Dying Girl Denied Chance To Visit Father

[MTK]

You should be an attorney JR.

That's right, you are, aren't you?

[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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

You should be an attorney JR.

That's right, you are, aren't you?

Actually, I've decided to give it all up and be a hermit with 24/7 access to Skins games and the NFL Network.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No, actually, I see from MY perspective. The State is nothing more than a manifestation of our society’s collective will. I am a member of that society and, as such, I expect my government to balance the inherent conflict of the State’s existence in a manner that a) protects the society from lawbreakers; but is b) responsive to the needs of the law abiding individuals within my society. This inherent conflict of the State having authority over its creators is well summed up in the standard police motto “To protect and serve”.

In this case, it is important that the State owes a duty to US (you, me, the little girl, her father, Smootsmack and yes, even Dallas fans) to balance the criminal’s punishment (set forth in the statutes, rules and regulations that grant the State with authority to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and/or property) against the interests of one of its individual citizens. It is my hope that the governing entities that create and apply rules on my behalf in this instance will look at this equation with appropriate human compassion and not with a slavish obedience what has been done before.




Well, first and foremost, I disagree with the presumptions that a) I am ignoring the rules; b) I am bending the rules; or c) that to find an exception in this case REQUIRES me to make an exception in EVERY case.

As to (a), if the ONLY way to make this happen is to completely disregard the rules on the books, then I would agree that it could not and should not be done. At the same time, I would advocate for an expeditious change of the rules to (as I said earlier) “permit an expedited movement of the prisoner from one facility to another in situations where such movement can assist the health and welfare of an innocent without undue burden to the state or increased harm to the public[.]”

As to (b), you say “bending” the rules, I say applying them on a case by case basis as the particular facts dictate. The words say what the words say, can they be interpreted to permit the expedited movement of the prisoner? If so, then we are not “bending” the rules but rather applying the terms. The English language is a beautiful and adaptive language that has the capacity for precision and vaguery within the same sentence. If there is no common sense way to read the rules in a manner that would make them applicable, then see my response to (a) in the preceding paragraph.


Finally, as to (c), this is the famous “slippery slope” argument and it is fundamentally flawed. Yes, if another individual in EXACTLY (and I mean exactly) the same situation were subsequently denied under EXACTLY the same rules, there would be serious fairness issues. I would suggest that an exact match will not occur again and, further, if an EXACT match DID occur, I would be fine with the State, again, acting to decrease the suffering of the innocent. So yes I am “prepared for that[.]”

HOWEVER, as I do not believe that an exact match will ever again occur, I will address what I believe to be your real proposition – that the State, by expediting this request, is bound to expedite every similar request. Fortunately, that isn’t how it works. The appropriate State decision makers need only say “well, here is a difference and we think it makes expediting the matter inappropriate”. What could the differentiating factors be? Don’t know, it would depend on the facts of THAT case and how THOSE facts apply to the applicable rules.

The State is not “required” to DO anything by granting this request other than listen and consider such requests based on the particular facts of the request and the applicable rules. A duty it had (I would hope) prior to this particular request.



Sorry, and, IMO here is the fundamental flaw in your argument, the girl is a member of the same society and is protected by the same government that is incarcerating a criminal. That society has a duty to her, just as it has a duty to you and me, to act in a manner that does not harm to us when we have done no wrong. She is entitled to the protection of the State just as you and I are, and, in light of that, the State, IMHO, does owe it’s citizens the affirmative duty to ease their suffering when feasible within the greater scheme of protecting the general welfare.

I have placed several caveats around my belief that the father’s transfer should be expedited (mainly b/c there is a LOT of unknown info), but, essentially, if the State can ease the harm to one of its citizens in a manner that does not create undue burden on the rest of society, then it should do so. I would certainly hope it would extend me the same protection.



One of the articles I read indicated that the girl's health improved after each of the three visits the father was permitted. If there was medical evidence that the daughter's chance of survival was increased to 10% by expediting the father’s transfer, would you still oppose it? What if the father’s transfer would guarantee, the child’s survival? Would you “bend the rules” to ensure the survival of an innocent? Or would the mere fact that “in this case rules dictate that [the father] not leave prison” doom the girl to death?

Some people may want a mile after someone else got an inch. Good governance, however, requires discernment when requests for such dispensation are made. In accordance with good governance, the appropriate authority should grant the inch or the mile based on the particular facts of a given situation and in a manner consistent with the applicable rules and their underlying intent.

I do not agree with your view, but I gotta say, bravo on the post. That was the best argument I have seen. You almost make me want to change my mind. (seriously...not sarcasm.)

[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.

[MTK]

I'm calling this one, JR landed the knockout blow and jsarno has decided to not get off the mat.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm calling this one, JR landed the knockout blow and jsarno has decided to not get off the mat.

Dude jsarno got submitted. JR just threw a freaking deep arm bar on him and forced sarno to tap straight up. I say bravo to you sir.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

It was a good fight though.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Dude jsarno got submitted. JR just threw a freaking deep arm bar on him and forced sarno to tap straight up. I say bravo to you sir.

Thank you.

[JoeRedskin]

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I found something that sheds a little more light on the exact controversy. Here is the link to what I believe are the applicable Federal Regulations:

WAIS Document Retrieval

These are the federal regulations for granting a furlough to this inmate. Within these rules, it appears to be an absolutely discretionary decision by the Warden to deny the furlough in this case. As for the cost, any and all costs associated with the furlough are to be born by the inmate or his family.

As I read these regulations, there is absolutely nothing in them that would prevent the Warden from granting a furlough in this case. IN FACT, the regs anticipate, but do not prohibit, the possibility of the Warden granting furloughs beyond the scope anticipated by the regulations.

"(e) The Warden shall determine the eligibility of an inmate for furlough in accord with the inmate's anticipated release date and the basis for the furlough request. ... (6) If the Warden approves a furlough outside the above guidelines, the Warden shall document the reasons in the inmates's central file."

Okay, I'll shut up now.

[jbcjr14]

Father Released From Prison To Visit Dying Daughter - Omaha News Story - KETV Omaha

He was allowed to visit her due to the overwhelming power of the people and media.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jbcjr14

Father Released From Prison To Visit Dying Daughter - Omaha News Story - KETV Omaha

He was allowed to visit her due to the overwhelming power of the people and media.

Nice update. Thanks!

[MTK]

Great news!

[JoeRedskin]

That is excellent news for the daughter.

[jsarno]

I am happy for the daughter, she did nothing to deserve the crap handed to her.

I do, however, have an overwhelming concern about how society will digest this...especially the lawyers that will use this to allow thier own clients the same exception.
Sometimes the masses don't understand the consequences of exceptions.

edited for spelling errors.