Dying Girl Denied Chance To Visit Father

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I 100% agree with you LB.

Sure, you feel for the dying girl, but you have to understand that it's the HORRIBLE acts of the father that put them in this situation. So if they make an exception for this guy, where do they stop making exceptions? People need to stop blaming others for their problems...those family members should look at that father and tell him what a worthless peice of poo he is for doing this kind of thing to his daughter. It's 100% the father's fault. Not the system, not the lawyer, not the jury, it's all the father's fault. No one should blame anyone but him.

I did not expect to hear this from you for 2 reasons.

1. You have lost a child.

2. You openly acknowlege that some forms of usage are OK.

I cannot fathom how you believe that his acts are horrible, but yours are not.

I am not picking on you or trying to piss you off, but it sounds like hypocracy to me. I know that I do not need to say this, but please explain your point of view on this matter.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I assume then you think anything related to drugs is OK then? And even worse, someone related to meth (as someone pointed out). Meth is a disgusting drug, and like LB said, it wasn't a bag of weed.
He's in jail for a reason, and he deserves to be in jail, and it's not cause what he did was a light offense.

People need to pay the consequences of thier actions. I am shocked at how many people are willing to look the other way at his offenses and break the rules for this guy.

Edit. I posted that befor I saw this^.

Ok, so because he is such a horrible person for selling a much more disgusting drug, his daughter should not be granted her death wish?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I did not expect to hear this from you for 2 reasons.

1. You have lost a child.

2. You openly acknowlege that some forms of usage are OK.

I cannot fathom how you believe that his acts are horrible, but yours are not.

I am not picking on you or trying to piss you off, but it sounds like hypocracy to me. I know that I do not need to say this, but please explain your point of view on this matter.



Edit. I posted that befor I saw this^.

Ok, so because he is such a horrible person for selling a much more disgusting drug, his daughter should not be granted her death wish?

It's not about his daughter, it's about him. That's what people are not seeing. I already explained I feel for the daughter, but it's the sins of the father that need to be punished.
Also, while I do feel weed should be legal, if I was caught with it, I would expect there to be consequences. You can't expect to do illegal things then be able to do what you want.
I have also explained in other threads that God put marijuana on this planet for a reason, it's due to ignorance that it's illegal.
Meth on the other hand is a concoction of man, and it's amazingly addictive and kills people. It ruins people's lives. How many people has this man indirectly killed? How many people's lives has he ruined with the Meth he sold them?

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's not about his daughter, it's about him. That's what people are not seeing. I already explained I feel for the daughter, but it's the sins of the father that need to be punished.
Also, while I do feel weed should be legal, if I was caught with it, I would expect there to be consequences. You can't expect to do illegal things then be able to do what you want.
I have also explained in other threads that God put marijuana on this planet for a reason, it's due to ignorance that it's illegal.
Meth on the other hand is a concoction of man, and it's amazingly addictive and kills people. It ruins people's lives. How many people has this man indirectly killed? How many people's lives has he ruined with the Meth he sold them?

I concur

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's not about his daughter, it's about him. That's what people are not seeing. I already explained I feel for the daughter, but it's the sins of the father that need to be punished.

Sorry, this IS about the daughter. Yes, the "sins of the father" need to be punished. As far as I can tell, he is still subject to the sentence he is currently serving, and no one (to my knowledge) is suggesting that his sentence be commuted or that he be paroled. Rather, there is desire by some members of the family to expedite a change in the terms of his incarceration - a change that is due to occur and, as I stated earlier, will create a benefit for an innocent member of the public (the man is scheduled to enter the facility in something like 60 days).

The daughter, who has done no wrong, is being denied a means by which her suffering can be eased - that denial is being done by the State. True, a benefit will accrue to the criminal by the nature of the benefit given to the innocent. So what? the criminal will still be punished by serving his term. Instead, and as I have said earlier, in addition to carrying out the State's mandated punishment, the State can demonstrate that mercy is an element of governance.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Meth on the other hand is a concoction of man, and it's amazingly addictive and kills people. It ruins people's lives. How many people has this man indirectly killed? How many people's lives has he ruined with the Meth he sold them?

And so, the State should contribute to the suffering of one more innocent harmed by this man's dealing of meth?

The father has been and will be continue to be punished by the knowledge that he has been unable to be with his daughter during her time of need (as he continues to serve the final 10 months of his incarceration). Now, on her deathbed, the daughter desires something that the State can grant without compromising the punishment of the criminal. I, for one, think the State should do what it can do to ease her suffering. (You have suggested that the family should blame the father - fine, they may very well be doing so. Perhaps, however, they are more focused on creating a solution for the child and saving there recriminiations until after her death - at which time they will all have a lifetime to hate him).

Rules are rules - we cannot ignore them nor should we have too much compassion for those who break them. At the same time, a slavish dedication to and a merciless application of rules creates a heartless society that ultimately forgets that the rules serve the society, not vice versa.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The daughter, who has done no wrong, is being denied a means by which her suffering can be eased - that denial is being done by the State.

See, this is where we differ. You see it from HER perspective, but in actuality, she is not being denied a thing, he is. She is not bound by any rules, she did nothing wrong. The rules are applying to him, and him only. The fact that the rules are being applied to him means the ones that he loves, and the ones that love him will suffer some, but that's the price that they all pay because of what he did. To ignore the rules or bend them for someone like him means you need to do it for everyone that asks. Are you prepared for that?

I, for one, think the State should do what it can do to ease her suffering.

I don't see why...they are not bound to her in any way. The state has custody of the father, and rightfully so, they have no responsibility to the daughter, and should not be put in this situation.

Rules are rules - we cannot ignore them nor should we have too much compassion for those who break them. At the same time, a slavish dedication to and a merciless application of rules creates a heartless society that ultimately forgets that the rules serve the society, not vice versa.

That's a profound statement, and you are right for the most part. You just need to remember that when you give and inch, people want a mile. There are rules for a reason, and they do not say anything about allowing the father to see his daughter. Rules do serve society, and in this case rules dictate that he not leave prison.
Do you realize that it does cost tax dollars to allow him to leave the prison? I for one do not want my tax dollars going to help a criminal feel a little better about himself.
Again, this is not about the daughter, this is about him.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's not about his daughter, it's about him. That's what people are not seeing. I already explained I feel for the daughter, but it's the sins of the father that need to be punished.
Also, while I do feel weed should be legal, if I was caught with it, I would expect there to be consequences. You can't expect to do illegal things then be able to do what you want.
I have also explained in other threads that God put marijuana on this planet for a reason, it's due to ignorance that it's illegal.
Meth on the other hand is a concoction of man, and it's amazingly addictive and kills people. It ruins people's lives. How many people has this man indirectly killed? How many people's lives has he ruined with the Meth he sold them?

I must say that I disagree with you and will not budge from my position just as you will not budge from yours. I feel that she should be able to spend her remaining time with her father. Then he should go back and finish his debt to society.

This is one of those instances where political BS can be put aside and an execption to policy should be made. The man is not looking for a pass to go out on the town to pay a conjugal visit to the hookers in Vegas, he is going to spend final quality time with his daughter.

I'm done with this topic.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I must say that I disagree with you and will not budge from my position just as you will not budge from yours. I feel that she should be able to spend her remaining time with her father. Then he should go back and finish his debt to society.

This is one of those instances where political BS can be put aside and an execption to policy should be made. The man is not looking for a pass to go ot on the town to pay a conjugal visit to the hookers in Vegas, he is going to spend final quality time with his daughter.

I'm done with this topic.

I agree.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I must say that I disagree with you and will not budge from my position just as you will not budge from yours. I feel that she should be able to spend her remaining time with her father. Then he should go back and finish his debt to society.

This is one of those instances where political BS can be put aside and an execption to policy should be made. The man is not looking for a pass to go out on the town to pay a conjugal visit to the hookers in Vegas, he is going to spend final quality time with his daughter.

I'm done with this topic.

I understand your points, and I have always respected your opinions.
But it leaves me with three questions that no one can seem to answer.
1- Why does he deserve to spend quality time with his daughter?
2- What happens when the serial rapist and murderers decide they need to go see a dying relative too? Once you set that precident, then what? Where is the line drawn?
3- (or more a 2b question) Did anyone call the families of who this guy sold meth to, to ask thier opinions? I can safely assume there are plenty of families out there that he ruined...maybe some daughter / son out there without a father, or some family in shambles due to this guy selling that drug...did anyone ask them if it was OK that this dealer should be allowed out to see his daughter die?
What if it was you? (a general hypothetical question) What if your wife had an addiction to meth and it ruined her and your life, and it trickled down to your kids, would you be so easy to forgive and forget and allow this guy one ounce of leniancy? What if your kids took it, and it killed one of them...would you still be able to say, "sure, let this guy see his daugher"? I hope none of you has ever gone through that, but I am willing to wager that if someone did go through that, they would not be able to agree to such a thing. A lot here are solely seeing the daughter, and not many are seeing the victims of this mans actions.
When did PCness start ignoring blatant crimes?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

1- Why does he deserve to spend quality time with his daughter?

I agree HE does not deserve time. The mere fact, however, that, by providing for the innocent, the State creates a benefit for the guilty should not, IMO, be reason for the State to mercilessly allow the increase of harm to an innocent.

Originally Posted by jsarno

2- What happens when the serial rapist and murderers decide they need to go see a dying relative too? Once you set that precident, then what? Where is the line drawn?

When a serial rapist and/or murderer is in the same situation, we can address it then. There is simply no need to assert that every criminal is granted an expedited transfer if they have a dying relative. Every day the courts and government can, and does, apply rules and regulations on a case by case basis with consistency and fairness.

Originally Posted by jsarno

3- (or more a 2b question) Did anyone call the families of who this guy sold meth to, to ask thier opinions? I can safely assume there are plenty of families out there that he ruined...maybe some daughter / son out there without a father, or some family in shambles due to this guy selling that drug...did anyone ask them if it was OK that this dealer should be allowed out to see his daughter die?

Probably not. But then, do we let the victims of ANY crime be the FINAL authority as to the punishment of the criminal? It is a fair question to ask “have we consulted the victims?” It is, however, also fair to say – regardless of these particular victims, we as a society choose to be more merciful than they might. As part of its duty to “protect and serve”, it is the governments duty to be the societal intermediary between the criminal and the victim.

(Just as a side note – the concept of “an eye for an eye” was an example of the government acting as the intermediary and softening the punishment. Prior to this code, if a victim lost an eye, the victim would seek and eye, an arm, and kill your first born creating a cycle of violence. Hammurabi’s code stepped in and said – NO it is not for the victim to decide, it is for the government)

Originally Posted by jsarno

What if it was you? (a general hypothetical question) What if your wife had an addiction to meth and it ruined her and your life, and it trickled down to your kids, would you be so easy to forgive and forget and allow this guy one ounce of leniancy? What if your kids took it, and it killed one of them...would you still be able to say, "sure, let this guy see his daugher"? I hope none of you has ever gone through that, but I am willing to wager that if someone did go through that, they would not be able to agree to such a thing. A lot here are solely seeing the daughter, and not many are seeing the victims of this mans actions.

Yup. I’d want to murder the guy, then I’m sure his wife, daughter (or other member) would want me dead, and so on, and so on and so on. That’s a criminal justice “system” sure to enhance the general welfare.

Here’s where the rules come into play. What do they allow? Why? Are they applicable? Do they include an opportunity for the victims to be heard? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by jsarno

A lot here are solely seeing the daughter, and not many are seeing the victims of this mans actions.

I would suggest that a lot are seeing both and finding that the present good that may be accomplished outweighs the past harm that cannot be changed.

This man is in jail and will be in jail well after his daughter’s death. Regardless of whether or not he is transferred, and for the rest of his life he will know that he failed his daughter. I can only imagine how that would make me feel and, in doing so, would suggest that this man will be paying for his crimes well after he is released from jail.

Originally Posted by jsarno

When did PCness start ignoring blatant crimes?

About the same time calls for compassion became seen as being PC.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I agree HE does not deserve time. The mere fact, however, that, by providing for the innocent, the State creates a benefit for the guilty should not, IMO, be reason for the State to mercilessly allow the increase of harm to an innocent.


When a serial rapist and/or murderer is in the same situation, we can address it then. There is simply no need to assert that every criminal is granted an expedited transfer if they have a dying relative. Every day the courts and government can, and does, apply rules and regulations on a case by case basis with consistency and fairness.


Probably not. But then, do we let the victims of ANY crime be the FINAL authority as to the punishment of the criminal? It is a fair question to ask “have we consulted the victims?” It is, however, also fair to say – regardless of these particular victims, we as a society choose to be more merciful than they might. As part of its duty to “protect and serve”, it is the governments duty to be the societal intermediary between the criminal and the victim.

(Just as a side note – the concept of “an eye for an eye” was an example of the government acting as the intermediary and softening the punishment. Prior to this code, if a victim lost an eye, the victim would seek and eye, an arm, and kill your first born creating a cycle of violence. Hammurabi’s code stepped in and said – NO it is not for the victim to decide, it is for the government)



Yup. I’d want to murder the guy, then I’m sure his wife, daughter (or other member) would want me dead, and so on, and so on and so on. That’s a criminal justice “system” sure to enhance the general welfare.

Here’s where the rules come into play. What do they allow? Why? Are they applicable? Do they include an opportunity for the victims to be heard? If not, why not?


I would suggest that a lot are seeing both and finding that the present good that may be accomplished outweighs the past harm that cannot be changed.

This man is in jail and will be in jail well after his daughter’s death. Regardless of whether or not he is transferred, and for the rest of his life he will know that he failed his daughter. I can only imagine how that would make me feel and, in doing so, would suggest that this man will be paying for his crimes well after he is released from jail.


About the same time calls for compassion became seen as being PC.

see above post.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's not about his daughter, it's about him. That's what people are not seeing. I already explained I feel for the daughter, but it's the sins of the father that need to be punished.
Also, while I do feel weed should be legal, if I was caught with it, I would expect there to be consequences. You can't expect to do illegal things then be able to do what you want.
I have also explained in other threads that God put marijuana on this planet for a reason, it's due to ignorance that it's illegal.
Meth on the other hand is a concoction of man, and it's amazingly addictive and kills people. It ruins people's lives. How many people has this man indirectly killed? How many people's lives has he ruined with the Meth he sold them?

Given that you frequently acknowledge marijuana use I am surprised by the arrogance and inflexibility of your position. The day you stop habitually committing illegal acts is the day, in my book, you can get on here and condemn someone else for drug related crimes. This is all relative after all, and there are plenty of people who feel you should be in jail just like there are plenty of people who feel meth should be legal.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Given that you frequently acknowledge marijuana use I am surprised by the arrogance and inflexibility of your position. The day you stop habitually committing illegal acts is the day, in my book, you can get on here and condemn someone else for drug related crimes. This is all relative after all, and there are plenty of people who feel you should be in jail just like there are plenty of people who feel meth should be legal.

Excuse me sir, but I do not admit to habitually using marijuana. In fact, I have not even smoked a single j in over 8 months.
I have not "habitually" used it since college which was well over a decade ago. Just cause I believe marijuana should be legal, and admit to have used it on occasion over the past decade, does not mean i am a habitual user.
And yes, it does mean I can condemn people for drug related crimes, when the drug is something that kills people and destroys people's lives and families. If you want to compare marijuana and meth in your own head, be my guest, but don't for one second spew that garbage on here. There is no comparison. Meth is a horrible drug. To compare the two is ignorance and quite frankly I expect more from you.