In this case it seems even more obviously bad to factor this since she got pregnant when she knew she was going to trial and likely to be convicted. Some even say the defense team wanted her pregnant for the trial. If the rule is "if you have a baby you don't have to go to jail" what type of moral hazard is this?
this case got me thinking, clearly Holmes needs to be punished for wrong doing, clearly there also needs to be a deterrence, and yet the trade off in damaging the life of an innocent seems unnecessary for me. What kind of penalty would serve the first two aims yet not result on the third?
I would still argue you are to fixated on the singular case of the child. The harm Holmes did here effected hundreds if not tens of thousands of people extremely negatively (think of all the years/funding for bio research thrown down the toilet) and any future deterrence of behavior like this is worth it.
What?
It's a reasonable compromise that we punish the male in this situation more harshly than the female because he couldn't get himself pregnant during the trial?
That's not reasonable in any sense of the word. Even less so when you read through all the details and realize that Elizabeth was not an abused, cowed underling of the Balwani mastermind, but an active, and in many cases, initiating and driving part of the crimes they committed.
If that was the logic, Balwani would have a pretty solid grounds for appeal. "We're punishing you more because your co-conspirator has a kid now".
What if someone doesn't have a child when they're arrested but, due to the complexity of the case, they're able to get pregnant and have a baby before sentencing?
That would be a good way to avoid prison, no?
- do you advocate for the same lenience for all parents of young children (including e.g. those convicted of violent crimes)?
- do you advocate for the same lenience for people who become parents between arrest and sentencing?
However he is young and shouldn't be prevented from visiting mommy in prison, but that doesn't mean society has to let mommy go (or even do a reduced sentence or an alternate sentence).
Many, many, many children already lose a parent to crime (either by them being murdered or them being the murderer).
If we make the case that a criminal should receive a lessor sentence because it impacts their child, does that mean that any single mom or dad who robs a business should be able to get the same treatment? A reduced sentence for armed robbery, for example?
Continuing to play devils advocate here: how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image?
My own 2 cents: from the literature I’ve read about Elizabeth Holmes, it would not shock me that having a child was part of the defense’s strategy.
How do you know a 16-year old single mother will create apropriate atmosphere? Should we perhaps mandate abortions to anyone who hasn't passed an exam and hasn't been issued a breeding licence?
The way this works today, a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty.
Nobody is talking about 16 year olds or abortions. Are you sure you’re not deliberately changing the topic and really are debating in good faith?
Why do you believe it’s appropriate to compare a random 16 year old with a convicted criminal, who is awaiting sentencing?
> a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty
And no one is arguing against that. You’re making a straw man argument.
Well, if you can question innate right in this situation, maybe you can question them in other situations too? Then do we even have rights, to parenting, family life an others?
For a crime you render the punishment as prescribed in law, no more, no less.
The world could stand to use more empathy. If we can't find any for a small child being torn away from their mother, we are broken humans in need of repair.
If Elizabeth Holmes had succeeded in her endeavour her child would likely have been raised by a nanny
"Due _entirely_ to the conscious, calculated, criminal and repeated actions of their mother" is quite the caveat to your statement, no?
There are many many loving homes. The child's father is absolutely capable of raising the child, no?
What you're actually asking for is empathy for this child ("who did nothing wrong") over empathy for the victims of criminal activity (who also "did nothing wrong").
The child is innocent but the mother is weaponizing her fetus and using it as a pawn. What is an appropriate answer or solution for the mother (ab)using the child as a hostage tactic?
There are lots of thriving and competent single parents out there. The kid can live with and be raised by daddy. In fact, the father has so much money and resources there is no reason for this kid to ever want for anything.
I obviously don't know anything personally about Mrs. Holmes, but given her husband's wealth she can be assured any children she has will be provided for even if she is in prison for the rest of her life.
How is this good, considerate, or fair to your child?
There are no billionaire heirs dumb enough to have a child with an incarcerated woman. There is at least 1 foolish enough to have a child with a woman with pending charges however.
Should we apply the categorical imperative?
You are being (as I read and reply) down-voted but that is a valid point. The government will prosecute parents for what they do to their children but under another circumstance the government will not take child impact into account (in the sentence) that is what that sentence does harmfully to children. Irony.