Dying Girl Denied Chance To Visit Father

I must say that I disagree with you and will not budge from my position just as you will not budge from yours. I feel that she should be able to spend her remaining time with her father. Then he should go back and finish his debt to society.

This is one of those instances where political BS can be put aside and an execption to policy should be made. The man is not looking for a pass to go out on the town to pay a conjugal visit to the hookers in Vegas, he is going to spend final quality time with his daughter.

I'm done with this topic.

I understand your points, and I have always respected your opinions.
But it leaves me with three questions that no one can seem to answer.
1- Why does he deserve to spend quality time with his daughter?
2- What happens when the serial rapist and murderers decide they need to go see a dying relative too? Once you set that precident, then what? Where is the line drawn?
3- (or more a 2b question) Did anyone call the families of who this guy sold meth to, to ask thier opinions? I can safely assume there are plenty of families out there that he ruined...maybe some daughter / son out there without a father, or some family in shambles due to this guy selling that drug...did anyone ask them if it was OK that this dealer should be allowed out to see his daughter die?
What if it was you? (a general hypothetical question) What if your wife had an addiction to meth and it ruined her and your life, and it trickled down to your kids, would you be so easy to forgive and forget and allow this guy one ounce of leniancy? What if your kids took it, and it killed one of them...would you still be able to say, "sure, let this guy see his daugher"? I hope none of you has ever gone through that, but I am willing to wager that if someone did go through that, they would not be able to agree to such a thing. A lot here are solely seeing the daughter, and not many are seeing the victims of this mans actions.
When did PCness start ignoring blatant crimes?

Meth is certainly a terrible drug. And I realize this man has been serving five years for possession and distribution, still I'd like to know exactly what happened and the circumstances surrounding it. Was he some drug kingpin, or did he get caught up in a bad (possible one-time situation) where he saw an instant opportunity to make some money (maybe he was laid off or something) for himself and his family. Considering he's in a minimum security prison I tend to lean toward the latter.

This doesn't mean I think anything related to drugs is ok. I just wish I knew more about his situation.

Either way, it's a very sad situation for the little girl.

I absolutely agree with you there.

1. She deserves to spend time with him, not the other way around.

2. There needs to be no line if your presence is legitimately requested.

3. We both know that the mentality of an "eye for an eye" does not work in human society. Everyone deserves some sort of compassion at some point. Even if he lost his right to compassion you cannot deny her right to it.

1. She deserves to spend time with him, not the other way around.

2. There needs to be no line if your presence is legitimately requested.

3. We both know that the mentality of an "eye for an eye" does not work in human society. Everyone deserves some sort of compassion at some point. Even if he lost his right to compassion you cannot deny her right to it.

Well, I can respect that as your opinion. I agree to disagree.

So I will leave you with this one comment.
You are right, she does deserve to have her father there...problem is, the father does not, and he lost that right by what he did...when you do something that puts you in jail, there are several victims of YOUR actions...that includes your family.

Anywho...hope all is well with you angry. Did your wife ever get that job? (PM if you choose to answer)

See, this is where we differ. You see it from HER perspective, but in actuality, she is not being denied a thing, he is. She is not bound by any rules, she did nothing wrong. The rules are applying to him, and him only. The fact that the rules are being applied to him means the ones that he loves, and the ones that love him will suffer some, but that's the price that they all pay because of what he did.

No, actually, I see from MY perspective. The State is nothing more than a manifestation of our society’s collective will. I am a member of that society and, as such, I expect my government to balance the inherent conflict of the State’s existence in a manner that a) protects the society from lawbreakers; but is b) responsive to the needs of the law abiding individuals within my society. This inherent conflict of the State having authority over its creators is well summed up in the standard police motto “To protect and serve”.

In this case, it is important that the State owes a duty to US (you, me, the little girl, her father, Smootsmack and yes, even Dallas fans) to balance the criminal’s punishment (set forth in the statutes, rules and regulations that grant the State with authority to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and/or property) against the interests of one of its individual citizens. It is my hope that the governing entities that create and apply rules on my behalf in this instance will look at this equation with appropriate human compassion and not with a slavish obedience what has been done before.


To ignore the rules or bend them for someone like him means you need to do it for everyone that asks. Are you prepared for that?

Well, first and foremost, I disagree with the presumptions that a) I am ignoring the rules; b) I am bending the rules; or c) that to find an exception in this case REQUIRES me to make an exception in EVERY case.

As to (a), if the ONLY way to make this happen is to completely disregard the rules on the books, then I would agree that it could not and should not be done. At the same time, I would advocate for an expeditious change of the rules to (as I said earlier) “permit an expedited movement of the prisoner from one facility to another in situations where such movement can assist the health and welfare of an innocent without undue burden to the state or increased harm to the public[.]”

As to (b), you say “bending” the rules, I say applying them on a case by case basis as the particular facts dictate. The words say what the words say, can they be interpreted to permit the expedited movement of the prisoner? If so, then we are not “bending” the rules but rather applying the terms. The English language is a beautiful and adaptive language that has the capacity for precision and vaguery within the same sentence. If there is no common sense way to read the rules in a manner that would make them applicable, then see my response to (a) in the preceding paragraph.


Finally, as to (c), this is the famous “slippery slope” argument and it is fundamentally flawed. Yes, if another individual in EXACTLY (and I mean exactly) the same situation were subsequently denied under EXACTLY the same rules, there would be serious fairness issues. I would suggest that an exact match will not occur again and, further, if an EXACT match DID occur, I would be fine with the State, again, acting to decrease the suffering of the innocent. So yes I am “prepared for that[.]”

HOWEVER, as I do not believe that an exact match will ever again occur, I will address what I believe to be your real proposition – that the State, by expediting this request, is bound to expedite every similar request. Fortunately, that isn’t how it works. The appropriate State decision makers need only say “well, here is a difference and we think it makes expediting the matter inappropriate”. What could the differentiating factors be? Don’t know, it would depend on the facts of THAT case and how THOSE facts apply to the applicable rules.

The State is not “required” to DO anything by granting this request other than listen and consider such requests based on the particular facts of the request and the applicable rules. A duty it had (I would hope) prior to this particular request.

[The State is] not bound to [the daughter] in any way. The state has custody of the father, and rightfully so, they have no responsibility to the daughter, and should not be put in this situation.

Sorry, and, IMO here is the fundamental flaw in your argument, the girl is a member of the same society and is protected by the same government that is incarcerating a criminal. That society has a duty to her, just as it has a duty to you and me, to act in a manner that does not harm to us when we have done no wrong. She is entitled to the protection of the State just as you and I are, and, in light of that, the State, IMHO, does owe it’s citizens the affirmative duty to ease their suffering when feasible within the greater scheme of protecting the general welfare.

I have placed several caveats around my belief that the father’s transfer should be expedited (mainly b/c there is a LOT of unknown info), but, essentially, if the State can ease the harm to one of its citizens in a manner that does not create undue burden on the rest of society, then it should do so. I would certainly hope it would extend me the same protection.

That's a profound statement, and you are right for the most part. You just need to remember that when you give and inch, people want a mile. There are rules for a reason, and they do not say anything about allowing the father to see his daughter. Rules do serve society, and in this case rules dictate that he not leave prison.
Do you realize that it does cost tax dollars to allow him to leave the prison? I for one do not want my tax dollars going to help a criminal feel a little better about himself.
Again, this is not about the daughter, this is about him.

One of the articles I read indicated that the girl's health improved after each of the three visits the father was permitted. If there was medical evidence that the daughter's chance of survival was increased to 10% by expediting the father’s transfer, would you still oppose it? What if the father’s transfer would guarantee, the child’s survival? Would you “bend the rules” to ensure the survival of an innocent? Or would the mere fact that “in this case rules dictate that [the father] not leave prison” doom the girl to death?

Some people may want a mile after someone else got an inch. Good governance, however, requires discernment when requests for such dispensation are made. In accordance with good governance, the appropriate authority should grant the inch or the mile based on the particular facts of a given situation and in a manner consistent with the applicable rules and their underlying intent.

You should be an attorney JR.

That's right, you are, aren't you?

1- Why does he deserve to spend quality time with his daughter?
I agree HE does not deserve time. The mere fact, however, that, by providing for the innocent, the State creates a benefit for the guilty should not, IMO, be reason for the State to mercilessly allow the increase of harm to an innocent.

2- What happens when the serial rapist and murderers decide they need to go see a dying relative too? Once you set that precident, then what? Where is the line drawn?
When a serial rapist and/or murderer is in the same situation, we can address it then. There is simply no need to assert that every criminal is granted an expedited transfer if they have a dying relative. Every day the courts and government can, and does, apply rules and regulations on a case by case basis with consistency and fairness.

3- (or more a 2b question) Did anyone call the families of who this guy sold meth to, to ask thier opinions? I can safely assume there are plenty of families out there that he ruined...maybe some daughter / son out there without a father, or some family in shambles due to this guy selling that drug...did anyone ask them if it was OK that this dealer should be allowed out to see his daughter die?
Probably not. But then, do we let the victims of ANY crime be the FINAL authority as to the punishment of the criminal? It is a fair question to ask “have we consulted the victims?” It is, however, also fair to say – regardless of these particular victims, we as a society choose to be more merciful than they might. As part of its duty to “protect and serve”, it is the governments duty to be the societal intermediary between the criminal and the victim.

(Just as a side note – the concept of “an eye for an eye” was an example of the government acting as the intermediary and softening the punishment. Prior to this code, if a victim lost an eye, the victim would seek and eye, an arm, and kill your first born creating a cycle of violence. Hammurabi’s code stepped in and said – NO it is not for the victim to decide, it is for the government)


What if it was you? (a general hypothetical question) What if your wife had an addiction to meth and it ruined her and your life, and it trickled down to your kids, would you be so easy to forgive and forget and allow this guy one ounce of leniancy? What if your kids took it, and it killed one of them...would you still be able to say, "sure, let this guy see his daugher"? I hope none of you has ever gone through that, but I am willing to wager that if someone did go through that, they would not be able to agree to such a thing. A lot here are solely seeing the daughter, and not many are seeing the victims of this mans actions.
Yup. I’d want to murder the guy, then I’m sure his wife, daughter (or other member) would want me dead, and so on, and so on and so on. That’s a criminal justice “system” sure to enhance the general welfare.

Here’s where the rules come into play. What do they allow? Why? Are they applicable? Do they include an opportunity for the victims to be heard? If not, why not?

A lot here are solely seeing the daughter, and not many are seeing the victims of this mans actions.
I would suggest that a lot are seeing both and finding that the present good that may be accomplished outweighs the past harm that cannot be changed.

This man is in jail and will be in jail well after his daughter’s death. Regardless of whether or not he is transferred, and for the rest of his life he will know that he failed his daughter. I can only imagine how that would make me feel and, in doing so, would suggest that this man will be paying for his crimes well after he is released from jail.

When did PCness start ignoring blatant crimes?
About the same time calls for compassion became seen as being PC.

You should be an attorney JR.

That's right, you are, aren't you?

Actually, I've decided to give it all up and be a hermit with 24/7 access to Skins games and the NFL Network.

No, actually, I see from MY perspective. The State is nothing more than a manifestation of our society’s collective will. I am a member of that society and, as such, I expect my government to balance the inherent conflict of the State’s existence in a manner that a) protects the society from lawbreakers; but is b) responsive to the needs of the law abiding individuals within my society. This inherent conflict of the State having authority over its creators is well summed up in the standard police motto “To protect and serve”.

In this case, it is important that the State owes a duty to US (you, me, the little girl, her father, Smootsmack and yes, even Dallas fans) to balance the criminal’s punishment (set forth in the statutes, rules and regulations that grant the State with authority to deprive its citizens of life, liberty, and/or property) against the interests of one of its individual citizens. It is my hope that the governing entities that create and apply rules on my behalf in this instance will look at this equation with appropriate human compassion and not with a slavish obedience what has been done before.




Well, first and foremost, I disagree with the presumptions that a) I am ignoring the rules; b) I am bending the rules; or c) that to find an exception in this case REQUIRES me to make an exception in EVERY case.

As to (a), if the ONLY way to make this happen is to completely disregard the rules on the books, then I would agree that it could not and should not be done. At the same time, I would advocate for an expeditious change of the rules to (as I said earlier) “permit an expedited movement of the prisoner from one facility to another in situations where such movement can assist the health and welfare of an innocent without undue burden to the state or increased harm to the public[.]”

As to (b), you say “bending” the rules, I say applying them on a case by case basis as the particular facts dictate. The words say what the words say, can they be interpreted to permit the expedited movement of the prisoner? If so, then we are not “bending” the rules but rather applying the terms. The English language is a beautiful and adaptive language that has the capacity for precision and vaguery within the same sentence. If there is no common sense way to read the rules in a manner that would make them applicable, then see my response to (a) in the preceding paragraph.


Finally, as to (c), this is the famous “slippery slope” argument and it is fundamentally flawed. Yes, if another individual in EXACTLY (and I mean exactly) the same situation were subsequently denied under EXACTLY the same rules, there would be serious fairness issues. I would suggest that an exact match will not occur again and, further, if an EXACT match DID occur, I would be fine with the State, again, acting to decrease the suffering of the innocent. So yes I am “prepared for that[.]”

HOWEVER, as I do not believe that an exact match will ever again occur, I will address what I believe to be your real proposition – that the State, by expediting this request, is bound to expedite every similar request. Fortunately, that isn’t how it works. The appropriate State decision makers need only say “well, here is a difference and we think it makes expediting the matter inappropriate”. What could the differentiating factors be? Don’t know, it would depend on the facts of THAT case and how THOSE facts apply to the applicable rules.

The State is not “required” to DO anything by granting this request other than listen and consider such requests based on the particular facts of the request and the applicable rules. A duty it had (I would hope) prior to this particular request.



Sorry, and, IMO here is the fundamental flaw in your argument, the girl is a member of the same society and is protected by the same government that is incarcerating a criminal. That society has a duty to her, just as it has a duty to you and me, to act in a manner that does not harm to us when we have done no wrong. She is entitled to the protection of the State just as you and I are, and, in light of that, the State, IMHO, does owe it’s citizens the affirmative duty to ease their suffering when feasible within the greater scheme of protecting the general welfare.

I have placed several caveats around my belief that the father’s transfer should be expedited (mainly b/c there is a LOT of unknown info), but, essentially, if the State can ease the harm to one of its citizens in a manner that does not create undue burden on the rest of society, then it should do so. I would certainly hope it would extend me the same protection.



One of the articles I read indicated that the girl's health improved after each of the three visits the father was permitted. If there was medical evidence that the daughter's chance of survival was increased to 10% by expediting the father’s transfer, would you still oppose it? What if the father’s transfer would guarantee, the child’s survival? Would you “bend the rules” to ensure the survival of an innocent? Or would the mere fact that “in this case rules dictate that [the father] not leave prison” doom the girl to death?

Some people may want a mile after someone else got an inch. Good governance, however, requires discernment when requests for such dispensation are made. In accordance with good governance, the appropriate authority should grant the inch or the mile based on the particular facts of a given situation and in a manner consistent with the applicable rules and their underlying intent.


I do not agree with your view, but I gotta say, bravo on the post. That was the best argument I have seen. You almost make me want to change my mind. (seriously...not sarcasm.)

I agree HE does not deserve time. The mere fact, however, that, by providing for the innocent, the State creates a benefit for the guilty should not, IMO, be reason for the State to mercilessly allow the increase of harm to an innocent.


When a serial rapist and/or murderer is in the same situation, we can address it then. There is simply no need to assert that every criminal is granted an expedited transfer if they have a dying relative. Every day the courts and government can, and does, apply rules and regulations on a case by case basis with consistency and fairness.


Probably not. But then, do we let the victims of ANY crime be the FINAL authority as to the punishment of the criminal? It is a fair question to ask “have we consulted the victims?” It is, however, also fair to say – regardless of these particular victims, we as a society choose to be more merciful than they might. As part of its duty to “protect and serve”, it is the governments duty to be the societal intermediary between the criminal and the victim.

(Just as a side note – the concept of “an eye for an eye” was an example of the government acting as the intermediary and softening the punishment. Prior to this code, if a victim lost an eye, the victim would seek and eye, an arm, and kill your first born creating a cycle of violence. Hammurabi’s code stepped in and said – NO it is not for the victim to decide, it is for the government)



Yup. I’d want to murder the guy, then I’m sure his wife, daughter (or other member) would want me dead, and so on, and so on and so on. That’s a criminal justice “system” sure to enhance the general welfare.

Here’s where the rules come into play. What do they allow? Why? Are they applicable? Do they include an opportunity for the victims to be heard? If not, why not?


I would suggest that a lot are seeing both and finding that the present good that may be accomplished outweighs the past harm that cannot be changed.

This man is in jail and will be in jail well after his daughter’s death. Regardless of whether or not he is transferred, and for the rest of his life he will know that he failed his daughter. I can only imagine how that would make me feel and, in doing so, would suggest that this man will be paying for his crimes well after he is released from jail.


About the same time calls for compassion became seen as being PC.

see above post.