Do Not Read This Thread

[English assassin]

One of the things that most depresses me about these sorts of stories is how many more similar stories there may be that never come to light. If not now, then in past years. There's a lot of misery in the world.

Also, I really don't understand how these sorts of things are still possible? I can live, I suppose, with social services not being able to spot many forms of abuse, at least for a period, but really, what was it about this case that made it so hard to pick up?

It seems to me than many of our systems are profoundly misdesigned, or misapplied, and spend most of their time endlessly investigating (you might go so far as harassing people for pretty minor transgressions, where the really huge cases simply go unchecked.

And then in the past there is the fact that it would have been much harder to do this, since neighbours, family, and that whole community thing would have been a check. The state does seem to be a poor substitute. Damn, at this rate I'm going to turn into a social conservative.

[Mooks]

I wish I wouldve followed your advice and not read this thread.

[Don Corleone]

Nothing compares to the tragedy of what happened to these three little girls, granted.

But there will be some that claim this is the reason why social services must be even more intrusive in each and every home.

Social services had the tools at their disposal, ALREADY. They CHOSE not to act. I think the local social services director should be brought up on charges. The mother is clearly deranged and needs to be in a padded cell, shot up with thorazine. It's the local bureaucrats that were so criminally negligent and indifferent to the plight of these children that I'd like to get my hands on....

And the father. Sigurd makes a good point. If the courts had barred his visitation rights, he should have fought for a neutral 3rd party to go check in on the girls. Were I him, I would take my life in as painful a fashion as I could think, like crawling feet-first into a woodchipper.

[Dutch_guy]

I wish I wouldve followed your advice and not read this thread.

Yes indeed, same here

[Lemur]

I wish I wouldve followed your advice and not read this thread.

Yes indeed, same here

I did not pick the title at random. Maybe I should have been more explicit, something along the lines of, "Warning: You Will Hate Humanity More If You Read This Thread," or something like that.

Sorry for the supreme downer, but I was so upset when I read the article, I couldn't keep it to myself.

[drone]

Best punishment for the mother would be to have her vocal cords removed and then be placed in the complete care of the children for the rest of her life.

[English assassin]

I think the local social services director should be brought up on charges

Yes, it would be nice if the UK crowd who are so hot for personal criminal liability for company directors also advocated criminal liability for social services directors when this sort of thing happens.

As Voltaire put it, pour encourager les autres.

Never going to happen though.

[Bijo]

Seven years is damned long. She will get punished, but that shouldn't be all.

This case should be a serious warning, and it shows that, imo, there must be more authoritarian (of some form) control, social control. Or to even root out the causes to prevent these things from occurring.

It just tires me when I read something horrible in the newspaper, or even online such as here, or on TV, about an occurred socially irresponsible act which could've been prevented if there was more and better social control in the first place. Bottom line solution for those who are in control, I think: prevent these things from taking place, and take care of the root of problems (- humans); make sure people from the moment they are born grow and behave properly - everybody. A sanction in the end when the deed has been done, will not help much, besides instilling fear into others to not commit socially irresponsible acts. But that's basically based on, at least seems to me, legal emotional vengeance.

It might seem "childish" for an authority to treat its citizens this way, like children(?), but if we don't act to take care of it, these sorts of things, socially irresponsible acts, will keep happening.

[ajaxfetish]

make sure people from the moment they are born grow and behave properly - everybody.

First of all, I don't think that's possible. Second, I don't think governments in general have shown by their track record that they'd be up to the task even if it was possible. Making people behave properly is traditionally in the realm of organized religion, so this sounds more like an argument for theocracy than anything.

Ajax

[Rameusb5]

This story is just awful. It is always so depressing to be reminded of how people can treat each other. And her own kids too.

Unfortunately, there's really nothing to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Imagine the same situation except the father left (and didn't want contact with the children) and the neighbors didn't notice or care.

They never would have found the girls.

It makes me want to vomit to think about how many cases are going on like this RIGHT NOW and yet we haven't discovered them yet.

As much as I'm against the death penalty, this is one case where the perpetrators need to die. Or at least suffer the exact same treatment that they doled out, even if it IS illegal.

[InsaneApache]

This case should be a serious warning, and it shows that, imo, there must be more authoritarian (of some form) control, social control. Or to even root out the causes to prevent these things from occurring.

Good grief. Do you really believe this claptrap? It's social control that handed this woman the opportunity to do this.

[Spetulhu]

This case should be a serious warning, and it shows that, imo, there must be more authoritarian (of some form) control, social control. Or to even root out the causes to prevent these things from occurring.

Good grief. Do you really believe this claptrap? It's social control that handed this woman the opportunity to do this.

It's social control out of control. The authorities are there but those with the right knowledge (law) and right qualifications (being female) can easily get the social workers on their side. Just say the right things and don't turn up drunk when meeting them.

How is it possible that a man must take his claim to see his children into court so many times? We believe the woman by default if she says he shouldn't get to see the kids. How is it possible that a neighbor must threaten legal action before someone checks on the kids? Lawyer mom used her knowledge to deflect every question before that. How is it possible the police never went to check on the kids? They called the social workers who said everything is fine, dad's just a psycho.

This mother is a psychopath, pure and simple. Husband leaves her so she takes the children and locks them in a room? She needs to be locked in a mental ward, with life in prison if she ever gets released from psych.

[ShadeHonestus]

George W. Bush is to blame somehow, someway...just waiting for the reason to be pointed out by Hillary.

[Adrian II]

George W. Bush is to blame somehow, someway...just waiting for the reason to be pointed out by Hillary.

I always thought gays, liberals and Democrats were to blame for this sort of thing, even if it happened in far-away Austria.

Seriously, there is no system that will prevent this sort of abuse, nor is there any system that we can justifiably blame for it. It has always been with us in all sorts of forms and guises. An authoritarian approach would not end it, but merely institutionalise the abuse in a new guise. There are indications that education and improved social conditions will eradicate the most blatant forms of abuse in a society, but that is as far as it goes. Whenever people have power over other people, this sort of thing is bound to happen now and again.

[Bijo]

A multiple related response post, if you people don't mind :)
___

@Ajax
Yeah, you're probably right about that, and I also think it wouldn't be possible. Still, we could hope for it, or something at all that would properly deal with it :) ...which leads me to...

@InsaneApache
I know what you're saying.
I'm no historian, or "qualified" being, but it seems that the separation of Church and State demoralized people. I'm not really religious, and the Church hasn't really been such a good honest entity either throughout history, manipulating people in bad ways as well as good ways, but I DO think some parts of religion are good to follow. For instance: certain virtues, "rules of living," etc... which leads me to my response below...

It's social control out of control. The authorities are there but those with the right knowledge (law) and right qualifications (being female) can easily get the social workers on their side. Just say the right things and don't turn up drunk when meeting them.

@Spetulhu
...So perhaps the Church must have bigger influence like they used to, or some form of it? Maybe the Church should control social control? I don't know, I'm just brainstorming :P


-edit- Just read Adrian's post.
Possibly right, but what if with some kind of authoritarian approach we would change people's morals, and future generations would not be bothered with these issues of control, power, etc.? Man, I'm just thinking... if we can achieve something like that, truly good moralistic societies, then do you think our base human instincts would still come back?
Ah, my wish is far-fetched

[Adrian II]

-edit- Just read Adrian's post.
Possibly right, but what if with some kind of authoritarian approach we would change people's morals, and future generations would not be bothered with these issues of control, power, etc.? Man, I'm just thinking... if we can achieve something like that, truly good moralistic societies, then do you think our base human instincts would still come back?
Ah, my wish is far-fetched

Worse, I believe it is wrong. No offense, it is just that I am an old cynic with jaded tastes and I do not believe in silver bullets for human problems anymore.

In essence, my point is this: all forms of social control are vehicles for these same base human instincts. Therefore, no single institution should be too powerful. Institutions should hold each other in check and be accountable to public control.

You see, the moment you establish some sort of strict supervision of parents, it is the supervisors who will be abusing some of the kids instead of the parents or guardians. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for all strict regimes. The present balance in Western society between parental responsibility, state regulation and social institutions (school, Church, neighbourhood), however tenuous, is your best bet when it comes to preventing abuse. And it is never foolproof.

I am against Church supervision. The Catholic Church does not have a good track record when it comes to protecting minors from sexual abuse, nor do some Protestant denominations. You don't want paedophile priests or rogue Televangelists looking after your kids. The state, too, has always failed as a guardian of children as well, be it in democratic, Soviet or religious garb.

As for all the calls for the death penalty and related punishments above, I have heard them all before. I loathe the illusion they feed on, i.e. the illusion that somehow evil can be fully eradicated from society. Such cures are always worse than the ailment.

I am also against the death penalty for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say here that if most people are afraid of the death penalty, the perpetrators of such horrid acts as described in the title post are almost always beyond that. The Jeffrey Dahmers of this world are not afraid of the electric chair, if anything the knowledge of their eventual execution makes them more reckless and resolute. Death may reward peoples' wish for revenge, but it will never, ever solve the issue.

[Spetulhu]

@Spetulhu
...So perhaps the Church must have bigger influence like they used to, or some form of it? Maybe the Church should control social control? I don't know, I'm just brainstorming :P

Well, if there was mandatory church attendance you'd have to let your children out for the duration.

But otherwise it would just exchange one control for another. Say the right things and you can still manipulate it. Godless social workers try to break the harmony of you home! Shutting daddy out might be harder in a religious system, but one can always tell the priests that psycho dad is an atheist. That should help them see that the father isn't fit to raise his kids.

[Adrian II]

But otherwise it would just exchange one control for another. Say the right things and you can still manipulate it.

Exactly. But in many cases you don't need to manipulate them; the supervising institution will attract some really nasty, manipulative people all by itself.

I believe that all positions of power attract a quota of psycho's, sadists and losers who seek revenge for their empty or failed lives, in particular if these positions are more or less inconspicuous. The second and third echelons, so to speak. In a democratic society they are usually kept in check by public opinion and by the counterbalance of rival institutions. Nonetheless, even in a democracy you have your sadistic drill sergeant or prison guard, your repressed cleric, your manipulative social worker, teacher or civil servant.