Should an alleged murderer have visiting rights...

[Mr Pickles]

Heard this question posed on the radio today. I'll break it down:

1. Man is in custody and charged with a double murder of his third wife and her friend.
2. Mother will not let her 7 year old son see the guy, his father.
3. Man would like a court order for visiting privelages so he can see his son.
4. Mother believes its a ploy to keep her and her child in the county so they can't move.
5. Man and Man's Lawyer assure the courts that there is no other motives.
6. Man has not been convicted of crime, has not had his trial yet.

Should the man be allowed to see his son if he's in jail waiting to be sentenced with a double murder.

Found the article: Article Here
Video for the tubers: Video

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. I dont care if 500 people saw him do it, hes still innocent until proven. So yes, he should be allowed to see his kid

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

 

[rivan]

alleged

I allege you're a child molester.

There, until you prove me wrong, you can't see your family.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

I think that's what makes this such a tough decision. If you see it from the father's point of view then I feel he should have rights to see his son. But no one would want a child to be forced to see their father in jail. Its tough.

 

[AmerDoux]

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

I think that's what makes this such a tough decision. If you see it from the father's point of view then I feel he should have rights to see his son. But no one would want a child to be forced to see their father in jail. Its tough.

It's not about the parent wants and needs. The decision should be based on what is in the best interest of the child. I agree with Don Vito on this one.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

I think that's what makes this such a tough decision. If you see it from the father's point of view then I feel he should have rights to see his son. But no one would want a child to be forced to see their father in jail. Its tough.

But shouldn't the father make the decision on whether or not it would be good for his son to see him in jail? He can always tell the son it's a mix-up if he's holding to his innocence!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

I agree that the question is not if he should be allowed to see his son, and certainly the son shouldn't be forced to visit his father. However, I don't think the state should have the authority to deny him access to his son simply because it could be unhealthy for the kid. He is innocent and should be treated as such until deemed guilty by a jury of his peers. Period.

If anything, it sounds like the state would be forcing the mother to bring her son to visit his father, not forcing the kid to go.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

Agreed.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

This.

 

[JulesMaximus]

PINELLAS COUNTY (Bay News 9) -- Key evidence has been released in a double murder in Pinellas County.

Former Jabil Circuit executive Patrick Evans is accused of killing Elizabeth Evans, his estranged wife, and her friend Jerry Taylor Jr.

They were shot in the neck inside a condo at the Sea Ketch complex on Gulfport Blvd. Dec. 20.

Detectives quickly arrested Evans because of what they heard on a recorded 911 call.

Someone inside the condo had called 911 and hung up. When an operator called back someone picked up the phone but all the operator could hear was a confrontation in the background.

Both victims are heard trying to reason with the suspect and identify him by name.

Suspect: "Get on the bed."

Elizabeth: "I'm gonna put a robe on."

Suspect: "No, you're not. Get on the bed."

911 operator: "Hello? Hello?"

Jerry: "Rick"

Elizabeth: "Rick"

Suspect: "Get on the bed."

Jerry: "Put the gun down."

Elizabeth: "Help!"

Right after that a gunshot can be heard and then Elizabeth says, "Are you out of your mind?"

Evans' attorney Frank McDermont fought to keep the 911 tape from being released to the public citing concerns that Evans wouldn't be able to get a fair trial. But a judge ruled against that request.

McDermont says he doesn't have any comment about the release of the 911 tape but he's working to protect Evans' due process rights in the case.

Evans has pleaded not guilty to the killings. Investigators say they haven't found the murder weapon. But they say Evans owned a .40 Caliber handgun, the same kind of gun used in the shootings.

Sounds pretty bad IMO.

This guy is going to be convicted.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

I agree that the question is not if he should be allowed to see his son, and certainly the son shouldn't be forced to visit his father. However, I don't think the state should have the authority to deny him access to his son simply because it could be unhealthy for the kid. He is innocent and should be treated as such until deemed guilty by a jury of his peers. Period.

If anything, it sounds like the state would be forcing the mother to bring her son to visit his father, not forcing the kid to go.

I hear ya, but the reality is that the government's charter to protect children is governed by an entirely different standard than guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.

By way of illustration, imagine a scenario in which the father was charged with being a serial pedophile, and the authorities had recovered thousands of images and videos of him raping children. Would you still support allowing him visitation with his children, since he merely charged with a crime, but not convicted? I know this is an entirely different scenario, but I find it useful to play out extreme scenarios like that, as they test the basic legal and ethical principles at play.

The reality is that the authorities are charged with the responsibility for protecting children - I don't believe that bringing a 7-year-old to a county jail to meet with his imprisoned father, facing murder charges, is consistent with that charter. The father's guilt or innocence have nothing to do with the equation, because the government's responsibility is to the child's best interests. If the son were, say, 15, and insisted on visiting his father, I might reach a different conclusion, but I simply don't believe a 7-year-old is competent to make this decision, and DO believe a 7-year-old is likely to be traumatized by seeing his father in prison. My mother (who was a judge for 23 years) always barred defendants' children from the courtroom for sentencing hearings for the same reason.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
The question is not, IMO, should he be allowed to see his son - it's whether the son should be forced to go see his dad in jail. Under the circumstances I wouldn't necessarily say the dad's visitation rights should be suspended, but I definitely DO think it's unhealthy for the son to visit a jail where his dad is in custody on murder charges. Accordingly, were I the judge involved, I would not allow visitation until the disposition of his murder charges is clear.

I agree that the question is not if he should be allowed to see his son, and certainly the son shouldn't be forced to visit his father. However, I don't think the state should have the authority to deny him access to his son simply because it could be unhealthy for the kid. He is innocent and should be treated as such until deemed guilty by a jury of his peers. Period.

If anything, it sounds like the state would be forcing the mother to bring her son to visit his father, not forcing the kid to go.

I hear ya, but the reality is that the government's charter to protect children is governed by an entirely different standard than guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.

By way of illustration, imagine a scenario in which the father was charged with being a serial pedophile, and the authorities had recovered thousands of images and videos of him raping children. Would you still support allowing him visitation with his children, since he merely charged with a crime, but not convicted? I know this is an entirely different scenario, but I find it useful to play out extreme scenarios like that, as they test the basic legal and ethical principles at play.

The reality is that the authorities are charged with the responsibility for protecting children - I don't believe that bringing a 7-year-old to a county jail to meet with his imprisoned father, facing murder charges, is consistent with that charter. The father's guilt or innocence have nothing to do with the equation, because the government's responsibility is to the child's best interests. If the son were, say, 15, and insisted on visiting his father, I might reach a different conclusion, but I simply don't believe a 7-year-old is competent to make this decision, and DO believe a 7-year-old is likely to be traumatized by seeing his father in prison. My mother (who was a judge for 23 years) always barred defendants' children from the courtroom for sentencing hearings for the same reason.

The government's responsibility is within the best interest of the child without stepping over the already instilled rights of someone being held against their will. In all reality, thousands of children visit their parents in jail all across america on a daily basis. It is very typical. Your issue is with a child experiencing a visit with someone in custody as if it were going to permanently damage the child. I don't think this would happen at all. I give a seven year old a little more credit. Forcing the child to see their father in jail is different, though.

I can't help but joke. I've visited one of my parents while being held before and look at me, I'm kick-ass...

 

[Atheus]

I don't see why any man should be allowed near children at all if the mother doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't see why any man should be allowed near children at all if the mother doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?

The man is the father of the child.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't see why any man should be allowed near children at all if the mother doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?

The man is the father of the child.

so?

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Right after that a gunshot can be heard and then Elizabeth says, "Are you out of your mind?"

.

I think he listened to too much Dane Cook and the "punkass" segment.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't see why any man should be allowed near children at all if the mother doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?

The man is the father of the child.

so?

"Personally, I don't see why any woman should be allowed near children at all if the father doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?"

If this was a woman up for charges, I have trouble believing you would say this.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: TheNinja

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Right after that a gunshot can be heard and then Elizabeth says, "Are you out of your mind?"

.

I think he listened to too much Dane Cook and the "punkass" segment.

:laugh:

"He's really out of his fucking mind!"

 

[sdifox]

Depends on whether he has partial or full custody of said child. I don't think being in prison means you lose custody. The kids mother may ask another court for full custody and might get it but til such time, his visitation rights should not be revoked.

Whether the kid should be compelled to visit him in the holding cells is a completely different matter.


Did not know that Rick is short for Patrick...

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't see why any man should be allowed near children at all if the mother doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?

The man is the father of the child.

so?

"Personally, I don't see why any woman should be allowed near children at all if the father doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?"

If this was a woman up for charges, I have trouble believing you would say this.

If the woman was up for violent charges she should lose most of her rights to the kids IMO, but women are rarely up for violent charges, and almost all child abuse is by men.

And of course I wouldn't say 'why take the risk' for women becasue thet's the whole point - the men are the risk.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't see why any man should be allowed near children at all if the mother doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?

The man is the father of the child.

so?

"Personally, I don't see why any woman should be allowed near children at all if the father doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?"

If this was a woman up for charges, I have trouble believing you would say this.

If the woman was up for violent charges she should lose most of her rights to the kids IMO, but women are rarely up for violent charges, and almost all child abuse is by men.

And of course I wouldn't say 'why take the risk' for women becasue thet's the whole point - the men are the risk.

I'd like to see statistics supporting your claim that most child abuse is by men. I'd imagine that women beat the shit out of kids a lot too...

 

[daniel1113]

Damn those extreme scenarios. They ruin everything.

This is why I believe it is imperative to treat individual cases separately. Given due process, I really don't have a problem with your theoretical worst pedophile in the history of the world losing visitation rights with his son. Similarly, given due process, I wouldn't mind the same happening with the real father from the story.

However, unless there is an overwhelming amount of tangible evidence (such as the thousands of photographs in your example rather than a witness testimony), I would be extremely disappointed in any judge that enables the government to limits someone's rights like that.

I realize there is a certain level of inconsistency in my view, but I think that's the nature of these situations. Nothing is absolute. I probably shouldn't have used such absolute terms in my previous post.

It would also be very easy to come up with an extreme case of the opposite nature. Imagine a scenario in which a father was charged with being a pedophile based on doctored imagines (i.e., he was set up). Or, if you don't think it could happen, perhaps someone simply placed thousands of child porn photos on his personal computer and then called the cops. Should he lose his visitation rights?

 

[TallBill]

I have no clue, I'm not a part of the Florida legal system, and personal opinions don't matter.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't see why any man should be allowed near children at all if the mother doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?

The man is the father of the child.

so?

"Personally, I don't see why any woman should be allowed near children at all if the father doesn't want it. There's nothing positive that can come from it and why take the risk?"

If this was a woman up for charges, I have trouble believing you would say this.

If the woman was up for violent charges she should lose most of her rights to the kids IMO, but women are rarely up for violent charges, and almost all child abuse is by men.

And of course I wouldn't say 'why take the risk' for women becasue thet's the whole point - the men are the risk.

I'd like to see statistics supporting your claim that most child abuse is by men. I'd imagine that women beat the shit out of kids a lot too...

Maybe some women do but I would think they are less likely to cause serious damage and of course the damger of sexual abuse is only present with men.

I admit I have no stats though. It's just something I always thought I knew.