortion for decades, since the late 60s/early 70s.
This lady also lives in Multnomah County, home of Portland, one of the most progressive cities in the US. She had access to many resources although it so kind like she didn't use them.
Haha just had to get one insult in, didn't you? The sign of a petty personality. Just couldn't agree to disagree, could you? Nope. Just haaaaaad to drop an insult. Feels like reddit all over again.
Oh, Mr. "pretty messed up" doesn't want to hear an no-no-word directed at them? Shocking.
Oh, I didn't realize that poor financial situations excuse people from waterboarding babies
Did I write that somewhere? No.
Did I mean it? No.
Okay, but do you think, that maybe her life was so shitty, that she didn't even care for her kid and that this is maybe even a systemic problem and she has no way of solving that herself?
Holy shit please tell me you don't have kids.
I have kids and wouldn't harm them even if there was no jail sentence and I would gain money from it. What is your point?
"She was torturing them because she needed to vent." Sounds an awful lot like justifying her actions.
Pretending the incident was random and unpredictable is your preferred way of preventing incidents like this from happening again?
Figure out what how and why the problem came to exist, that's kinda a big part of solving it.
She's a fucking lunatic and belongs in an asylum away from normal members of society. That's why this happened
People like you have had their impact on our justice system which is part of why it's such shit show. You just want to react and punish even if putting aside emotions and reaching for understanding could prevent it in the first place.
So, we shouldn't punish people who waterboard babies?
We should be rehabilitating people and getting support systems in place. This act was horrendous, but there's already laws against what she did and punishments for it so why is your answer to just keep banging our heads against the wall doing the same shit? Justice shouldn't just be about revenge. Our views and treatment of mental health in this country is abysmal, to say the least. Our prisons are just slave labor that don't do anything but chew people up and spit them out to fail and go back in again. Even if you're the type to get raging justice boners you gotta be able to see that our legal system is bullshit all the way down.
Holy crap! Did you hurt yourself whipping so fast to understand exactly the point?
Of course a broken person shouldn't be punished for being broken! Fuckin duh! dipshit
Should such a person be prevented from harming others? Absolutely.
Is the right move to lock this person away for 30 days of to lock them away for the rest of their life? No. Neither of these is an option even a four year old would expect to prevent this person and others in similar situations from performing similar crimes. I am confident, in fact, that even you could think of a better solution if you thought about it for about twelve seconds. Is that solution, or any solution, likely to be the perfect solution? Absolutely Not. A solution that's dog shit would be more effective than the one implemented here.
It is a justification. Still abhorrent and unforgiven, but it is still better than just seeing this as a singular incident with no corralation to any other such occurrence. Highlighting this as a systemic problem would really help all involved.
Shunning those who point these errors out will not help however.