Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lestat @ Fiona: I tried give some ideas why this man was doing this, so people maybe try to understand why he did this, and to try to get some context, before we start calling people "filth" and using words as "atrocity", "looney" or "idiot".
That it is wrong what he did, I do not deny; but I strongly object to some of the dehumanising terms used in the thread, while we don't know the whole situation. I'm not saying the guy should walk free, but as Darzog said, people were maybe villifying a bit too much. |
Fair enough. I do not see those terms as helpful either. Nor do I see much merit in jail, except insofar as it may deter any growth in such a practice.
As I said at the start, I did not think there would be much difference of opinion about whether what he did was right or wrong. My original question was actually about whether his actions automatically implied the child would be better off elsewhere; or whether other kinds of support for him would be more beneficial
for the child. I am not in the business of making moral judgements. I am required to try to reach a conclusion about what should happen in the child's best interest, once these difficult situations have arisen. The "pleas in mitigation" are relevant, as are the issues raised by those who take a reasoned but negative position. But only insofar as they help me to reach a conclusion about what is in the child's best interest. It is important to consider all the relevant facts and to give them proper relative weight. That is really really difficult to do
I was interested in how other people approached it, and it seems I was not very clear