Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the link. It is difficult to read about these things and sometimes I can only read portions of them - to revolting and awful.
But people need to be made aware of this, and also admit that this is being perpetrated disproportionately on children whose parents fall into one, if not more of the following categories -
1. Had them at a young age ( resentment at having to parent )
2. Little education - HS or GED at best
3. Unwed
4. Presence of a significant other.
5. poverty or low socio-economic status.
6. substance abuse.
Why does the JonBenet Ramsay case continue to fascinate people?
Because the children of well educated and financially secure parents so seldom turn up dead in the basement of their homes!
Sheena....I really disagree with many of your points. People who abuse children are sociopaths. It is not low income, or lack of education, or being in high school. The only coorelation I will agree to is the substance abuse...of which a high percentage of addicts are sociopaths.
There is also a high percentage of sociopaths who are low income, because they would rather not work. Thinking errors....they are too smart to work for others.
Thanks for the link. It is difficult to read about these things and sometimes I can only read portions of them - to revolting and awful.
But people need to be made aware of this, and also admit that this is being perpetrated disproportionately on children whose parents fall into one, if not more of the following categories -
1. Had them at a young age ( resentment at having to parent )
2. Little education - HS or GED at best
3. Unwed
4. Presence of a significant other.
5. poverty or low socio-economic status.
6. substance abuse.
Why does the JonBenet Ramsay case continue to fascinate people?
Because the children of well educated and financially secure parents so seldom turn up dead in the basement of their homes!
I agree with this, in that there is a disproportionate amount of child abuse and deaths relating to these categories (that is kind of a contorted sentence....<s>). I do not believe that all child abusers are sociopaths or that drug abusers are necessarily sociopaths , by my understanding of sociopathy. Are sociopaths born or made ? I believe that the need for the drugs are
the main source of child abuse and deaths. An addict will do anything for a fix, neglect the children, turn thier anger at not getting a fix toward the children, etc. But, yes, some people are just plain sociopaths from the get go and are born evil.
All I know is that we must find a way to get a handle on what is happening to these children. I believe it is symtomatic of where our society is heading, the lack of moral values and lack of training children how to be good citizens and human beings, placing emphasis on doing the right thing and not seeking instant gratification......the family is fragmented, children are left to grow up on their own, while being
bombarded with violent movie, tv, games, gangs and peer pressures.
I don't know whether anything I said makes any sense, I just know we have to find a way to try and save as many children as we can from this horror.
Sheena....I really disagree with many of your points. People who abuse children are sociopaths. It is not low income, or lack of education, or being in high school. The only coorelation I will agree to is the substance abuse...of which a high percentage of addicts are sociopaths.
There is also a high percentage of sociopaths who are low income, because they would rather not work. Thinking errors....they are too smart to work for others.
I agree. society as a whole is becoming self-centered, and self-centered people don't make good parents
Many years ago, I took an Ethics course and had to write a paper on an ethical issue and decided to write one on forced sterilization; I thought it would be an interesting topic and conversation.
One of the examples I used was in fact, child abuse. That being, if a parent, more so, a mother, had already been found guilty of child abuse/neglect, should she be compelled to have some form of sterilization, as opposed to birth control measures, which she could stop taking. I researched as much as possible, true cases of child abuse, the Court findings, including plea deals, jury verdicts and punishments. I was naively stunned at the sentences, or lack thereof, the plea deals, at best, no substantive punishment/incarceration.
I will also admit that my view and position is also extremely tainted because I lost a child so to me, I almost take it personally [smile] as I am sure other parents may do if they suffered the loss of a child -- I find it reprehensible when a child is hurt; I find it reprehensible when others know a child is being abused and do nothing; I find it reprehensible when the system does not sufficiently punish a parent for abusing/killing their child.
And Phil [smile], believe it or not, I have to agree with you that if there has been child abuse, especially leading to the death of a child, I do not think it is reasonable or warranted to let a parent have another opportunity to do the same to another child.
I do not think child abuse cases are getting worse; I think this has been going on for years and years -- I think people are at least recognizing it more and are becoming more outspoken about it.
I am also wondering [yikes] if having a registry of some sort, or even something on a license plate [like Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter] would be appropriate - only for convicted abusers - I wonder if that would begin to negate the number of child abuse cases/deaths.
I hope the moderator keeps this w/in the scope of true crime / child abuse -- it was not meant to go off track [thanks].
We did forced sterilization back in the day. Hitler was said to have copied some of our eugenics policies.
Under our constitution, I think the only thing we can do is lock them up until they are too old to reproduce.
I know some alcohol and drug abusers, but they did not abuse their children. (Seeing a parent slowly kill themselves is a form of abuse, but not the sort of abuse we are discussing here)
Babies get killed because their incessant crying drives some unprepared people to the point of shaking them. I'm not blaming the babies, just stating a fact. I don't condone it, but I understand it. People also lose tempers and slap a child harder than they should have.
Those people that systematically abuse or even torture a child are beyond my understanding. I don't get it, and I never want to. Sexual abuse is just as bad. Who the (bad word) looks at a little kid and has sexual thoughts? I hope if I ever got that sick in the head that I would have the courage to off myself before I hurt a child.
The problem is, evidence of child abuse is often inconclusive. There have also been cases where innocent parents were jailed for child abuse due to botched medical testimony from doctors or self-appointed "experts" who misinterpreted the evidence.
It's always going to be a bit of a balancing act between "the best interests of the child" and the evidence that is actually available to investigators.
I should certainly have added .. perhaps as a totally last resort -- I clearly know that forced sterilization is truly a horrible concept/thought .... and tablemtn, you are absolutely correct that there can be a case where innocent parents can be jailed for abuse which is a result of botched medical testimony and/or what can be other true medical reasons for what can possibly mirror child abuse, and it is not.
Protecting children is essential; examining all evidence, allegations, history all needs to be done thoroughly = to protect the child and the alleged offender if the accused is truly innocent of a crime AND it is essential to thoroughly examine everything so a complete case can be created which, when fitting, protects the child AND prosecutes the offender appropriately and judiciously.
Child abuse is horrific and needs to be treated as such - not sugar coated.
Many years ago, I took an Ethics course and had to write a paper on an ethical issue and decided to write one on forced sterilization; I thought it would be an interesting topic and conversation.
One of the examples I used was in fact, child abuse. That being, if a parent, more so, a mother, had already been found guilty of child abuse/neglect, should she be compelled to have some form of sterilization, as opposed to birth control measures, which she could stop taking. I researched as much as possible, true cases of child abuse, the Court findings, including plea deals, jury verdicts and punishments. I was naively stunned at the sentences, or lack thereof, the plea deals, at best, no substantive punishment/incarceration.
I will also admit that my view and position is also extremely tainted because I lost a child so to me, I almost take it personally [smile] as I am sure other parents may do if they suffered the loss of a child -- I find it reprehensible when a child is hurt; I find it reprehensible when others know a child is being abused and do nothing; I find it reprehensible when the system does not sufficiently punish a parent for abusing/killing their child.
And Phil [smile], believe it or not, I have to agree with you that if there has been child abuse, especially leading to the death of a child, I do not think it is reasonable or warranted to let a parent have another opportunity to do the same to another child.
I do not think child abuse cases are getting worse; I think this has been going on for years and years -- I think people are at least recognizing it more and are becoming more outspoken about it.
I am also wondering [yikes] if having a registry of some sort, or even something on a license plate [like Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter] would be appropriate - only for convicted abusers - I wonder if that would begin to negate the number of child abuse cases/deaths.
I hope the moderator keeps this w/in the scope of true crime / child abuse -- it was not meant to go off track [thanks].
Registries don't work. In fact, it's been shown that they're counterproductive. And...they lead to vigilante' violence.
Just think about the family members of the one on the registry...someone borrows the car, and ends up being harassed or worse (and it has happened to a loved one of someone on the sex offender registry..several people in fact.
I would suggest an incentive towards sterilzation instead. Perhaps paying for the procedure AND offering a monetary incentive of $1000 for BOTH men and women who have had at least one child while on welfare and/or who have had allegations of abuse that were legitimately proven. The other option would be a lose of benefits or a limit thereof for those on welfare, and mandatory adoption of a child born to one with a child abuse record.
Personally, I think the quick cash would win out more often than not...would also bring down abortion rates
I don't necessarily group people who receive public assistance in with child abusers though. Sometimes people fall on hard times. Those programs were created because Americans don't want to see children and old people starving on the street.
People who abuse the system, and those that abuse children deserve punishment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
