this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
527 points (97.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7371 readers
192 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Addiction is not something you can control. In a way she was sick and there is not very much she could have done. Sure, "don't take drugs while pregnant" or "don't get pregnant while being an addict" sound like obvious things, but drugs can cloud your judgement.
And that is before you even think about what constitutes as a "someone". I don't even want to start the discussion on it, but there IS the question of when a fetus counts as another life/person.
So then people that are addicted should not be punished for crimes they commit related to their addiction?
They should be rehabilitated in an institution that is set up to help them beat the addiction and re-join society.
If necessary, they should be removed from society and locked up, if they pose a danger to others.
Putting them in a typical American prison that is designed to make their life as miserable as possible while extracting free labor helps neither them, nor the victims, nor society.
In 1991 an alcoholic got drunk and killed my 16 year old brother with his car. Are you suggesting that he should not have gone to prison but instead should have been sent for treatment? I’m not so sure things are as black and white as you say.
Since we cant force people to get healthy they will be in our society with their addictions. Should they be punished for their crimes?
I don't think you read the comment you are replying to:
That is two different things, one is an active threat, the other is punishment for a crime.
Depends on the crime, the motive and their state of sanity.
Generally, it's for a court to decide.
So then the woman that was taking meth, and killed her fetus is or is not liable for the death of the fetus? If your theory is that people that are in the middle of addiction are not responsible for their actions then that is pretty disasterous in multiple ways.
That's not my theory, and you're not interested in engaging with me in good faith, so good bye.
Your theory doesnt make any sense, if there is no direct consequences of actions then it opens up a whole bunch of problems.
Plenty of drunks kill and maim other people because they decide to drive drunk. The punishment very rarely matches the crime, yet you want to impose harsher punishments because of a miscarriage that could maybe be related to drug use.
We should assume there is much more evidence that she is responsible beyond what the article claims, but its possible that she is innocent and just had a miscarriage. I dont know if drunks need to get a worse punishment or not, but that doesnt relate to if a woman should be responsible for killing their fetus.