TRENTON, N.J. — Three of the four boys allegedly starved by their adoptive parents have improved enough to take a trip to a local mall and attend a birthday party, but authorities were still trying to determine Monday how the case “fell through the cracks” even though a child welfare worker had often visited the home.
Seriously, I think sometimes we take this whole “presumption of innocence” a little too seriously. In the above case, for example, the boys were either starved or they weren’t - how can someone be “allegedly” starved?
Posted by shanti at October 27, 2003 8:58 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realwomenonline.com/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2944
I think the alleged is referring to the people responsible for the starving rather than the starvation itself.
Posted by: v at October 27, 2003 1:52 PM
But, v - even that point isn’t exactly under contention, right? Who else but the parents could starve the boys?
Posted by: Shanti at October 27, 2003 2:28 PM
I’m willing to accept that some parents are insane. What I cannot accept is that the home was visited (or allegedly visited) by case workers 38 times. Can anyone possibly believe that a case worker saw these children even once. But for the negligence of the caseworkers, this could never have happened.
Posted by: hari at October 27, 2003 3:24 PM
I agree with you on that, Hari - I have heard similar things in connection with the Dallas lady who locked her daughter up in the closet and other such cases, where a number of complaits were filed against those parents, but CPS didn’t do anything.
But then, take a picture of you breastfeeding your baby and they arrest you and take your kids away and make you suffer. Go figure!
Posted by: Shanti at October 27, 2003 4:03 PM
Aaah the vagaries of the welfare state. Scrap it!
On the “alleged” part. Presumption of innocence is a very important part of the rule of law. The problem here might be slow processes. The parents should be arraigned, charged, tried, and sentenced. Quickly.
Don’t attack presumption of innocence otherwise really innocent people might easily become targets of police / bureaucratic vendetta.
Posted by: Yazad at October 28, 2003 12:50 AM
On the “alleged” part (trying to sound like Yazad), the point is probably that the boys contend they were starved. It hasn’t been proven that they were.
If you say I hit you and that hasn’t been established by the evidence, then it would likely be written as “MadMan allegedly hit Shanti with a whole turkey when her back was turned.”
If the parents are convicted, it’s not “alleged” any more. :)
Posted by: MadMan at October 28, 2003 4:12 PM
MadMan, the boys had too much damage to their bodies as per the article, for it to be self-inflicted. They were definitely starved - I guess the only matter of contention is if the parents did it or not.
Just nitpicking, ofcourse ;)
Posted by: Shanti at October 28, 2003 4:25 PM