[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

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.

Originally Posted by jsarno

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.

Originally Posted by jsarno

[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.

Originally Posted by jsarno

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.