Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy
But why should the children be punished for her crimes?
|
Crimes? Whose crimes? I don't recall reading that the 2 cases I cited involved crimes..
IMO the main 'crime' here is a system which allows this sort of situation to arise in the first place.
If you're referring to the 'fake' Somalian are you saying that she shouldn't be severely punished because doing so might harm her children in some way? If so, at what point (if ever) would you deem a crime she committed so serious that it'd be acceptable for the state to impose a punishment which would, by your definition, harm her children?
Children should never be punished for what their parents do but real life isn't like that is it. All children have to live with the actions of their parents, good or bad. I'm not sure what your point is but if it is that the state should have no right to intervene what would you suggest it do in cases where people insist on having children they can't afford or can't/won't look after? Should it just turn a blind eye and continue to pay out more and offer larger and larger houses to people on benefits simply because they happen to want to keep having children? What size house should the unemployed mother of 13 have been offered had all her kids not been taken into care? How much in benefits? Should it be never ending so as to ensure the children don't suffer? If you do accept there has to be a limit then what do you propose to do about those whose personal choices cause their needs to exceed the available provision? Are the children in these cases not going to suffer in some way? The funds for all of this are finite and I wonder how many other deserving families are having to survive on far less and live in conditions far worse than these people are.