And the key word is "hope". You are right, you do your best to teach and raise and you have to let them go. Try and strong arm them and you end up with the preachers daughter who is the biggest slut in town. You just have to trust them to do the right thing. I'm cool with what I've done to this point. So far it has held water. I "hope" it continues. I still don't think drugs should be legal though.
Legal but strongly regulated. I'm ok with cocaine and meth and heroin being illegal but not criminalized unless you are distributing to children, or distributing bad product. Luckily I think I'm in a spot to be completely honest with my kid about the negative effects of certain drugs. Instead of a bunch of people who have zero experience with them about what they do.
The best any of us can do is teach our kids as well as possible. With me, nothing is off-limits for discussion with my girls. My 13-year-old and I were watching the NFL last fall, and a Cialis commercial came on. She asked me, "What's rectile dysfunction?" So I told her in no uncertain terms. I ended it with, "Any questions?" Nope. She didn't have any. But I don't want either girl to feel like she can't discuss something with me. I try to nudge them gently in the right direction, but absolutely, I believe the strong arm is the wrong way to go. I had to tell my husband a month or so ago that respect from your kids is something you earn, not that you demand.
I have mixed feeling about this case. Clearly the woman was irresponsible and broke a drug law. It is entirely proper for her to be punished for it and to lose custody of the child until she is clean and sober. On the other hand, 12 years in prison just because her child was a victim seems a bit excessive. Meth is extremely addictive and addicts cannot control their cravings for the drug. They shouldn't get the same sentence as those that intentionally abuse their children. Long sentences does not deter addiction, addicts are under the control of the drug, not of their own logic. Better here would have been a 2-year sentence and 10 years of probation where she had to stay drug-free. The child would at least have a mother and the mother would have to deal with whatever consequences her actions did to her child.
I don't know the facts of the case (I bet y'all get tired of hearing that dontcha?) but 12 years does seem a bit excessive. Depending on her criminal history, a drug court program may have been the better option. Back her up with a shit ton of suspended time, put her in an inpatient treatment program, then through a court supervised drug court where she's got to take regular (but unannounced) drug tests, go to meetings, go to individual counseling, get a job and essentially get her shit together. Place the child in foster care but make successful completion of drug court a part (and just ONE part) of her reunification plan for getting her child back. Under such strict supervision, she'll either actually acknowledge her addiction and get help or she'll mess up and go away for a long time. I suppose it comes down to whether you believe the criminal justice system is mostly about rehabilitation or punishment.
12 years is excessive in my mind. Her drug use wasn't a victim less crime, and something beyond standard sentencing is warranted. Instead of extra jail time some type of super rehab program, and really strict probation.
Prison doesn't rehabilitate anyone. Its like a college for criminals. Throw a young crook in prison and he comes out as a better criminal. You might think they would think "I hate this shit. I'm going to get my life straight so I don't end up back here." But in most cases its the exact opposite. The intentions may have been to rehabilitate or punish but the real purpose is to keep criminals off the street so they can't commit any more crimes against the people until he is finally released.
That's kinda my point. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that prison rehabilitates anyone. (With some very rare exceptions and, in Louisiana, it's a bit ironic that the best rehabilitative prison services are generally only available to those who will never get out of prison. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/angola_inmates_are_taught_life.html). So then the question becomes, "What can we do -- within the confines of the criminal justice system -- to attempt to rehabilitate generally non-violent first offenders so they don't end up in prison?" That's where things like probation, drug courts come into play. And don't get me wrong -- even in the best possible world those programs fail more often than they succeed. Where does that leave us? Back at square one -- putting people into prison, where their chances of recidivism increase. Another answer to that problem might be, "Well lock em up and throw away the key." But that's expensive and then you run into the problem of elderly prisoners with serious, chronic medical issues and what do we do with them? I see the problem but I don't have an answer. One suggestion -- from Texas no less -- that seems to work is more rehabilitative services and shorter stays for parole violators. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/texas_puts_more_people_in_trea.html (Hell, I actually encourage you or anyone to read that whole series the Time-Picayune did.)
Yeah I get it, it just REALLY pisses me off when people hurt kids, especially ones that haven't even been born yet. Oh but wait, they aren't people yet right? Another argument for a different fight I know. It just really pisses me off. There is enough crap in this world that we don't need to take it out on kids. I have zero sympathy for anyone that does.
