Does people bringing up Libby's or anyone's children as a reason not to go to jail bother you

[RB TexLa]

Just this aspect of the situation, not other political or legal issues of the Libby matter.

Should someone having children be a consideration in the punishment for a crime?

Two people commit a crime together, one has two children the other has none, the judge should consider not sending the one with children to prison but not the other? Many of the people that wrote letters to the judge stated Libby's having children as a reason to not send him to prison. Do people really think like this, don't send that person to jail they have children, it doesn't matter if you send this one away they don't have children.



on edit: added "or anyone's" to title

[mondo joe]

1. Jail is a hardship for the children, true - all the more reason a responsible parent should

not put himself in such a position.

[William769]

16. agreed.

[NMDemDist2]

2. our prisons are full of parents

most of the people in prison have children. Why should a pampered white guy get a break that thousands of Black people are never considered for?

it's BS of the stinkiest order IMO

[Warpy]

14. A lot of women in prison are single parents

which means that a lot of their children end up in the foster care system, and we know what that means.

Libby's children have another parent and Libby's children are unlikely to wind up on welfare. While it will be tough for them to admit Daddy is in prison to their peers in school, and while it's tough that Daddy won't be around for a few months, their situation is nothing like that faced by the children of most inmates.

Playing the baby card in this case is utterly sickening. He should have his sentence doubled for even trying.

[Philosoraptor]

3. It's an insulting defense.

[blondeatlast]

21. Exactly. nt

[yurbud]

4. the same people who are bringing that up would put a homeless mother in prison for life for

stealing a cement gnome from their yard and selling it at the flea market.

It is not a sincere argument.

[sallyseven]

5. Because of him and Cheney and Bush

thousands of children are without their fathers. At least in 2 1//2 years he will be out. Maybe with his morals the kids are better off. Now they can learn that there are consequences for bad behavior.

[lonestarnot]

7. What sallyseven said!

[datasuspect]

6. well, libby needs to get tough

and pull himself up by his bootstraps in this situation.

the results will probably build a lot of character for him and his family.

[candymarl]

8. Poor Scooter

He didn't care about Joe(Wilson) or Val's (Plame) children did he?

[katmondoo]

9. What about the victim's children

No consideration for them? The Wilson's have twins also very young.

[Totally Committed]

10. I'm sorry, but one of the results of committing a crime is PUNISHMENT.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I'm sorry for the kids, but he should have thought of them before casually outing a covert CIA agent because the Bushies wanted him to.

It's a bummer.

TC

[mod mom]

11. Perhaps he should have thought of the ramifications before he perjured himself &

obstructed justice. What about the children of the CIA ops who were putting their lives in peril for the betterment of the country and who were exposed by Libby et al.

ONE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE!

[H2O Man]

12. People should

consider their children's needs before they commit a crime. Libby has had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing.

[dysfunctional press]

13. shouldn't the children learn that there are consequences for breaking the law...?

i'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who are currently in jail around the country have kids on the outside...do we let them out too?

[Solly Mack]

15. Kids are being orphaned every single day in Iraq

Some are losing one parent


Anyone think Libby cares? Cheney? Bush? Any of them?

Anyone think those sitting in prison right now had people in power or a media blitz pointing to their kids as a reason for them not to go to jail?

Yeah - it is sad that children have to watch their parent(s) go to prison

It's beyond sad.

Doesn't change anything though.

[sutz12]

17. Does anybody think that Libby's children will suffer because of this? nt

[RB TexLa]

18. It's really about the idea of anyone having children being considered

[Horse with no Name]

49. To be honest--yes they will suffer

They will suffer because of the actions of their Dad--not the actions of the Prosecutor, Judge or Jury.
It's about personal responsibility.
Besides that--Scooter already has a "Get out of Jail Free" card if he desires to use it.
The fact that soooo many prominent repubublicans are trying to help him circumvent jail is testament to the fact that they are afraid he might decide to use it.

[treestar]

19. Yes, it's ridiculous

Anyone can become a parent, why should that immunize you from paying for your crimes?

If the children suffer, it's your own fault for committing the crime. Trying to blame the system that sentences you is using those kids to your own benefit.

If you're a crook, it's psychologically better for your kids to face the truth, anyway. If you got our because of them, the lesson they would learn is: do what you want, just have kids first so you can get away with it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. How much compassion did Scooter have for the Wilson's children when he destroyed Valerie's

career?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

46. How much compassion did he have for anyone's children when he participated in a fraud,...

,...leading this nation to a brutal and illegal war against innocent people?

None. NA-DA.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

51. Exactly! eom

[brook]

22. Doesn't bother me.

Libby abdicated his position as a good husband and father when he decided he owed more to Cheney than he did to his family.

Either his children will be embittered by this so-called unfair treatment of their father -and choose 'victimization' for themselves - or they could end up feeling that 'ethics' and 'truth' are important values to embrace. Depends on whether either parent has a scintilla of morality buried within, I think.

[Hamlette]

23. for those of you who answered yes, do you believe in mandatory minimum sentences too?

I do not think Scooter should walk. He should serve his sentence like everyone else but everything about him and his crime should be taken into consideration in sentencing. If he was a single parent or his wife did not have a career or work outside the home, all things being equal I might, as a judge, put him on the lower end of the recommended sentencing. (The fact that his wife does have a career and can support the kids...hell his legal defense fund can support his kids...I would give it little if any weight as a judge.)

Do you agree with Gonzalez who is pushing for minimum mandatory sentencing which prohibits a judge from considering anything, including someone's family.

The kids are being exploited in this case but since we've never heard Scooter open his mouth once throughout this whole thing I'm not sure he's the one doing it. It might just be his supporters so I'm not going to blame him for that. Plenty else to blame him for.

Anyone know how old the kids are? The way they talk it sounds like they are babes in arms but I think they are at least junior high age which makes a difference.

[RB TexLa]

24. So you would punish people in part based on what their spouse does for a living?

And if they do or do not have children? Wow, I guess for you some people are just a little MORE equal in the eyes of the law.

[Hamlette]

27. I don't believe in mandatory sentencing, I believe in giving the judge discretion

and yeah, I'd give a single woman with small children a shorter sentence than I'd give Scooter for the same crime.

I'm not Alberto Gonzalez.

[RB TexLa]

31. Would you also sentence people harsher or more leniently because they are white or black?

or does your prejudice have limits which make it ok in your mind?

[Hamlette]

33. no, race doesn't matter unless it contributed to their circumstances

then I'd be more lenient of people who had a harder time due to racial prejudice and/or poverty.

A black guy who has never been given an equal shake in our society in terms of being able to make a living would get a lesser sentence for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family than a rich white kid who stole something out of greed.

Scooter's kids are innocent.

[mondo joe]

40. Scooter's kids aren't charged. They will bear the burden their father has placed on

them by choosing to break the law.

[mondo joe]

36. I believe the judge should have discretion with regard to matters salient to the crime.

I do not believe the matters you describe here are salient.

[Wickerman]

25. Thousands of "enemy combatants" have been imprisoned for over 5 years

without trial, without charge, without legal representation. Their children are denied the presence of their fathers. Where is the sympathy for them? I am certain that Scoots will be treated a tad more humanely than these suspected* terrorists.

*We have to call them suspected as "our" government is so uncertain of their intelligence that they won't even bother charging them let alone try them.

[ellenfl]

26. total double standard and being used shamefully in this

case. but then, repugs have proven time and again that they have no shame. he should have thought of his kids BEFORE he did the crime.

let's let him stay out of jail because he has kids and then use it as precedent for every other criminal (especially the non-wealthy ones) who has kids.

ellen fl

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Does having pets count? Bush has a dog.

[Missy Vixen]

29. Scooter Libby sure wasn't thinking about his children,

or anyone else's, when he chose to interrupt Valerie Plame's work with the CIA.

I'm frankly sick of the "children card" in this case. Then again, I'm tired of those who use their children for their own ends, anyway.

Julie

[rasputin1952]

30. There weren't too mant GOP types thinking about...

Chelsea Clinton when they were trying to crucify her father on a cahrge of "lying".

Bottom line, and individual commits a crime, not to help his/her children, (like try to feed them), tough crap, go to jail, end of story.

[gollygee]

32. Being a parent of young children gave him a greater responsibility to not commit crimes that could

send him to prison, because his children do need him. But that is HIS responsibility - it is not the responsibility of society or the court to be lenient to protect his children. It was HIS responsibility to protect them by observing the law. He's trying to make himself the victim here and that's just wrong.

My answer to the poll is yes- it's troublesome that it's being considered - parents have a responsibility to be there for their kids, but that is a responsibility on their part to control their own actions. The fact that someone has kids isn't relevant in sentencing.

[M155Y_A1CH]

34. The issue should be raised

If the offender is nonviolent and the children will become wards of the state. Perhaps a different punishment would be more apt. There are other ways of making you pay.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Parenthood should be a consideration.

... but not a get out of jail free card.

Justice demands weighing one interest against another. If a parentless child is likely to grow up to be a bigger criminal than their parent, justice is not served.

[shadowknows69]

37. A lot of the uncharged, guilty until proven innocent detainees in GITMO

probably have children too. Suck on it Libby.

[LeftishBrit]

38. I think it should be a consideration, if it is so for EVERYONE

Assuming that personal circumstances can be considered at all, the fact that there may be children who would suffer from the absence of their parents could be one of many things to take into consideration.

However, it's not fair to bring it up with regard to a rich and powerful person, and not with e.g. a poor single mother convicted of a drug offense, who has far fewer resources to ensure that her children get taken care of.

[shadowknows69]

39. There's a saying

Among us semi-retired, semi-criminals. "Don't do the crime if you're not prepared to do the time" Period. That and "Rats go in the river"

[Ino]

41. The kids are better off without him

Excerpt from Libby's novel

The young samurai's mother had the child sold to a brothel, where she swept the floors and oiled the women and watched the secret ways. At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest. Groups of men paid to watch. Like other girls who have been trained this way, she learned to handle many men in a single night and her skin turned a milky white.

More examples of Libby's family values:
http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/libby/dirtypolitician/

[tammywammy]

42. Parentship is something that should be considered during sentencing

All situtations are different. The single mom, caught with a little pot and no family around, she should get a lenient sentence.

Someone like Libby though, I don't think the children should factor much into it.

[RB TexLa]

44. But a single female with no children with the same amount of pot would not get leniency from you?

or single male with no children?

Do you feel they are somehow more deserving of a harsher punishment?

[ljm2002]

43. The reason it bothers me...

...is that those who bring up the fact that Libby has children, always fail to mention that Valerie Plame also has children. She is also a public servant whose life was disrupted and potentially even endangered -- yes, her children too. So either it counts for both of them, or it counts for neither of them. If Libby having children should factor in to the sentence he is given, then Plame having children should factor in to the seriousness of the underlying crime.

Not only does it bother me when people trot out the "but he has children" argument on behalf of Libby, it also chaps my hide when they point out that "he is a dedicated public servant, and look what happened to him". While never mentioning that Plame is also a dedicated public servant, and look what happened to her!

[spanone]

45. Not to be heartless, but Libby should have thought of his kids before he LIED TO A FEDERAL PROSECUTO

[Hubert Flottz]

47. The GOPers use the Children Card all the time...

Like Gonzo using them as an excuse to try and suppress the internet. The GOPers would like nothing more than to stop the flow of information to and among the common fok, so they'll use the kids as an excuse.

Ooooops...

[Horse with no Name]

48. When it is a matter of consideration for each and every defendant

we can talk. But the prisons are full of parents. Many have kids that miss their parents. For many of them, their parent going to jail meant Foster care or poverty. Since I doubt that is the case for Scooter's kids, I'll reserve my sympathy for those people that are in jail on trumped up and false charges that have lost their families.

[moondust]

50. If anything he deserves extra jail time.

As the children may also become victims of his irresponsible/unlawful behavior. Custody should be questioned.

[bunkerbuster1]

52. Not just to be contrarian, I voted "No."

But I believe that it's beyond disgusting that the same gang of neocon thugs who haven't blinked an eye to send literally millions of poor, stupid saps to prison in the past few decades for offenses no more heinous than Libby's.

I can have compassion for any of my fellow human creatures, even a convicted liar-under-oath like Scooter. His kids didn't ask for this.

Having said all that I do get the point of the OP, which is that when you're dealing with two sentencing cases involving crimes of equal seriousness, in theory it is wrong to give a weaker sentence to one solely based on the offender having children.

Put another way--being without children shouldn't be an excuse to keep someone incarcerated one day longer than the guy with a kid.