Should an alleged murderer have visiting rights...

[Atheus]

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

great post thx.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Atheus

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

great post thx.

You're welcome

 

[Baked]

No. Should've thought of the consequence before he did the crime. Innocent before proven guilty my ass. If that's true, why do you need to keep them in jail. :roll:

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: 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.

The fact that you feel as though a woman should have a greater right to make decisions for her child than the father makes your opinion on this null and void. This isn't a debate over mom vs. dad. This is an issue regarding the legal rights of a father that has been taken into custody and weather or not the mother of the child has violated his rights by denying him the chance for visitation.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: Baked
No. Should've thought of the consequence before he did the crime. Innocent before proven guilty my ass. If that's true, why do you need to keep them in jail. :roll:

So they don't flee. They have a certain amount of time to detain and try someone accused of a crime. There has to be progress in the case. If no progress is made then he is allowed to be let go. A judge determines how long they have to make a case and weather or not that person being held is aloud to be let out on bail. Once they bail they still have to go to court weeks or so down the road. All this time they are still not guilty of the crime they have been accused of. In serious cases like this, no bail will be set because they simply don't want the accused person taking off before they are tried in court.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Atheus
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 you would just do it if she was up for charges? Not convicted of charges, but accused? Does innocent until proven guilty mean nothing anymore?

Also, how in the hell is the man going to abuse the child while in prison? It's a freaking supervised visit. Even if he was out on bail, at the very least he should be allowed a supervised visit. I'm not saying send him out camping with the guy for the weekend, but completely cutting him off before convicted is kind of far IMO.

Finally, based on your post, you said the woman should lost MOST of her rights, but the man should lose ALL of them? Seems kind of weird now doesn't it. Remind me again though why a man accused of a violent crime is more dangerous around his kids than a woman accused of a violent crime? Because statistically (with no stats) men are more likely to abuse a child, it's okay to take the risk with a woman?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Alleged? Yes. No questions about it.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: Atheus
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 you would just do it if she was up for charges? Not convicted of charges, but accused? Does innocent until proven guilty mean nothing anymore?

Fair point but obviously if you're going to jail awaiting trail you are losing most of your rights anyway aren't you?

Remind me again though why a man accused of a violent crime is more dangerous around his kids than a woman accused of a violent crime?

In my opinion men are almost always more dangerous than women - from a physical/sexual violence point of view anyway. As I said it's just what I believe it's not something I could prove with statistics even if I had the motivation to try.

 

[ManyBeers]

Until he is tried and convicted I think he has the right at visiting hours to see whoever Wants to see him. If the boy wants to see his father and the mother has a hardship in delivering the kid to jail, maybe some alternative arrangements can be made. Perhaps the grandparents or other relations, or a family friend would offer to take him.

 

[BoomerD]

Since he hasn't been convicted, (yet) I say he has visitation RIGHTS, but if the child doesn't want to visit the dad, that's his right as well.

Hell, even if he's convicted, he should still have the right to see his kid.

 

[hanoverphist]

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?

wtf? i have custody of all 3 of my kids, their mom doesnt. you're going to tell me i cant raise my own kids if the mom says no?

the mom wants to move away from the county and take the child with her, he has partial custody of that child. she cant move until he is convicted and she applies for sole custody, unless he allows it. im assuming he likes his son, wants to see him. he is keeping up with the innocent bit for now, so he really shouldnt be kept from seeing his son if his son wants to see him.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

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?

wtf? i have custody of all 3 of my kids, their mom doesnt. you're going to tell me i cant raise my own kids if the mom says no?

the mom wants to move away from the county and take the child with her, he has partial custody of that child. she cant move until he is convicted and she applies for sole custody, unless he allows it. im assuming he likes his son, wants to see him. he is keeping up with the innocent bit for now, so he really shouldnt be kept from seeing his son if his son wants to see him.

That person you quoted is NUTS!! and it should be ignored.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

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?

wtf? i have custody of all 3 of my kids, their mom doesnt. you're going to tell me i cant raise my own kids if the mom says no?

the mom wants to move away from the county and take the child with her, he has partial custody of that child. she cant move until he is convicted and she applies for sole custody, unless he allows it. im assuming he likes his son, wants to see him. he is keeping up with the innocent bit for now, so he really shouldnt be kept from seeing his son if his son wants to see him.

That person you quoted is NUTS!! and it should be ignored.

Yeah null and void.

 

[dullard]

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.

I came in to post the exact same thing. I'm glad people are coming in here and agreeing with you.

Far too many court battles are about what the parents want - not what the kids need.

 

[Zebo]

I'm with Vito. No way should a kid be dragged though cell blocks and reprobates to see his dad accused of murder.

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: dullard

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.

I came in to post the exact same thing. I'm glad people are coming in here and agreeing with you.

Far too many court battles are about what the parents want - not what the kids need.

Indeed - Heaven forbid that while "Somebody please think of the children" we should consider the actual children.