It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iowa Mom Gets Probation for Attempting to Sell 4-Year-Old Son to Pay for Wedding Dress

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:48 PM

Sorry for the swear word, but anyone who commits a crime towards a child should be executed!!!

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by BigJoeNYC

It cost more to execute someone than it does to keep them locked up in jail. Little tidbit for you to mull over.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Rasobasi420]

The reason it costs more to execute someone than to keep them locked up is because we have allowed the death penalty to reach a virtual meaningless state. The death penalty comes with an automatic appeal whether the person sentenced wants it or not (in most, if not all states). The court costs alone in trying, convicting, sentencing and defending all of the subsequent useless appeals are astronomical for the tax payer. Not to mention the fact that in most states we have to keep them in solitary confinement on death row for a couple of decades (or the rest of their natural life) while providing them with three square meals a day and a lot of other privilidges that they don't deserve.

As long as we don't enforce the will of the people and the will of our juries and carry out the death sentence in a reasonable amount of time, then it won't serve as the deterence that it is intended to serve. And it won't bring justice to the victim(s) and their loved ones.

But even with the legal circus that now surrounds a death sentence, I believe that it still continues to serve as a deterrent against certain crimes. For example, if we made it a law that anyone who murders someone on Mondays, Wednesdays or Fridays will NOT receive the death penalty, do you think the murder rate on those days would go up? Would they go down on the remaining "death penalty elligeable" days? I think so.

But as for the subject at hand... I really am appauled at this story!

This woman could have gotten far more than $200 for her child! There's got to be a local NAMBLA chapter near her where she could start a nice bidding war!

Okay... that was just a JOKE! Albeit a tasteless one, but a joke never-the-less. Any person who is willing to trade their child for any amount of money, any kind of discount, any amount of drugs or for any other method of payment should not only be sent to jail- but they should also have all of their children taken away and have their reproductive organs removed to prevent them from having anymore babies that they can sell.

The big question that I have is this: Apparantly this woman was trying to barter her child to pay off the $200 she owed for a wedding dress. So my question is, what man on Earth would ever want to marry this kind of scumbag woman? He's either got to be her pimp or someone who is more whacked out on drugs than she is!

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by Rasputin13

The death penalty automatically gets an appeals process. It's necessary. Since death is absolute, we'd better make sure the person is guilty. If there's any doubt the person should not be executed. Death is pretty final. And it's not the time the criminals spend in prison that is the major cost, it's the cost of paying the court officers (Judge, lawyers, blah blah) that does it.

The real way to save money on capital punishment cases is to decrease the court officer's salary, but we all know who the ones making those decisions are don't we.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:23 PM
Let us make the court cost of death penalty the same as the court cost for life in prison then let us compare the statistics.

As far as this lady goes, she should have the kid taken from here immediately.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:36 PM
The article states that the woman's two children have been taken by the department of human services. I assume they will be placed in foster homes and possibly will be taken from her permanently unless she can prove she can be trusted with them again. This is as it should be--she's obviously an unfit mother.

The retailer apparently refused the woman's offer and turned her in. That's also as it should be. Society has done its job in protecting the child.

That said, I think discussion of the death penalty in this case is completely over the top.

The woman was probably drunk and/or mentally deranged. Bad parenting is reprehensible but I don't think she should be shot.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by Sestias]

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by traderonwallst

I have to agree with Trader about this article being posted. This happened in your backyard. I would of never heard this on the radio or local news stations where I live.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in