• jimbolauski@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Did you miss my big, big disclaimer? “excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent”.

    Only in a perfect scenario would there be no abuse, so it’s nonsensical to ignore it. The reality is how bad will the abuse have to be before this program is deemed a failure.

    Given that the parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence?

    There was no due process to kidnap the kids. Part of the parents sentence was not loss of custody. If you look at history the state has been a much more terrible guardian.

    • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      There was no due process to kidnap the kids. Part of the parents sentence was not loss of custody.

      Source? It’s an official govt program being run by a judge. Not even those opposing the program are claiming it’s against the law, they’re just saying it’s a bad idea.

      If you look at history the state has been a much more terrible guardian.

      Worse than grooming the kids to be crime lords? It’s a closely scrutinised program, and nobody’s calling shenanigans on the implementation, not even the kids being interviewed. It might not work out, that’s true, but I am not seeing a reason that it would be a definite failure.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        Source? It’s an official govt program being run by a judge.

        I’ll know this may sound strange but just because it’s a government program does not mean due process is followed. Loss of custody was not part of sentencing, these are additional conditions applied after sentencing.

        Worse than grooming the kids to be crime lords? It’s a closely scrutinised program, and nobody’s calling shenanigans on the implementation, not even the kids being interviewed.

        The interviews published were hand selected, the articles are very biased. I’ll sumerize a different way, only 3 of the 100 kids taken from their parents did not speak poorly about their experience.

        I am not seeing a reason that it would be a definite failure.

        One of the foster centers is the Catholic church. Nothing mixes better than Catholic priests and children.

        • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Due process means the law was fairly applied and their rights were respected. I agree and understand that a govt program does not mean this is the case. In the absence of any countervailing evidence however, that would be the default assumption.

          The interviews published were hand selected, the articles are very biased. I’ll sumerize a different way, only 3 of the 100 kids taken from their parents did not speak poorly about their experience.

          I agree with you there. The kids are not under a gag order though. Is there any other article or source that indicates a different situation from the one described here?

          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            Due process means the law was fairly applied and their rights were respected.

            Additional sentencing was added, a parent or parents went to jail and their kids were taken from them.

            that would be the default assumption.

            Trusting the government to do the right thing is a poor idea. Politicians will only do the “right” thing if it helps them out.

            I agree with you there. The kids are not under a gag order though. Is there any other article or source that indicates a different situation from the one described here?

            That usually starts trickling out much later, look at how long it took for the truth to come out about troubled youth camps.

            • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 days ago

              Additional sentencing was added

              How is that additional sentencing? In essence, they proved themselves to be unfit parents (because, you know, the whole grooming for crime thing), and had their kids removed due to that. It’s like if you lost your job because you were convicted of a crime. That’s not additional sentencing, that’s just a consequence of your actions

              Trusting the government to do the right thing is a poor idea. Politicians will only do the “right” thing if it helps them out.

              Without any information, this is just idle conspiracy theorising. It’s not even about politicians, since from the sound of it this came from regular govt officials, not elected politicians.

              • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 days ago

                It’s like if you lost your job because you were convicted of a crime. That’s not additional sentencing, that’s just a consequence of your actions.

                The difference there is the state is doing both things for the same crime, and employment is a conditional agreement.

                Without any information, this is just idle conspiracy theorising.

                Blindly trusting that the government would do the right thing requires a severe lack of understanding of history.

                It’s not even about politicians, since from the sound of it this came from regular govt officials, not elected politicians.

                Elected officials are the ones who hold regular govt officials accountable.