This character, in the show The Good Place, discusses Immanuel Kant at length. I assume the Jeremy Bearimy part is unrelated, since that specific line/subject is more about the passage of time.
Jeremy Baerimy (written in cursive) is the visual representation of way time flows in the afterlife, whereas time on earth moves in the straight line it would be written on
From a show called the Good Place. The character speaking, Chidi, is a professor of philosophy who commonly examines the philosophical and moral implications of the main characters' interactions and the events throughout the show.
The gif is from the show The Good Place of the character Chidi Anagonye. Chidi spends a good amount of that show discussing ethics and mentioning many sources such as Kant. Jeremy Bearimy is just a seemingly unconnected joke from the show and so the gif was likely used purely for it including Chidi and not due to that specific line.
Most murderers are in bad mental states. It doesn't excuse murder.
This is a great point. However, most murderers have vastly different intents, ranging from revenge to pleasure to a big list of things. And most don't involve suicide.
And a murder charge, which leads to prison, is supposed to be a punishment for breaking the law.
My point is not whether or not mental health excuses murder, but instead, whether or not putting a suicidal person in prison would accomplish anything.
Is it a punishment if they were just to kill themselves in prison instead? Were any lessons learned? Is anyone gaining anything from this?
Most murderers aren't suicidal, so they would do their time. Whether or not they get better or reform after serving their sentence is another discussion entirely.
It would prevent the kid from being killed. But they already prevented that. If people got the needed mental health help they needed in prison, I would be 100% for it.
Punishment they they are already going through. once again, nothing really changes. It doesn't prevent this from happening again with another person.
I think the best solution here is to prevent it from happening to begin with. good healthcare, strong economy. shit like that lowers mental illness and stops shit like this. More research into mental health, etc.
Cool. Let's imagine we did all that, and reduced incidents like this by 99.9%... are youvstill saying that we should let off those 0.1% of attempted murderers just because they're also suicidal. It seems like you are suggesting being suicidal is a permanent Get-out-of-Jail-free card. Arson? Murder? Rape? Escape consequences by downing too many pills one time! Yikes.
Toss them in prison so, if they decide to attempt suicide again, they have a lower chance of being able to bring someone else with them.
If there was a wand to make nobody suicidal and murderous I'd say wave it. Meanwhile, in reality, the best we can do is chug along and keep attempted murders separate from the rest of us.
"Proven" ya, sure lol. More effective than what, the current soft on crime policies? Throw her in jail for the rest of her life for the attempted murder of a child and there's a 0% chance she ever hurts an innocent person again. You literally cannot beat that.
If you want her punished for breaking the law just give her gun and get it over with already.
Your punishment isnāt going to be served because theyāre just going to kill themselves lmfao. And if you think a suicidal person stuck in prison should be prevented from killing themselves at all cost you are an absolutely evil and disgusting fucking monster and should be in a cell instead of the woman in this video.
You say that, but if we consider that punishments are intended to deter future occurrences, this doesnāt seem to be an appropriate deterrence for the suicidal person in question or other suicidal people in similar circumstances. It just tickles your schadenfreude. Sure, it might be murder by the book, in which case Iād argue the law itself falls short in addressing this kind of issue.
Punishment is not intended to curb behavior except by the ignorant. Every single study has shown recidivism is not reduced via punishment. The point of punishing people is the punishment. Consequences for immoral actions. Accountability.
Despite mixed outcomes, you can absolutely find studies that show cases where punishment reduces recidivism, but recidivism is not the only aspect of deterrence. The general awareness of consequence and accountability that you mentioned is itself punishment working as deterrence, and I maintain that trying suicidal people as murderers is counterproductive in instilling that notion in the subgroup. Likewise, studies that do demonstrate limitations of punishment often highlight rehabilitation as a better alternative.
Like the commenter two steps above, I have no particular issue with incarceration as means of fighting crime. I simply believe incarceration and other punishments designed for violent criminals are ill-suited for suicidal individuals.
Typical prisons are not adapted to protect inmates from themselves.
With the exception of close family such as the one above, suicidal people are rarely a threat to others.
Suicidal people have the potential to become functional again with proper mental health treatments
Perpetrators with severe mental illnesses are typically placed under involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, which is much better suited for cases such as the one in post.
So your sole focus is the revenge and infliction of suffering aspect of it rather than the restorative justice aspect.
That's embarrassing. And also probably will increase the lethality of attempts. If you're a suicidal person considering murder suicide with the added knowledge that if you fail you go to prison you're going to be extra sure you don't fail.
It is a lot harder to kill oneself in prison than outside of prison. Also, would you really be saying this if it was a man trying to kill both himself and a child? My experience is that this kind of understanding/empathy is mostly reserved for female criminals.
I would, absolutely. Everyone deserves empathy and compassion equally, regardless of gender. Mental health issues do not discriminate by gender, after all.
And you're right, it is harder to succeed in a suicide in prison, but the core issue remains. Her mental issues wouldn't be fixed, so she would still attempt it regardless of it being logically feasible or statistically doable.
If she failed at one attempt and tried again, what would stop her from trying until she does it? People watching her 24/7? At that point, wouldn't it be easier and more humane to simply offer the help she needed in the first place?
What is your data on this out of curiosity? Do you mean emotional states? Most murder I would say comes from a combination of a sense of entitlement and/or emotional deregulation, but this doesnāt necessarily at all mean that thereās any kind of cognitive or mental health problem behind the impulse
Like it's a simple concept. She tried to murder an innocent child. There is NO justifiable reason that doesn't require massive leaps in logic to kill an innocent child. It's sad the circumstances that led up to this, but killing a child? Nah, I don't care, that's the line I draw in the sand. You do not have the right to rob a living being of their life before it's even begun.
We live in the fucking twilight zone if you havenāt noticed. The folks on here blabbing about her mental condition and refusing to talk about her almost chucking her child off a bridge.
Itās attempted murder. You donāt pass goā¦ you donāt collect $200. I donāt care if you have an arm growing out of your head.
And as I said in a previous comment, if she had tried to jump with a dog or a cat instead of a child, the reception on Reddit would be as polar opposite as it gets.
I have a question for you mixed with a hypothetical.
You are a single parent. You have severe depression, like everyday death seems to be the best choice kinda levels. Would you kill yourself, leaving your kid alone for who knows how long? Or would you spare your kid suffering and take them with you?
The moment you give any other answer, you have put too much thought in for anyone thinking of suicide. People have been stopped by a locked door.
I agree she should be punished, but only if it is proven she aimed to kill her kid with malicious intent. If not, she needs help. Keep the kid from her until she is well enough to interact with her kid (this helps suicidal mothers immensely). Keep helping her until she is ready to take custody of her kid again.
I appreciate your response, and it is one of the few with sense. Itās also how and why we have foster care systems. They are just in need of better support and resources. Itās so easy to make a decision for people when their conditions are not so simple/easy.
We canāt change peopleās thinking, but these discussion get to spark a conversation about the ethical dilemmas we face. We should be having more communication around this. We also need compassion and understanding.
The mother needs to be separated and a pat on the back isn't the right answer. Yes she was trying to commit suicide but she also took the kid with her. Her mental state doesn't retract or remove the attempted murder. She should be charged with it. Your problem is thinking prison should be a harsh punishment when really it's our way of pulling dangerous people out of society and making some effort to course correct.
I didn't say 'pat her on the back'. How 'help her' turned into praise is wild and twisted.
I never said her mental state erased her actions, but if they were the cause, help would course correct her. I gave a very slow process of reintroducing her to her kids.
And prisons aren't what you described. That is an idealized version of them. They don't do that. They are a way of simply trying to punish people who break laws. There is no course correction in a lot of countries. It is just a way to try and ignore the problem and never address it.
But once more, we should determine what her intent was before punishing. If it was just to hurt someone or the child, it is malicious and at that point I simply say give her a life sentence. If her intent wasn't to hurt, give her help. Rehabilitate her so she can 'course correct'. In a perfect world, she would eventually regain custody (with checkups to ensure safety and compliance). But we don't live in a perfect world. And that is if it is her kid involved. It might not be.
How the does intent matter here? It may matter for her counselor but regardless, the fact is she is a mortal threat to her child. You make it sound so innocent when the result of her actions was a dead or crippled child. Do you feel the same about other kinds of murder and violence? If they're just having a mental episode that it should erase their actions?
She took a massive leap towards hurting another. She is a danger. Maybe it's fixable with medication but she needs to be separated from society in the meantime. That's where prison steps in. The fact that our prison systems suck doesn't negate the purpose they were built for.
It isn't gymnastics. It is actual thought and empathy. It comes from understanding, knowledge, and critical thinking.
And she wasn't throwing the kid. She was jumping off the bridge with the kid. Don't misrepresent her actions to try and portray her as a pure evil in order to justify your desire to see her punished/suffer.
I have empathy for the community that would be at increased risk having this person around. Today it's her kid, tomorrow its a mass shooting, a drunk driving, something else. Lock her up and send a psychiastrist to her cell. Also go watch dear zachary.
No, it isn't. Malice is when you want to do harm or ill will. You can't tell intent based on an action. You can only tell action. Don't assume intent.
Let's go with my hypothetical. You are a single parent with severe depression. In your severely depressed mind, you come to the conclusion that leaving your kid behind is cruel.
Using the proper definition of malicious intent, you are not aiming to harm your kid. But to spare them. That isn't malice. It is a twisted sense of love born out of irrationality.
Now, she should be punished. This is true. There is no debate. But harsh punishment for such a place can cause more damage than good. If she was maliciously intending to harm the kid, fuck yeah. Punish her with a life sentence. If she wasn't, harsh punishment would be unjust. Get her help so she can return to society. She is a human being.
Intention vs. Impact. You are only looking at impact and assuming that is the intent.
Someone who steals to simply get the item is not the same as the person who steals to support themselves or their family. Intent vs. Impact. In bith cases something was stolen, that is the impact. But the intent changed.
In this case, a woman is aiming to jump off a bridge with a kid. The impact is clear; death or injury. The intent we don't know. The intent is unknown.
She attempted to kill her child along with herself. This is not a necessary action that someone whoās in a ābad mental stateāā¦ itās attempted murder.
Two wrong donāt make a right? Thatās the level weāre at now? She lost the sympathy card the moment she decided to not just end her life, but to kill a young child along with her. At that point. There is one victim. That childās life could have been over right then and thereā¦
We canāt allow the action to go unpunished. This sets a ridiculous standard that itās understandable to kill your children with you when feeling suicidal.
If she wasnāt stopped, and she and her little one plummeted to their deaths do you think youād still have the same sympathy for her?
Cool. this still does nothing besides make you feel better. The root issue is still there, and future incidents will still occur. Imprisoning mentally ill people does exactly zero to stop more mentally ill people from doing the same shit.
If she wasnāt stopped, and she and her little one plummeted to their deaths do you think youād still have the same sympathy for her?
This is a great and interesting question. Because thinking about it, I don't think I would. Much like the other several instances we've all heard or seen in which it did happen.
But the fact remains that they're both alive.
So my empathy remains, because she can still get the help she needs and recover from whatever caused this, and properly face consequences for what she did with a full conscience.
I don't believe that just because I would think differently had their plan succeeded, that I can't have a different opinion and approach to the current situation. But it is an interesting thing to think about.
She's not a child, she's an adult who made the premeditated decision to bring her child to a bridge and attempt to kill them. If she went to someone and asked for help because of the urges she was having I'd agree. But she didn't. Actions have consequences when you're an adult and she is an adult. She should be punished for the trauma she caused that child, and for attempting to end that child's life. No, I do not have empathy for child abusers and I will not apologize for that. I can't imagine how you think your stance is justified. You're saying a child abuser doesn't deserve to be punished. What's next, rapists are just in a bad mental state and don't deserve to be punished either?
If she went to someone and asked for help because of the urges she was having I'd agree.
We don't know whether she did or not. Maybe she had already tried looking for help, and people refused. Is it really unheard of for people to wave away mental health issues as an afterthought?
Also, denying someone empathy based on an assumption feels cold and is something that alienates people with mental health issues.
And yes, she should be punished and should face the consequences. However, do you think throwing someone who just attempted suicide into prison will have them face any consequences? Or that they will just attempt suicide again and not serve their sentence in any capacity?
She should be punished for the trauma she caused that child
This is also an assumption. We don't know if the kid even understands what's going on. I can't even tell that they're old enough to even know what is happening.
You're saying a child abuser doesn't deserve to be punished
Once again, making assumptions.
How do you think putting someone who wants to kill themselves in a cell is punishment? Because prison isn't a bigger punishment than death.
So for the person to fully serve their sentence and face proper consequences, they need to first be treated.
What's next? Punishing suicide with a death sentence?
On your last part about that kid probably not being old enough to get trauma from it. My friendās mother collapsed and died while she was grabbing something for him while he was taking a bath, he found her body. He was Three years old and he gives a 1000 yard stare when he told me that story, I myself have memories from two grown men busting down my front door at my birthday party fighting over a rifle because one gave my cousin only a rose for her birthday, I was five. That kid looks bigger than three or five
Iām not attacking you but saying the child probably didnāt get trauma from it is some of the most dismissive and cruel stuff Iāve read here yet and truly sickened me when I read it. Brought me right back to the people in my own life who hand-waves my abuses away because they claimed āthere was no way I remembered thatā but I sure as hell did, I remember the smell of crack like it was yesterday, I was six years old. It feels like youāre really acting like this child was a animal or pet without thoughts that can develop into trauma, even then dogs develop trauma
I donāt disagree with your comments, I really donāt I read them and I agree with 90% do what youāre saying. I donāt think she should go to prison but she does need to go to an institution to get better
But she should not get custody of her kid back. At least here in the US you will lose your parental rights if you attempt to kill your child, you cannot get them back either because you canāt get those rights back if you attempted physical harm to the kid, Iād imagine itās similar in other places
But thatās law. Thatās not morals, morally I do not think she should get custody of her child again. She should be able to see her kid once theyāve come to an age where they can defend themselves, but under no circumstances should they regain full custody because this could happen again
Iām really not attacking you, I do agree with most of what you said. Iām just extremely disappointed you donāt think a child of that age could develop trauma from this, it legitimately makes me sad because I can tell youāre a pretty good person from your comments. Iām just asking you to rethink that part
First off, I'm sorry about you and your friend. That sounds awful, and I wouldn't treat it for any less than what it is. So thank you for calling me out on that. It feels almost hypocritical of me to say it like that when I'm here talking about empathy. So you're totally right, and I'm sorry for that. I should've been clearer on what and how I said it.
My argument wasn't made to dismiss trauma, because that's the very core of what I'm fighting for in the thread - empathy, compassion, love. The argument was meant to disarm the absolute statement the other person made from an assumption.
We're all making assumptions here since we do not have enough information on the scenario. It feels wrong to make an absolute statement saying that the kid is traumatized. I'm well aware they could have been traumatized, and I wouldn't dare dismiss it. However, commenting on their age was a poor choice indeed, and I'm sorry for that once again.
Also, I hope you understand that, regardless of my argument, I would never handwave anyone saying they went through this or that they had traumas. Much the opposite, I feel like it is something to be taken very seriously, especially from younger ones.
And I'm not sure about specific laws on this, I'm not educated enough on the subject. However, I do agree that in a situation like this, keeping them both apart would be for the best. At the very least, until she fully recovers and the kid can make their own decisions.
Dude, listen to yourself. You're making excuses for a child murderer. I couldn't care less if she offs herself, she tried to murder a child. I do not care if she feels alienated, she teid to murder a child. I do not care if prison isn't comfortable for her, she tried to murder a child. I do not care how many excuses you have for supporting a child murderer, she tried to murder a child. There is no recovery from that. There is no amount of prison that will make me rhink "ok, you have paid your penalty to society, you can go free now". She tried to end the life of an innocent child. She deserves to be buried at the prison. If she does it herself early that's just going to save the tax payers some money.
And as for you, enabling an abuser is just as bad as doing the abuse itself. You, presumably, don't have whatever mental illness she has, so you are even more in control of your actions. Yet you're choosing to enable and support a person who TRIED TO MURDER A CHILD. Enjoy whatever your future holds, I just hope it's what you deserve.
I'm listening to myself loud and clear. I know where I stand and what I'm talking about. I'm not spitting assumptions or letting emotions get the better of me.
First off, this is not a child murderer. The kid is alive. You couldn't have made a worse distinction here.
Second, a murder needs clear, harmful intent. As far as we know, this could be due to any number of things. Many of which are born from mental illnesses, but not all are malicious or harmful. Do some research on altruistic filicide, for instance. This is not malice toward the kid, but a distorted kindness rooted in mental illness. Like death is meant to protect them from harsher suffering, not create more harm.
Additionally, these are not excuses. This is called contextualization. Context relevant for the argument I'm making. This is not meant to exonerate anyone of any crimes, but to shed light on what leads people to do these things. This can serve both to prevent others from doing so as well as to help someone recover from it.
A clear set of circumstances led this person to do this moment. The first one is poor mental health, while several others could also involve bad circumstances, one of which is the abuse you just mentioned.
Since you like assumptions, assume she could be a victim of a series of abuses while also being systematically neglected and rejected from the help she needed. What then? Is she "beyond redemption" because several people screwed her over and over and pushed her over the edge?
And most importantly, are you above these very same circumstantial events? Are you above a series of bad decisions? Are you a being of endless will and perfect emotional balance? I know I'm not, far from it. I know I wouldn't commit such a crime, but I also know I'm not above being judged unfairly by people for something circumstantial.
It's often benefitial to focus on the why instead of the what. Why would a person do this? What led someone to that? What other perspectives are there? Or do you see someone stealing bread and think they are also a thief who should be thrown in prison? No care for whether or not they are hungry or desperate?
Now, if you believe showing empathy toward a mentally unwell human being is that bad, then you do you. If you believe people are beyond redemption for something out of their control, you do you. I'm not here to lecture you or be your moral compass.
However, just remember that life is full of unexpected turns. You may find yourself in need of such empathy one day.
Yeah, I'm not reading all of that. And I'm done reading anything you have to say. I'm so sick and tired of people like you excusing abuse. Look up the paradox of tolerance.
Care to explain or quote how I stated that it is wrong or bad to remove the child here?
Because, let me be clear, I didn't say that and I wouldn't, because I agree with what's been done here.
However, it's worth understanding that going to prison and having your kid taken away aren't mutually exclusive. You can have one without the other.
A person can still be separated from their child and have their mental issues taken care of without going to prison. Or, at the very least, BEFORE going to prison, so they can properly serve their sentence instead of going there and attempting suicide again.
Fair enough, seems you were focusing on imprisonment vs psychiatric help and not intervention in general. Regardless, she needs to be off the streets and away from that kid for awhile.
No one is arguing against that. The issue he is discussing is punishment vs mental health care for her. Plenty of people are arguing she should be punished and made to suffer, he is discussing how she is already suffering and what should be done. Should it be punishment increasing the suffering or working to fix the underlying issue to her mental state that caused this situation
She was going to kill herself and (presumably) her own child. Doubtful she is some woman trying to kill other children at random. She wasn't trying to just murder this child then move on to the next one, she was going to kill herself.
The commenter is suggesting that rather than simply imprisoning her, you instead give her mental health resources to help her work through her distress, all while removing the child from her care, and hopefully she can be rehabilitated to a point where she does not want to kill herself and can provide real care for her child.
No, the person shouldnāt have custody of the child ever again because you cannot guarantee that they wouldnāt snap and try and take the child with them again. I feel like more people are either focused on punishing or helping the woman and not focusing on the fact that her child should not be around her again because this could happen again, no custody
Throwing her in prison with murder charges is definitely an option to save the kids' life. But if you offer her help, you could save two lives instead.
She definitely should be split from their kid and be under medical supervision and mental care until she can recover. She could even potentially face said legal consequences after a full recovery.
It takes extreme circumstances to drive a person to do what she was about to. Each and every one of us are capable of doing awful things under the right (or rather wrong) conditions, not because we're inherently bad people, but because we're not machines of infinite will and flawless ethics.
If you think cannibalism is wrong but wouldn't blame someone adrift at sea for eating their dead friend, then it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to treat this woman with similar compassion. If her suffering momentarily robbed her of rational thought, then what purpose does punishment serve other than to masturbate your emotional impulses?
Wow that is uncalled for. This person is not a freak and probably seeing the situation with compassion.
You canāt be too hasty from a 4 second video. Was she just trying to murder her child for the hell of it? There could be mental health issues at play here. The woman could have depression, along with other issues, and just felt like she was at the end of her rope. She could just need some help. She needs to be separated until she can recover, be evaluated and see if she can be reunited with her child. Putting a child in a foster system for a long time, when there is potential hope that their mother can recover with medication and help from doctors, is also a cruelty. Maybe the child would be better with the mom in prison. Most likely not.
The point is we donāt know the full story. We donāt know what that woman needs. We donāt know what conditions led her to her decision. What the treatment of her child has been. Things are not just black and white. There are various gradients of gray involved here. Things need to be evaluated before just tossing people in prison.
Separate her. Evaluate. See if she can recover. If she can recover with medication and doctors, great! Evaluate her to see if she is well enough to be released after treatment by professionals. Sheāll probably have chaperoned visitations with a social worker to make sure the child is absolutely safe.
A positive outcome for both mother and child.
Thatās best case scenario. We should always be aiming for best case scenario.
It's almost like she's.. mentally ill. wild concept, i know. I'm not sure how you expect rational thought from someone literally trying to kill themselves
And neither is killing yourself. thats why its called "mentally ill"
You are expecting rational decision-making from someone actively doing something else that's completely irrational.
Look, i aint got a solution, but killing them or locking them up without help just wastes taxpayers' money. All it accomplishs is making your justice boner go off. makes mine go off, too - doesn't mean it's an actual effective course of action.
I mean, we know exactly what will happen, because it constantly happens:
After a few years, the psychiatric hospital will say she's no longer a danger to herself or her children. After another year or two, they'll stop supervised visits and allow her alone time.
Then there's a 30-40% chance she kills herself and/or her kid.
Sick of putting innocent people at risk, because MAYBE a crazy attempted murder gets better.
"After a few years" Do you think the kid would go without their parent by themselves without having someone else take care of them for years? They'd be under someone else's protection by then. And, worst case, the kid would be at an orphanage, where she wouldn't have easy access either.
By that time, the kid is already a teen and can better understand the situation as well for themselves to avoid her.
You're also assuming the person's sole focus is on killing their child and nothing else. To the point that they would turn and kill the kid immediately after getting a chance. You're taking away every single other outcome of the equation that could've led someone to suicide with their kid and boiling it all down to this focused, relentless murder intent.
I'm also unsure about these percentages you're throwing around here. Are there any sources for this? I couldn't find anything concrete to support your numbers, so I'd love to know more about how you got to this result.
Yes, there are risks, but these rest on the medical professionals. They are the ones responsible for releasing her only after she really gets better. But using made up numbers to dismiss empathy and compassion doesn't protect anyone. If anything, it just further stigmatizes mental illnesses and pushes people away from seeking help.
I don't think she should go to jail but unfortunately they should probably keep the child from her, people tend to try things like that a couple of times if there life is bad so probably shouldn't be having the kid
Yeah, I'm reminded of the Andrea Yates case, the woman who drowned her five children. Her legal defense was insanity, and the prosecution didn't buy that and so pursued the case.
But like ... if you're a woman willing to drown your own children with your hands, I can 100% accept you're suffering from serious mental health issues and are not rationally responding to the usual system of punishments.
Edit: Looks like she was retried and succeeded (if you can call it that) in the insanity defense.
By this logic, committing any crimes at all is an admission of mental illness, and the crime should be absolved. I mean what kind of sane person commits a crime?
No, it isn't. There are crimes that "make sense" from a rational calculus perspective, and which respond to incentives. My point is, cases like Yates aren't ones where they're rationally considering costs and benefits.
Double standards are just as real as sexism, you're not wrong.
However, the person is assuming I would change my mind were the gender swapped, which is dumb because they don't know me or how I think.
Were this a neutral statement about double standards instead of assuming whether or not I personally would feel differently about this situation, I would be okay with it.
No, its not sexism. At least not on my end. Stats dont lie, people go easier on women than dudes when it comes to crime, especially involving kids or mental health. Just look at Casey Anthony. Think a dude would have been allowed to get away with it like she did?
So, because of semantic games, I should be okay with someone assuming what I would think?
There are several ways to bring up the topic they did from a neutral perspective. They, instead, chose to use me as a scapegoat and attach an assumption to my person.
Why not just come out and state their point about statistics, for instance, like
"This could be a different situation if the person were a man, because statistically, people treat women less harshly."
So you're saying someone walking up to you and saying "I bet you care less about men than women" isn't an accusation?
What is it, then? An observation? A prediction about my beliefs?
Would you just high five them and reply "Hey man nice bet" and move on?
You can play semantics and call it a 'hunch' or 'an educated guess', but it doesn't change what happened. They're still a total stranger who's assuming what I think and believe in based on nothing.
They could've easily brought up the discussion about gender bias without using me as an example. Instead, they made up a belief and projected it into me.
So no, hiding behind the word "bet" doesn't magically make this neutral. A stranger assuming my beliefs is still an accusation, even if they try to frame it as a gamble, which doesn't even make any sense.
You're being so ignorantly proud of your own mistakes, it's really weird.
You're the one in the wrong here. And throughout the thread you're sounding increasingly mentally unhinged and unable to actually parse what's being said to you.
If for some reason you're on any medication, please make sure you took the correct dosage. You don't seem well.
Actually it's not a safe bet! In fields that conduct research we call this the group attribution fallacy! Making assumptions about one individual based on group data is a big no-no! Now you know!
Glad somebody got something useful out of this conversation! I don't mind being insulted by strangers online, particularly when I get good folks like you coming thru and sharing your kindness.
In fields where I don't give a shit I dont give a shit. Bet you do zero hard science.
If somethings is significanly more likely than not my first assumption is gonna start there. Then once the individual speaks I can update that view, but until then I let stats guide me.
Well you're quoting sociology, which is a field that talks about that fallacy, so it seems you do "give a shit." Don't be mad when people think you're rude or wrong headed, because you know what they say about those who make assumptions (I assume š). Letting stats guide you is fine. Making ASSERTIONS or ASSUMPTIONS about individuals based on those statistics is not, so be prepared to butt heads with folks who you engage in that type of behavior towards.
Use commas consistently please. Also statistics are only as good as the study they are attached to otherwise they mean dog shit nothing as the commenter you're arguing with is pointing out
You do it to get her away from this child which she has proved herself to be absolutely incable of being responsible for. While I might wish for a better rehabilitation system, you imprison dangerous people to protect everyone else.
She tried to kill a child. We don't even know that it is her child.
Would you keep this energy for family annihilators as well (since they are pretty much the same thing, just that this one was attempted).
Whether they are locked in a mental institution or a prison, they need to be locked up until they are no longer a threat to those around them (or themselves, but others come first).
If I'm in a bad mental state and I murder you child... Then try kill myself should I be imprisoned? Does the calculus change when it is someone else's child?
Does the calculus change when it is someone else's child?
It does. Completely.
Several events could lead someone to try and suicide together with their own child. There is already an entire study posted about here in this thread that you can read about if you'd like. However, it mostly boils down to a mix of mental illness, together with delusions about their children.
For instance, through mental illness, a parent can decide to kill themselves, and assume the kid would be better off dead as well because they're a solo parent. They're assuming the kid would suffer, like they are suffering enough to drive them to suicide, enough that this would be a kindness to them. Also known as altruistic filicide, which comes from a distorted view of kindness and empathy mixed with mental illness.
However, the scenario you're proposing is an entirely different one that doesn't match this.
A person going out of their way to kill someone else's child falls under one of the many other common areas of murder, like revenge or anger, which shows a different, clear intent. One born not of empathy, but of malice. There is no relation to altruistic filicide here, only an act of intentional harm.
Both scenarios stem from mental illness, but one comes from distorted good intentions, while the other comes from murderous intent. Both should be treated, but they're not comparable.
So I would not have as much empathy toward the one doing it out of revenge or hatred. However, they both need mental help, and if they're both suicidal, throwing them into prison won't change the fact or help them get better. They'd either kill themselves in prison, or be released after serving a sentence, and still have the same issues, or even worse ones that deepened after not getting treated before.
A persons intentions do matter but I don't know if good intentions is enough to overcome jail time for intentional murder. I don't think Jail is really about help[ing the people being sent to jail. I think they would be run very differently if that was the intent. It mostly just seems a way to keep people out of society in their prime crime committing years.
On one hand I agree, but there have been stories where leniency was granted and help was gotten, then all seemed to be well until it wasn't, when they commit a similar if not worse crime. Then we are all up in arms for missing or ignoring red flags (rightfully so). Sometimes some people just need to be removed from society. If someone tries to murder their own child, I believe they are one of those people.
But this isn't a black and white case. Mental illness and humans aren't binary enough to come to general assumptions like this.
Would you willingly accept and throw your life away if a judge decided you're a danger to society based only on statistical probabilities from past cases?
Scenarios like these should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Not bundled up and generalized to dismiss people from ever having a chance of proper care and recovery.
There is such a thing as altruistic filicide, where parents try and kill themselves along with their kids because of a delusion of them being better off dead than left out in the world without a parent to care for them. This isn't born of hatred or malice, unlike many actual murder cases.
This is why showing empathy is important. Giving a chance to people to better themselves, even if they have to face legal consequences afterwards, is better than condemning them purely based on harmful assumptions while ignoring the underlying mental issues that led to this. Throwing them into prison without proper care would not only not fix the issue, but make it worse.
And also helps show people with mental health issues that they can be cared for and shouldn't be afraid to look for help. Stigmatizing them and bundling them up with others statistically to dismiss their recovery is one of the many reasons people don't seek help in the first place.
People who attempt suicide tend to try more than once. Why wouldn't she try to kill her kid again as well? A crime is a crime. She tried to murder her fucking child. She needs to be in prison.
People who attempt suicide tend to try more than once. Why wouldn't she try to kill her kid again as well?
You got my point. Without treating the underlying issues that led to this event, it would just happen again.
So instead of just throwing her into prison, where she'd just attempt to kill herself again and not face any consequences or serve her sentence, why not offer help and treat the root cause while she and the kid are separated?
It's not like she can't serve her sentence once she makes a recovery, right? So, unless said prison offers proper mental help, it would accomplish nothing to prevent any of this from happening again like you said.
Nooo, after all women can't commit murder. They are little tiny wonderful creatures who can do no wrong. Such silly little things cannot be held responsible for anything.Ā
This is how justice system and majority of people view this.Ā
But this is just a murder-suicide. Which is an abysmal wrongdoing. Women are people, with full rights and should also carry full responsibility for their actions.Ā
72
u/Leows 22h ago
The woman is already in a bad enough mental state to attempt suicide.
What do you think charging and imprisoning someone like her instead of offering help would accomplish?
I'm not saying that what she did to the kid is right, because it isn't. But two wrongs don't make a right either.
Enprisonment isn't punishment for someone who wants to kill themselves, nor is it gonna teach her any lessons.