Florida lawyer argues pregnant inmate’s fetus is being illegally detained(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Florida lawyer argues pregnant inmate’s fetus is being illegally detained
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/22/pregnant-woman-fetus-jail-roe/
260 comments
"The petition by attorney William M. Norris says the “unborn child” is innocent and should be discharged from jail so it can receive proper care. That would require Harrell to be released until the child is born, the writ argues."
"Without proper care, though, Norris said he fears the fetus will be harmed before or during childbirth."
"In 2018, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that all pregnant defendants should be granted habeas corpus and allowed to await trial at home."
"Without proper care, though, Norris said he fears the fetus will be harmed before or during childbirth."
"In 2018, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that all pregnant defendants should be granted habeas corpus and allowed to await trial at home."
Makes enough sense to me. Or we could just provide world-class healthcare to inmates. Or just put prisons next to hospitals. Or make them the same thing.
Honestly the last time I was visiting someone in a hospital for an extended period it felt like a prison.
Not looking forward to eventually dying in one. Maybe they'll be full of backflipping atlas nurse robots by then...
Honestly the last time I was visiting someone in a hospital for an extended period it felt like a prison.
Not looking forward to eventually dying in one. Maybe they'll be full of backflipping atlas nurse robots by then...
Most non-inmates in America don't receive world-class healthcare.
> Or we could just provide world-class healthcare to inmates
I mean, that's a big jump. Might be worth starting with US-class, although I doubt it's affordable.
I mean, that's a big jump. Might be worth starting with US-class, although I doubt it's affordable.
US-class healthcare is unaffordable. Luckily, world-class healthcare is easily affordable, and it gives better outcomes.
Your physician will be automated before your nurse.
It seems like most physicianing has already been automated, while continuing to run on top of skinjobs. I mean, 20 minute appointments where they haven't studied your previous history, don't engage with what you say except to explain it away, and just pick recommendations from a limited set of go-to options? Most pedagogical k-maps have more complexity.
"says the jail staff has endangered the fetus by refusing proper prenatal care and putting her in situations like the incident in the inmate transport van."
"That would require Harrell to be released until the child is born, the writ argues."
I'm inclined to believe that the lawyer really does have the child's best interest at heart, and anything they're asking for that helps the mother is really intended to help the child.
"That would require Harrell to be released until the child is born, the writ argues."
I'm inclined to believe that the lawyer really does have the child's best interest at heart, and anything they're asking for that helps the mother is really intended to help the child.
I think it's more of a sovereign citizen "hail Mary" type move to get her out of jail. Even in states that don't have a constitutional notion of "fetal personhood", a pregnant inmate is still entitled to adequate prenatal care, and that's the relief they should be seeking, not habeas corpus for the unborn child.
> I think it's more of a sovereign citizen "hail Mary" type move to get her out of jail.
It would only delay the inevitable by a few months at most, right? Trials regularly get delayed for years anyway, so they may as well delay her sentence for a few months.
It would only delay the inevitable by a few months at most, right? Trials regularly get delayed for years anyway, so they may as well delay her sentence for a few months.
Well newborns need to be breastfed by their mothers to be healthy… don’t underestimate motivated lawyers.
Baby formula exists, though, and is a totally viable alternative, so this one seems like it'd be thrown out pretty quick.
"My religion requires me to breastfeed my infant naturally."
Even if that worked, it would still only get her something like a 6-12 month reprieve. She's been convicted of murder, none of these ploys will get her out of going to prison eventually.
Might as well skip the middleman and go straight to "my religion requires me not to be imprisoned".
Why not? How is this rule any different than any of the others in a religion?
This is already happens today in divorce proceedings to increase custody time and child support payments.
If it can be legally proved that the jail is incapable of providing adequate care (seems pretty likely, considering how terrible American prisons are generally), then they’re within their rights to enjoin the court for other remedies.
Time to see if the courts actually care about unborn personhood, as much as they’ve been crowing about abortion.
Time to see if the courts actually care about unborn personhood, as much as they’ve been crowing about abortion.
That's not the case.
If you were imprisoned even though you hadn't committed a crime, the adequacy of the care you receive while in prison is completely irrelevant.
If the child is innocent it shouldn't be imprisoned, simple as. Assuming you believe an unborn foetus to be a full fledged human being of course.
If you were imprisoned even though you hadn't committed a crime, the adequacy of the care you receive while in prison is completely irrelevant.
If the child is innocent it shouldn't be imprisoned, simple as. Assuming you believe an unborn foetus to be a full fledged human being of course.
The child is stuck in the womb of his/her mother either way, it makes no difference where that womb is.
I mean, sunlight exposure, nutrients, prison violence... The fœtus is exposed to all of this, and more.
Tbh I don't care, except if she wants to carry the future baby to term.
Then you'll have a carrenced baby without mother contact during his first three months, probably fed with powdered milk that does not contain any antibodies. Nice start in the world.
Tbh I don't care, except if she wants to carry the future baby to term.
Then you'll have a carrenced baby without mother contact during his first three months, probably fed with powdered milk that does not contain any antibodies. Nice start in the world.
Exactly. This feels similar to the type of "hail Mary" when a woman tried to argue that she should be allowed to drive in the carpool lane alone because she was pregnant and thus her fetus should count as an extra passenger. In that case, though, a judge agreed with her and her ticket was dismissed, and a bill was even filed in the TX House to explicitly allow pregnant women to use the carpool lane.
If you have to sue to get adequate prenatal care, then only pregnant inmates who know that will get said prenatal care.
If precedent is set that demands the fetus' legal innocence must be accounted for, this basically forces the legal system/corrections into a position where they have to make a move to really telegraph what is more important. That an innocent not be subjected to the penal system, or that the incarcerated are afforded the dignity of reasonable medical care, which then has to be factored into cost of incarceration. It'll also test the will around really upholding fetal rights once it starts manifesting in the form of $$$ required on the Government's part to pay for it's own externalities w.r.t. incarceration. This is actually a neat little wedge that'll get driven in between the social/fiscal conservatives in that the last thing the fiscal's want is more needs for entitlement funding, especially if it involves the incarcerated; all of which could be elided by ignoring the thorny issue of a fetus claim to personhood. Without that, the social conservatives lose a leg of their anti-abortion stool.
Either way, I can see the headlines/arguments now:
>Shit, 3 square meals a day, work, and government funded medical care, sign me up!
>Inmates get better care than law abiding citizens...
...Might even force everyone to realize this whole "no one can compete against a Medicare that can negotiate" is a sign of the retarded levels of inefficiency in the healthcare space so we can actually get some scrutiny on why the hell things are so janked in that department.
Either way, I love disruptive cases like these.
If precedent is set that demands the fetus' legal innocence must be accounted for, this basically forces the legal system/corrections into a position where they have to make a move to really telegraph what is more important. That an innocent not be subjected to the penal system, or that the incarcerated are afforded the dignity of reasonable medical care, which then has to be factored into cost of incarceration. It'll also test the will around really upholding fetal rights once it starts manifesting in the form of $$$ required on the Government's part to pay for it's own externalities w.r.t. incarceration. This is actually a neat little wedge that'll get driven in between the social/fiscal conservatives in that the last thing the fiscal's want is more needs for entitlement funding, especially if it involves the incarcerated; all of which could be elided by ignoring the thorny issue of a fetus claim to personhood. Without that, the social conservatives lose a leg of their anti-abortion stool.
Either way, I can see the headlines/arguments now:
>Shit, 3 square meals a day, work, and government funded medical care, sign me up!
>Inmates get better care than law abiding citizens...
...Might even force everyone to realize this whole "no one can compete against a Medicare that can negotiate" is a sign of the retarded levels of inefficiency in the healthcare space so we can actually get some scrutiny on why the hell things are so janked in that department.
Either way, I love disruptive cases like these.
>Are they aiming to make a point about how fetal-personhood doesn't work with many aspects of the law?
Possibly. But the point has already been raised many times with regard to child-personhood and the courts have generally solved that by tailoring their precedents so narrowly as to not preclude future case by case decision making.
Possibly. But the point has already been raised many times with regard to child-personhood and the courts have generally solved that by tailoring their precedents so narrowly as to not preclude future case by case decision making.
Sure, but this is a very specific case where you cannot really do that without being completely disingenuous (which to be clear, may be the outcome that happens).
You can very easily not send a child to jail (because they have full legal personhood), but right now this fetus is considered 'part of the mother' as it relates to incarceration.
Hard to argue that a fetus has some constitutional rights, but isn't subject to the Fourth Amendment.
Like I said, a judge will make the argument that the fetus' environment is the womb and by that definition, their circumstances have not changed by being in jail, but that feels thin?
You can very easily not send a child to jail (because they have full legal personhood), but right now this fetus is considered 'part of the mother' as it relates to incarceration.
Hard to argue that a fetus has some constitutional rights, but isn't subject to the Fourth Amendment.
Like I said, a judge will make the argument that the fetus' environment is the womb and by that definition, their circumstances have not changed by being in jail, but that feels thin?
> Like I said, a judge will make the argument that the fetus' environment is the womb
But then, a lawyer could argue that the mother's imprisonment affects the womb environment (bad food, bad medical care, constant high levels of stress). IANAL but that argument doesn't immediately seem ridiculous to me.
But then, a lawyer could argue that the mother's imprisonment affects the womb environment (bad food, bad medical care, constant high levels of stress). IANAL but that argument doesn't immediately seem ridiculous to me.
Endgame in my country is that pregnant women cannot be imprisoned for any reason, plus a couple of years post birth; we have cases where they get pregnant again and again until the prison sentence ends, so they never spend a day in prison.
It is used sometimes as a "get out of jail card" as a woman that is already in prison can get pregnant to get out.
It is used sometimes as a "get out of jail card" as a woman that is already in prison can get pregnant to get out.
In my country they just have a secure maternity ward with access to specialist care. After birth the child is allowed to live with it's mother inside a specially equipped prison. The child is in no legal sense detained as it is free to be sent to live with anyone else should the mother choose for someone else to raise the child.
Your country has a wiser system than mine.
In your country (which one btw?) what percentage of women are under sentence but out due to pregnancy/childbirth vs those imprisoned?
Romania. I don't have official statistics, there were some news also mentioning it. I don't think anybody is counting it to avoid public rage.
About 10 years ago I read about 2 sisters that had 33 children in total, I don't remember what was the crime, just the county they lived in. Not all the kids were to avoid jail, only a few.
About 10 years ago I read about 2 sisters that had 33 children in total, I don't remember what was the crime, just the county they lived in. Not all the kids were to avoid jail, only a few.
I think no-one is counting it because it's such a tiny number that it's ridiculous to even care about.
Read the second paragraph you just wrote and realise how absurd it sounds. You're worried about two women?
Read the second paragraph you just wrote and realise how absurd it sounds. You're worried about two women?
Surely if you can't go to prison because you're pregnant, the sentence should pause while you're out of jail, not carry on running?
What country is this?
What country is this?
Probably some euro shithole (like mine) that also believes you can serve multiple sentences in parallel. I'm going to guess Spain though.
No, sentences are not served in parallel here, they are merged ("contopite") into a single one that is the longest plus a small extra that makes up for all others. For example 5 sentences of 5 years each are merged into one of ~ 6 years.
Ugh. If you've done 5 crimes each worth 5 years of detention you somehow get less. Abominable.
[deleted]
In my country the whole family lived in prison with the imprisoned parent
Kids would leave in the morning, go to school and come back to their shack
Kids would leave in the morning, go to school and come back to their shack
All (or most) of the above, hopefully.
If fetal personhood made any sense at all, it would have been introduced at some point in the last 6000 years of human civilization, and not invented a couple of years ago by the Republicans. Arguments like this serve to highlight both the impracticality and the sheer goofiness of the idea.
If fetal personhood made any sense at all, it would have been introduced at some point in the last 6000 years of human civilization, and not invented a couple of years ago by the Republicans. Arguments like this serve to highlight both the impracticality and the sheer goofiness of the idea.
For most of the last 6000 years we've been significantly constrained by medical technology. The philosophy has little room to develop when abortions are basically impossible to safely carry out, we have essentially no visibility into what is physically happening in embryonic development, and childbirth itself is ridiculously risky. It was within the last 250 that a Queen-to-be and fetal King-to-be both died in childbirth, substantially altering the line of succession of one of the richest and most powerful monarchies in history (Princess Charlotte dying in 1817).
I'm not advocating for or against, to be clear. Just pointing out why society wouldn't have been worrying too much about it as a whole - there weren't a lot of options for us to meaningfully intervene in the process and everyone died a lot anyway.
I'm not advocating for or against, to be clear. Just pointing out why society wouldn't have been worrying too much about it as a whole - there weren't a lot of options for us to meaningfully intervene in the process and everyone died a lot anyway.
There are records of abortion going back thousands of years.
Sure but how many of those were ~guaranteed to only abort the pregnancy and not also kill or maim the woman?
I know there's lots of things you can do to cause an abortion throughout history, but as far as I know they mostly did it by poisoning the mother enough that she miscarried.
I know there's lots of things you can do to cause an abortion throughout history, but as far as I know they mostly did it by poisoning the mother enough that she miscarried.
Pretty much every prior civilization dealt with this by making anyone who was a dependent into property from a legal perspective, maybe with an asterisk for "don't beat them too much". Once you stop doing that all sorts of edge cases start emerging.
Were non-child dependents (the elderly, the infirm) treated as property? Or as responsibilities (e.g. filial piety).
And children who were nobles in their own right (i.e. the heirs of their dead predecessor, such as child-kings) were not treated as property, merely as people who were temporarily subject to a regent.
And children who were nobles in their own right (i.e. the heirs of their dead predecessor, such as child-kings) were not treated as property, merely as people who were temporarily subject to a regent.
If they were women, yes. Depending on which civilization.
> Pretty much every prior civilization
Incredibly broad claim here that frankly I don't think a global view of history anywhere near supports. Either extremely narrow view of "prior civilization" or just straight ignorant. Even the concept of personal property isn't near universal!
Incredibly broad claim here that frankly I don't think a global view of history anywhere near supports. Either extremely narrow view of "prior civilization" or just straight ignorant. Even the concept of personal property isn't near universal!
> Slavery was already institutionalized by the time the first civilizations emerged (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia,[5] which dates back as far as 3500 BC). Slavery features in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.[6] Slavery was widespread in the ancient world in Europe, Asia, Middle East, and Africa.[7][8][4] It became less common throughout Europe during the Early Middle Ages, although it continued to be practiced in some areas. Both Christians and Muslims captured and enslaved each other during centuries of warfare in the Mediterranean and Europe.[9] Islamic slavery encompassed mainly Western and Central Asia, Northern and Eastern Africa, India, and Europe from the 7th to the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
I'm curious as to the reasons people have for down-voting this comment.
I agree with the sentiment of your comment. Not only is the concept of property a recent construct, but so is binary gender, binary sexuality, and binary sex.
I agree with the sentiment of your comment. Not only is the concept of property a recent construct, but so is binary gender, binary sexuality, and binary sex.
If sex wasn't historically seen as a binary the god Hermaphroditus would not have been a singular exception in his pantheon (created through the use of godly power).
The way people dress, behave, and who they have sex with are other matters entirely. And yes, those have long traditions of not being binary.
Sorry for going off-topic.
The way people dress, behave, and who they have sex with are other matters entirely. And yes, those have long traditions of not being binary.
Sorry for going off-topic.
Oh please.
How were kids treated in Ancient Europe? The Ancient near east? Medieval Europe and the near east? What about ancient ancient China?
Specifics vary but generally speaking in all these cultures kids had rights on par with slaves, maybe with a little bit more protection from physical violence depending on the society and whoever the head of their household was had property rights over them. Women were generally treated a little better but not much. Only within the past couple hundred years did it stop being acceptable in the richest nations to sell a kid off as a quasi-indentured servant. Women were treated a little better but not much.
I'm sure there's some north American tribes that treated everyone much more equally but they are the exception not the rule.
Someone of your bent should know this.
How were kids treated in Ancient Europe? The Ancient near east? Medieval Europe and the near east? What about ancient ancient China?
Specifics vary but generally speaking in all these cultures kids had rights on par with slaves, maybe with a little bit more protection from physical violence depending on the society and whoever the head of their household was had property rights over them. Women were generally treated a little better but not much. Only within the past couple hundred years did it stop being acceptable in the richest nations to sell a kid off as a quasi-indentured servant. Women were treated a little better but not much.
I'm sure there's some north American tribes that treated everyone much more equally but they are the exception not the rule.
Someone of your bent should know this.
> Children were accorded some special rights both in the medieval canon law and in English court practice. They were not treated as chattels belonging to their parents. In punishing infanticide and providing orders to secure their adequate support, the courts even enforced the children’s claims against the parents themselves. It may be, therefore, that a time has actually existed when children were entirely without legal rights; but the late Middle Ages in England was not one of them. This being said, it is equally important to note that recognition of the rights of children was restricted when compared with any list a modem lawyer might compile
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/610256/pdf
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/610256/pdf
I'm not talking about how they were treated in humanitarian terms, but about whether they were considered property. These are obviously very entangled concepts but they are distinct.
And yes kids-as-property has been the norm, but again not close to universal. Many other conceptions of children have used. None of them necessarily leading to better overall treatment of children, but affecting people's understanding of the boundaries of rights and responsibilities around them. Which is the part that's relevant to this conversation.
And yes kids-as-property has been the norm, but again not close to universal. Many other conceptions of children have used. None of them necessarily leading to better overall treatment of children, but affecting people's understanding of the boundaries of rights and responsibilities around them. Which is the part that's relevant to this conversation.
To argue that children were not historically considered property requires a level of hair splitting that will necessarily be able to be turned right back around and used to argue that slaves and serfs in other contexts were not property.
>affecting people's understanding of the boundaries of rights and responsibilities around them.
Civilizations in ancient southern generally outlawed gratuitous violence toward enslaved or indentured people and/or obliged their owners to feed and cloth them. Does that make slaves not property?
In medieval and early modern central Europe landowners were legally responsible for productively working their land or a subset thereof (this was a large part of the legal doctrine used by the English settlers to justify taking of native lands). Does that make land not property?
(obviously the specifics of the above two examples vary by culture and exact time period but that's not the point.)
I'd be interested to see you cite a preindustrial civilization where kids are treated as second class citizens rather than de-facto property of either the individual or the tribe/state/other.
>affecting people's understanding of the boundaries of rights and responsibilities around them.
Civilizations in ancient southern generally outlawed gratuitous violence toward enslaved or indentured people and/or obliged their owners to feed and cloth them. Does that make slaves not property?
In medieval and early modern central Europe landowners were legally responsible for productively working their land or a subset thereof (this was a large part of the legal doctrine used by the English settlers to justify taking of native lands). Does that make land not property?
(obviously the specifics of the above two examples vary by culture and exact time period but that's not the point.)
I'd be interested to see you cite a preindustrial civilization where kids are treated as second class citizens rather than de-facto property of either the individual or the tribe/state/other.
presumably the lawyer is representing his client to the best of his ability and pursuing all legal avenues to keep her out of prison
They are trying to make a fetus get the same rights as a person in an effort. It's an attempt to open up another front on the pro-life:pro choice front opening up.
Or it's an effort to show that a fetus is not automatically a person from conception.
I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can survive outside a mother is a person, and that personhood starts at some point before that viability test; I think there is a lot of room to discuss a question of personhood in the first few weeks of development.
My personal view is that personhood requires a mind, and here on our physical earth, a mind requires a brain with some level of development. My personal view is that level of development is not reached in the first trimester. You are perfectly free to disagree with me on this! I am not trying to unduly influence anyone's point of view. I cannot say you are wrong if you disagree!
I would like to gently point out that there are facts in this discussion, but there are also opinions, deeply held beliefs and analysis. Only the facts can be fact checked. The opinions, beliefs and analysis require some kind of framework for discussion.
I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can survive outside a mother is a person, and that personhood starts at some point before that viability test; I think there is a lot of room to discuss a question of personhood in the first few weeks of development.
My personal view is that personhood requires a mind, and here on our physical earth, a mind requires a brain with some level of development. My personal view is that level of development is not reached in the first trimester. You are perfectly free to disagree with me on this! I am not trying to unduly influence anyone's point of view. I cannot say you are wrong if you disagree!
I would like to gently point out that there are facts in this discussion, but there are also opinions, deeply held beliefs and analysis. Only the facts can be fact checked. The opinions, beliefs and analysis require some kind of framework for discussion.
> I think almost every reasonable person would agree that any fetus who can survive outside a mother is a person
That's problematic right there. A child can't survive without any support until some years after birth, and the age at which a foetus can survive with support keeps getting younger due to technical advances. At some point fully artificial wombs will be able to allow a foetus to survive outside their mother from conception.
Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable.
> My personal view is that personhood requires a mind
That seems more reasonable. Attainment of consciousness seems like a reasonable differentiator, but there's a difficulty is in establishing when that is.
That's problematic right there. A child can't survive without any support until some years after birth, and the age at which a foetus can survive with support keeps getting younger due to technical advances. At some point fully artificial wombs will be able to allow a foetus to survive outside their mother from conception.
Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable.
> My personal view is that personhood requires a mind
That seems more reasonable. Attainment of consciousness seems like a reasonable differentiator, but there's a difficulty is in establishing when that is.
> That's problematic right there.
Yes. I can't completely square the circle. There's a lot of undefined area, a lot of discomfort, but I am comfortable with my level of discomfort and ignorance for now.
---
I don't think a viability test or a theory of the mind is sufficient on it's own, I view them as lines of evidence. I am open to other lines of evidence. I also think that the unbroken chain of life that leads to a new baby is a miracle, whether you think of it as a divine miracle or a secular miracle.
Yes. I can't completely square the circle. There's a lot of undefined area, a lot of discomfort, but I am comfortable with my level of discomfort and ignorance for now.
---
I don't think a viability test or a theory of the mind is sufficient on it's own, I view them as lines of evidence. I am open to other lines of evidence. I also think that the unbroken chain of life that leads to a new baby is a miracle, whether you think of it as a divine miracle or a secular miracle.
> Deciding personhood based on our tech level doesn't seem very reasonable.
Why? This strikes me as begging the question.
Why? This strikes me as begging the question.
In some jurisdictions it is very clearly defined that a fetus is not a person. It does not matter whether it could survive outside the womb.
That has the merit of being clear-cut and to avoid a lot of arguments.
That has the merit of being clear-cut and to avoid a lot of arguments.
At what point (precisely) does it become a person and gain rights? Does it have to have entirely exited the birth canal, or is it enough that the head has begun to be visible, or what?
Both these abortion-related takes are incredibly cynical. I know lawyers aren't people but even they might earnestly care about a pregnant woman and her fetus/child...
> I know lawyers aren't people
Yuck. Of all the comments I see, the ones from lawyers seem the most human and less misanthropic or so purposefully obtuse as to suggest one has no connection to society at all, etc, like I see from so many developers drooling over their edge-case applications of definitions as if the law was some sort of "whatever you can say goes" as opposed focusing on what actually makes sense.
Yuck. Of all the comments I see, the ones from lawyers seem the most human and less misanthropic or so purposefully obtuse as to suggest one has no connection to society at all, etc, like I see from so many developers drooling over their edge-case applications of definitions as if the law was some sort of "whatever you can say goes" as opposed focusing on what actually makes sense.
My comment is not meant to preclude that. I do not expect to get a complete analysis of a situation from internet comments.
CuriouslyC(1)
[deleted]
Yes, no, yes.
I think it'll be interesting to see how this case and others play out.
I think it'll be interesting to see how this case and others play out.
It's absolutely medieval that they habitually jail people awaiting trial. In civilized countries (for example Germany), detaining someone pending trial is the extreme exception that requires a very good reason.
I shudder to think of how many lives are destroyed by this evil practice. After even a month in jail, you've basically been rendered homeless and jobless. Not to mention losing your children if you can't find a guardian for them.
I shudder to think of how many lives are destroyed by this evil practice. After even a month in jail, you've basically been rendered homeless and jobless. Not to mention losing your children if you can't find a guardian for them.
I guarantee you that even in Germany, someone that has been charged with second degree murder will absolutely go to jail while awaiting for their trial.
No, they don't.
§ 116 StPO (Code of Criminal Procedure) disagrees with that assertion. Remand detention is definitely a thing for people charged with murder.
It's definitely a _possible_ thing, but it's not very common (as I stated before).
It's even right there in the statute that there are degrees of curfew, required supervision, house arrest, etc based on the likelihood of the accused interfering with the investigation or absconding (which, once again, is rare). There are also cases where someone is deemed likely to commit another violent offense, but this is VERY rare.
The point is that in such civilized countries, the legal system does everything it can to not interfere with someone's life, even when they are accused of a serious crime like murder. Most accused rarely see more than a few hours behind bars before trial, if that.
It's even right there in the statute that there are degrees of curfew, required supervision, house arrest, etc based on the likelihood of the accused interfering with the investigation or absconding (which, once again, is rare). There are also cases where someone is deemed likely to commit another violent offense, but this is VERY rare.
The point is that in such civilized countries, the legal system does everything it can to not interfere with someone's life, even when they are accused of a serious crime like murder. Most accused rarely see more than a few hours behind bars before trial, if that.
Yeah of course, they just let murderers roam around the country because they haven't been judged yet. Terrorists too, why not?
accused murderers. Until they've been found guilty, they have right to liberty. The only exceptions are when they are deemed likely to abscond, interfere with the investigation, or commit another violent offense. The bar to decide this is VERY high and requires a judge to sign off on it (and so it's rare for it to happen). Also, judges are not elected, so you don't get judges with axes to grind or constituents to keep happy.
I realize that it's different in America, where the accusation is enough by itself (you even publish their names, which is just insane considering the ensuing destruction of their reputations).
I realize that it's different in America, where the accusation is enough by itself (you even publish their names, which is just insane considering the ensuing destruction of their reputations).
I'm not from or in America. I've lived in my fair share of European countries.
You are just plain wrong. Accused people go to jail before their trial. All. The. Time.
But hey, how about some stats? 20.6% of all inmates in Germany are pre-trial: https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/germany
This is not even 3% less than the US which have 23.3%. It's also a worse percentage than Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey, Romania, Sudan, Algeria, Oman, and many more.
Germany is not even in the top 25% of countries (out of 208) for pre-trial detainees.
Do us a favor, get off the internet.
You are just plain wrong. Accused people go to jail before their trial. All. The. Time.
But hey, how about some stats? 20.6% of all inmates in Germany are pre-trial: https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/germany
This is not even 3% less than the US which have 23.3%. It's also a worse percentage than Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey, Romania, Sudan, Algeria, Oman, and many more.
Germany is not even in the top 25% of countries (out of 208) for pre-trial detainees.
Do us a favor, get off the internet.
This just scratches the surface on the injustice in the US legal and jail system.
No, civilized countries do not let suspected murderers go free and escape into the wild before their trial. Doing so would be incompatible with civilization
The claim is that inadequate medical care is providing.
If adequate care was provided would this still be a legal issue?
The fetus as a person cannot act on its rights / communicate that it wants to go elsewhere. It can’t act independently.
If adequate care was provided would this still be a legal issue?
The fetus as a person cannot act on its rights / communicate that it wants to go elsewhere. It can’t act independently.
I believe the lawyer is actually making a habeus corpus claim as the fetus hasn’t been charged with a crime. The facts about not receiving proper care are just additional information about the damage the allegedly illegal detainment is causing
Wouldn't this logic implicate all (non-incarcerated) mothers in kidnapping?
We have no evidence that the fetus prefers being out of jail to being in jail. Maybe it doesn't want to go to the grocery store, or take a car ride. The mother is making those choices, and it's not clear that her choices align with the fetus more than the state's.
We have no evidence that the fetus prefers being out of jail to being in jail. Maybe it doesn't want to go to the grocery store, or take a car ride. The mother is making those choices, and it's not clear that her choices align with the fetus more than the state's.
I don’t think the state has any sort of legal standing or precedent to detain people under the argument “they might like it”, but I suppose they could try it in court
It’s an interesting approach.
Can you argue that being in jail really is a no different than typical fetus life?
I don’t know…
Can you argue that being in jail really is a no different than typical fetus life?
I don’t know…
> The fetus as a person cannot act on its rights / communicate that it wants to go elsewhere.
I'm wondering, what about people with physical or developmental disabilities, they are often affected similarly, don't they still have the same rights?
I'm wondering, what about people with physical or developmental disabilities, they are often affected similarly, don't they still have the same rights?
I've always thought a pregnant woman who doesn't want the baby should have the sheriff serve an eviction notice. When the fetus fails to vacate then bring a court case to force the eviction.
Of course it's ludicrous, bit think of all of the case law that could be generated that should, if there is any logic to law at all, prevent reproductive restrictions.
Of course it's ludicrous, bit think of all of the case law that could be generated that should, if there is any logic to law at all, prevent reproductive restrictions.
Abortion as a form of self-defense is a long-standing argument in this debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
paxcoder(2)
This topic is cherry-picked to provide a platform for venting about sociological views.
Let's keep that in mind, and moderate the venom?
Let's keep that in mind, and moderate the venom?
The state isn't stopping the fetus from leaving; the inmate is.
This feels similar to "the mother didn't kill the kid; the hot car did". If the state is forcing the woman to stay in a situation which is dangerous to the fetus, surely the woman which is forced to carry it to term is not responsible for the situation itself?
> the state is forcing the woman to stay in a situation which is dangerous to the fetus
Woman actions led to her being imprisoned, why are you blaming the state all of a sudden? State just executes the rules that she knew in advance.
If she were to gamble away all her possessions in a casino, would you say that casino is responsible for taking away the resources necessary to support the child, and therefore should be punished?
Woman actions led to her being imprisoned, why are you blaming the state all of a sudden? State just executes the rules that she knew in advance.
If she were to gamble away all her possessions in a casino, would you say that casino is responsible for taking away the resources necessary to support the child, and therefore should be punished?
> Woman actions led to her being imprisoned, why are you blaming the state all of a sudden?
I might have missed it, but what law is there that crimes shall be punished by being put into a situation which might kill your unborn fetus?
Her actions led to her being imprisoned. The state led to her being imprisoned in a dangerous situation. She is NOT responsible for the situation being dangerous, ONLY the state is.
I might have missed it, but what law is there that crimes shall be punished by being put into a situation which might kill your unborn fetus?
Her actions led to her being imprisoned. The state led to her being imprisoned in a dangerous situation. She is NOT responsible for the situation being dangerous, ONLY the state is.
It being dangerous for the fetus seems like a separate issue she should be suing the prison about. Particularly since this is an 8-month fetus that's entirely capable of surviving outside her body were she to give birth immediately.
If you had a rare blood type and a disease that required daily transfusions, and the only donor was in prison for murder, should that murderer be released so you can stay alive without having to enter a prison?
If you had a rare blood type and a disease that required daily transfusions, and the only donor was in prison for murder, should that murderer be released so you can stay alive without having to enter a prison?
The thing with unborn babies is that you don't know for certain whether or not they can survive until they do.
Following the compulsory blood donation logic (presumably happening in a universe where someone could survive daily blood transfusions), why not just cut out all babies as soon as they're statistically likely to survive outside of their mothers? Why should a woman have any say in how long an unborn child gestates within them if it's not medically and scientifically required? Surely the cost of cesarean recovery is less than the potential risk and damage of allowing women to decide to give birth naturally?
Following the compulsory blood donation logic (presumably happening in a universe where someone could survive daily blood transfusions), why not just cut out all babies as soon as they're statistically likely to survive outside of their mothers? Why should a woman have any say in how long an unborn child gestates within them if it's not medically and scientifically required? Surely the cost of cesarean recovery is less than the potential risk and damage of allowing women to decide to give birth naturally?
Your described scenario is not comparable, since the issue is not that the woman doesn't want to be in prison, it's that she fears her fetus will die, which seems well-reasoned (not even mentioning the potential damage done to her in said process).
So if we make your scenario comparable, and there is a good probability I might die during one of my visits - then yes, I definitely would like the option not to enter the prison for said process, and it seems incredibly cruel to force both the prisoner and his blood to stay in the prison, and to force me to get my transfusions there. Why can there not be any accomodations made?
> It being dangerous for the fetus seems like a separate issue she should be suing the prison about.
I can't stress enough what a strange and uncaring attitude this is. Here you have the state forcing somebody to be in prison, and the prison is in terrible conditions. Why is it not the states fault that she is put into those conditions? Why should she have to sue the prison for this? Florida is forcing her to be in those conditions, specifically both in prison and pregnant. Why is she responsible for ensuring she doesn't suffer conditions where her unborn child might die?
So if we make your scenario comparable, and there is a good probability I might die during one of my visits - then yes, I definitely would like the option not to enter the prison for said process, and it seems incredibly cruel to force both the prisoner and his blood to stay in the prison, and to force me to get my transfusions there. Why can there not be any accomodations made?
> It being dangerous for the fetus seems like a separate issue she should be suing the prison about.
I can't stress enough what a strange and uncaring attitude this is. Here you have the state forcing somebody to be in prison, and the prison is in terrible conditions. Why is it not the states fault that she is put into those conditions? Why should she have to sue the prison for this? Florida is forcing her to be in those conditions, specifically both in prison and pregnant. Why is she responsible for ensuring she doesn't suffer conditions where her unborn child might die?
I can't stress enough what a strange and uncaring attitude this is. Here you have the state forcing somebody to be in prison, and the prison is in terrible conditions. Why is it not the states fault that she is put into those conditions? Why should she have to sue the prison for this? Florida is forcing her to be in those conditions, specifically both in prison and pregnant. Why is she responsible for ensuring she doesn't suffer conditions where her unborn child might die?
This is entirely correct, but it's related to conditions inside the prison, not whether she should be released from it. Of course she should get to see a doctor, and get her prenatal vitamins, etc. I even agree that since the prison is unable or unwilling to give her the proper medical care, she should be moved to a different, even a non-prison, facility to receive that care. But it has fuck-all to do with any sort of "improperly incarcerating a fetus".
This is entirely correct, but it's related to conditions inside the prison, not whether she should be released from it. Of course she should get to see a doctor, and get her prenatal vitamins, etc. I even agree that since the prison is unable or unwilling to give her the proper medical care, she should be moved to a different, even a non-prison, facility to receive that care. But it has fuck-all to do with any sort of "improperly incarcerating a fetus".
> But it has fuck-all to do with any sort of "improperly incarcerating a fetus".
If you're putting the focus on "improperly incarcerating a fetus" instead of "improperly incarcerating a fetus", I can see how it would have fuck-all to do. But since it's a willfully negative reading I don't see why you'd do so. Consider that other countries do what the lawyer is asking for - allowing pregnant people to serve prison sentences from their homes. Why is it so incredibly ridiculous to you to even entertain this thought, even though it would help in this situation (by saving the fetus' live)?
If you're putting the focus on "improperly incarcerating a fetus" instead of "improperly incarcerating a fetus", I can see how it would have fuck-all to do. But since it's a willfully negative reading I don't see why you'd do so. Consider that other countries do what the lawyer is asking for - allowing pregnant people to serve prison sentences from their homes. Why is it so incredibly ridiculous to you to even entertain this thought, even though it would help in this situation (by saving the fetus' live)?
Why is it so incredibly ridiculous to you to even entertain this thought, even though it would help in this situation (by saving the fetus' live)?
It isn't ridiculous to me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter, because that isn't the topic. The title is "Florida lawyer argues pregnant inmate’s fetus is being illegally detained." My position is that argument is ridiculous, not that the woman in question doesn't deserve competent medical care regardless of what circumstances are necessary to achieve it.
It isn't ridiculous to me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter, because that isn't the topic. The title is "Florida lawyer argues pregnant inmate’s fetus is being illegally detained." My position is that argument is ridiculous, not that the woman in question doesn't deserve competent medical care regardless of what circumstances are necessary to achieve it.
This seems like a Reddit post, more than a Hacker News post.
Legal interactions can be as interesting as complicated code pathways to me, at least. And given this is now new legal grounds given rulings in the past year, it’ll be interesting to see how the novel laws and court cases interact
Inside the womb?
Habeas fetus?
helf(15)
Foetus itself does not have agency, and thus cannot be detained.
And born child would probably stay with its mother anyway.
> And born child would probably stay with its mother anyway.
Not if she's in prison, it won't.
Not if she's in prison, it won't.
Assuming they're not suggesting that the fetus be removed from the mother, are they aiming to get the mother freed? Are they just aiming to have the mother temporarily moved to somewhere with better healthcare? Are they aiming to make a point about how fetal-personhood doesn't work with many aspects of the law?