Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

What should happen to PFC England's child?

21:25 / 21.05.04

So, as mentioned inthis CBS story PFC Lynndie England is pregnant, allegedly with the child of her co-accused, Specialist Charles A. Granier. Given that this is such a high profile case, involving abuse of other human beings do people think that Private England should be allowed to keep and raise her child? Should the decision depend on the outcome of the PFC England's court martial? Is this going to be another case of female criminals being held to a different moral standard than their male equivalents? What do you think?

23:15 / 21.05.04

In most states, a child can be removed from the care of a parent (or parents) who has been found guilty of a violation of law

- if the violation of the law has a direct bearing on the care & custody of the child

and

- if the parent (or parents) has/have not completed legally assigned rehabilitation for the violation of law.

So basically: there is a legal case for taking away her child if she's found guilty, and keeping the child out of her care until she's served her full sentence.

Those are the limits of the law. I'm sure it can be argued that her crime has a direct bearing on how well she'd fare as a mother - although the point is debatable. Removal is more likely, if it happens, to be attributed to the second cause - but the child is likely to go to a living relative (like, for instance, Ms. England's parents).

Ethically, I think it would be cruel and unusual punishment to remove her baby from her care beyond the term of her sentence (assuming she's found guilty). If the court determines that a certain sentence is sufficient for justice to be served, then forcing her to give up her child beyond the assigned term contradicts the judgement.

Unless you're suggesting that she shouldn't be allowed to have babies at all. That, of course, is another kettle of fish entirely.

02:16 / 22.05.04

makes good tea, though.

06:47 / 22.05.04

OG - I'm not all that well versed in US law, but would the state also have a duty of care to the child? Especially in such a high profile case where it would be almost impossible for Ms England to return to 'a normal life' after serving whatever time is meted out to her, should she be found guilty. The child in this case would suffer life-long bullying, and could perhaps even be the target of a vigilantes for being the child of a notorious pair of soldiers who if found guilty will have brought the whole of the united states into disrepute. Make no mistake about it, if convicted England will be a hate figure for elements in the army, in the US in general and throughout the Islamic and Arabic world. (And regardless of whether or not it is proven that orders came from up the chain of command it will be the soldiers in the photos that will be best remembered).

Now, In the UK there is the precedent of the child killer Mary Bell, who kept her child (conceived after she was convicted IIRC) but was given a new identity... I'm not sure if something like that could apply in this case.

But yes, in don't think I agree that removing Ms England’s child for longer than the course of any eventual sentence would be cruel and unusual nor should it be based solely around her guilt in this crime, it should also be balanced against what is in the long-term best interests of the child.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:44 / 22.05.04

what is in the long-term best interests of the child

Yup. Only I don't think this should be a balancing issue- I think the kid's interests should be paramount.

How far gone is she? Will the kid definitely be born?

What's a pregnant woman doing in a fucking warzone anyway?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:45 / 22.05.04

Sorry- on re-reading the link, my first question has been answered.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

09:07 / 22.05.04

I think the baby should be roasted on a spit, then she should be made to watch while it's eaten, when it's been devoured the eaters should all give her cheery thumbs up signs.

FFS. She should be treated exactly the same way any other pregnant prisoner would be treated.

09:46 / 22.05.04

Stoatie - England became pregnant at her posting in Iraq and had been moved away from active duty before the scandal broke in the media... In addition to what we have seen, according to the New York Post, senators have also seen videos [that] showed the disgraced soldier - made notorious in a photo showing her holding a leash looped around an Iraqi prisoner's neck - engaged in graphic sex acts with other soldiers in front of Iraqi prisoners.

Our lady - but IS she the same as other pregnant prisoners?

10:30 / 22.05.04

I find it interesting that we are questioning England's fitness as mother, but not Granier's fitness as a father. If we are discussing what is best for the baby, shouldn't his fitness be an issue as well? To me, Ms. England's close scrutiny - and the apparent lack of interest in the examination of Mr. Granier's character - smacks of sexism .

12:38 / 22.05.04

Cherry Bomb: of course it is a more immediate issue with the mother because, for example, issues such as will she be able to keep the baby with her in prison come up.

I notice that everyone has assumed that she won't take her baby to prison with her, but isn't it more likely that she will? I thought mothers were often allowed to keep their young children with them in special mother-child facilities in prisons? Or do they not have those in the US?

The rationale behind that is that it actually harms the child to be kept away from their mother, especially when they are just babies. It becomes a punishment of the child for the mother's crime otherwise.

Presumably, though, if the child is going to be put up for adoption or into care, that won't come into it as they will try and find suitable adoptive parents pretty much right away.

12:43 / 22.05.04

Just reading the article - it's so hard to believe she felt uncomfortable when those pictures were taken. She looks pretty fucking comfortable to me.

Anyone have any ideas how long she might get if convicted? I was kind of surprised that the first court martial only resulted in one year in prison, although I understand that soldier did some kind of deal to testify against the others.

That must affect the whole issue. If she's going away for 10 years plus, it's going to be a different thing for the child than 1 or 2 years.

Anyway, I would say that torturing other human beings counts as not being fit to look after a child. I mean, don't they take away the very young children of convicted murderers or rapists? Or maybe they don't...

21:01 / 22.05.04

sleazenation - I can't be absolutely sure, but I haven't found anything that suggests the State has a duty of care to the child beyond the limits of the law. It's more likely that the child will be removed (if at all) by petition of a relative who wishes to care for it instead - a matter for civil court, not criminal.

07:53 / 23.05.04

do people think that Private England should be allowed to keep and raise her child?

I'm with Flowers and Jester here. What analogous area of the male alleged torturers' private lives have we taken it upon ourselves to judge? Should they be allowed to, for example, date women, given that men who can dehumanize a victim are more likely to assault their partners? Raising a child and behaviour during wartime (in a climate/environment where it seems fairly clear that torture was condoned, if not encouraged) seem to be utterly separate dimensions of someone's life. As for the "bullying" argument - does that mean that the daughter of my old Maths teacher, Mr. Hoare, should have been taken away from him and raised under a new name?

Sheesh. Whatever women do to get in the public eye, the upshot always seems to be that (a) they're unfit to be a mother and (b) it's somehow our business to judge that.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:48 / 23.05.04

We-ll, yes, totally. BUT the father, afaik, has no legal RIGHT to the child at the moment anyway... whereas she does, by default.

Not that I have a clue what should happen either way, to be honest, and not that I think his actions were made any less despicable than hers due to his possession of external genitalia... but if they both go to jail and kids ARE allowed (as it were), it's not HIS jail that's gonna have the creche. Therefore his suitability for parenthood is not quite such a pressing issue.

(Although, to make it clear, I wouldn't want him bringing up MY kids any more than her. From the information I have from the media- which is, let's face it, all any of us actually KNOW about the people involved- these are two deeply, deeply unpleasant people. Following orders or not, as has already been said, neither of them seemed that uncomfortable about what they were doing. Yeah, I imagine remorse has kicked in later... but a bit too fucking late for the people they were doing this shit to.)

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:51 / 23.05.04

What analogous area of the male alleged torturers' private lives have we taken it upon ourselves to judge? Should they be allowed to, for example, date women, given that men who can dehumanize a victim are more likely to assault their partners?

Well, I'd personally lock them both up for a VERY long time. Guess he wouldn't be dating too many women in the slammer! I would take it upon myself to judge his fitness to walk down the fucking street at this point, given that men who can dehumanize a victim just shouldn't be allowed out in public.

(Sorry to double-post, but it's Sunday morning so I figure moderation may take a while, and I wanted to get that in.)

Our Lady Has Left the Building

09:58 / 23.05.04

Something that occured to me as I was struggling home with my shopping, who saw that two part program on Channel 4 a month ago about killing? We've mentioned it on here but I can't find the thread. Anyway, the big argument of part of it was that it was actually difficult for people to kill other people. I would expect that that would also cover to some extent torture, especially of the vicious kind that we've seen evidence of Private England AND OTHERS carry out here. The program said that a fair proportion of those who could actual kill when it came down to it were sociopaths, so if this all tracks, there might be a reasonable question as to whether any of those are mentally capable of raising a child.

10:02 / 23.05.04

his suitability for parenthood is not quite such a pressing issue.

Yeah - I'm not disagreeing that torture is bad, and it's bad regardless of the gender of the torturer, I'm just wondering why Lynndie England's status as mother is a "pressing issue". Why the focus on this one particular child, who doesn't even exist as an independent entity yet? I'm bored even typing this, but what about the many, many children in Iraq who are suffering injury and death right now, not possibly in the future? I just don't see why England's foetus is a "pressing issue" in this context, and the focus on it is just too familiar a trope of sexism: women are first and foremost mothers/potential mothers, and it is the duty of the State and all concerned citizens to police them in that capacity before all else, since women only make sense as mothers - as if we can only appreciate the evil of what England has done by considering it as a failure in motherhood! That should be the least of our fucking concerns at this point!

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:48 / 23.05.04

Oh, of course. Personally it's not something that worries me that much in the wider scale of things (the vast numbers of dead Iraqi kids, for example, as you say).

BUT it IS something that a decision is gonna be made on in the very near future. Whereas the civilian casualti- ah, sorry, collateral damage will probably NEVER be dealt with in any real way. (Well, obviously, they're dead, but I'm thinking of relatives and stuff here.)

So yes. It isn't one of the largest issues of the war. But it IS one that is likely to be addressed. And to ignore it (which I know is not what you're trying to do, Deva, as far as I can tell...) simply because there are worse things happening sets a dangerous precedent. "Fuck mugging. Fuck rape. Fuck murder. There're people out there committing gonocide!!!" (As I said, I don't think that's what you're saying... I merely use it as an illustration of how moral relativism can be a bad thing.)

Yeah, "pressing issue" was maybe a bad turn of phrase. Mea culpa.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:49 / 23.05.04

And, speaking hypothetically... if the kid had already been born, and she was dead... I WOULDN'T grant custody to the father either.

11:20 / 23.05.04

to ignore it (which I know is not what you're trying to do, Deva, as far as I can tell...) simply because there are worse things happening sets a dangerous precedent.

I don't know how dangerous that precedent is, given that none of us will have the slightest say on what will happen to England's baby after it's born, nor should we.

I mean, I know that none of us has the slightest say in most of the stuff we're talking about on barbelith, so - I can't quite put my finger on what bothers me about this one in particular. Like you say, it's not that I think children should be left with abusive parents, or that we shouldn't ever talk about anything which can't claim to be of primary moral concern on a global scale. It's not exactly that I think we should "ignore it because there are worse things happening", more that I think we should ignore it in the same way that we ignore most other court cases involving pregnant women that chug along quite happily - like Flowers said, England should (and, I hope, will) be treated the same way as any other pregnant prisoner: her fitness to raise a child will be assessed according to the usual procedures.

So why does this case in particular demand our attention? Is there a particular risk that the "wrong" decision will be made in England's case? If not, why are we talking about it any more than we speculate about the outcome for any other pregnant person accused of a crime?

If this example is just a springboard for a more general discussion of who has what rights to decide on fitness to raise a child, and what should be done in the case of imprisoned parents, and so on and so forth, then I'm happier about that, but something really bothers me about the idea that I should be judging England specifically on her fitness as a mother.

12:12 / 23.05.04

Obviously at the moment the baby's immediate health is more connected to the mother, but that's not my point. My point is why do we CARE about her fitness as a mother? Obviously it's important to the child, but there are lots of other living children out there whose welfare is at the moment of a more pressing concern.

Interestingly, in discussing this very issue with several folks on Friday night, her sexual history and the idea of "how do we know who the real father is?" came up. As I said angrily at the time, "Not only did she torture people, but she's also a whore."

That the father of her baby has had several restraining orders taken out against him by ex-partners , who he has allegedly stalked and abused, seems less noteworthy than how promiscuous England and what she did in Iraq was in the "parental fitness" game.

I know some of you have mentioned that you don't think the father should get custody of the child either but I don't necessarily believe that the only reason Lynndie England's character is getting more of an examination is necessarily because she's carrying the child at the moment.

In no way do I think Lynndie England should be excused for her crimes but I do think she gets a much more serious scrutiny in aspects of her life (such as her fitness as a mother) that I think have very little bearing on punishing her for acts of torture.

Women especially are villified for doing anything that goes directly against our image of them as loving, maternal caregivers, and Lynndie seems to be another example of that.

Jack The Bodiless

11:55 / 24.05.04

You're right, in the sense that England was getting more press (and more horrified reactions) before anyone found out she was pregnant, and obviously I understand what you're on about... but that's go nothing to do with this thread. The question asked on this thread was whether the crimes that England's accused of committing mean that she should be considered an unfit mother if she's convicted, bearing in mind that, apparently, she intends to have the child. Talking about Graner, or any other alleged perpetrator of abuse or torture, male or female, is threadrot.

14:00 / 24.05.04

The question asked on this thread was whether the crimes that England's accused of committing mean that she should be considered an unfit mother if she's convicted, bearing in mind that, apparently, she intends to have the child.

Firstly, I'd argue that it is relevant to ask why that specific question has been posed and what assumptions are being made in the framing of that question. I'm actually a lot happier with your wording, which makes it a much more boring and self-evident question ("Should she be considered an unfit mother?" "Yes, if she can be shown to be one by the usual court procedures"). There are some questions which are framed in such a way that they become dodgy even to ask, and I'm trying to get at what's dodgy in the framing of this particular question, which I think is fair.

But also, the question seems to me to be partly about whether England should be treated in the same way as any other prisoner or whether she should be singled out, in which case it's surely relevant to look at other analogous cases, or, again, to try and work out by comparison to other cases why this question is being posed in this particular way.

Talking about Graner, or any other alleged perpetrator of abuse or torture, male or female, is threadrot.

Well, Graner is alluded to in the summary/first post, both as alleged torturer and as father of the foetus, which suggests he has some relevance to the question as posed. But I'd be interested to know what you think would be relevant to this discussion, because I can't see what issues are raised by the question as you frame it - would you be interested in talking about whether a criminal court should have jurisdiction over declaring someone an unfit mother, or whether children should be separated from parents in custody as a matter of course? Or would that be threadrot too? Do you see this thread as only being about discussing the specific characteristics of England that might make her an unfit mother? (And don't you think that's a little creepy?)

16:39 / 24.05.04

I'm not all that well versed in US law, but would the state also have a duty of care to the child?

This is what my better half does for a living. She's a social worker. The responsibility of the state, from what I gather (I can ask, if you really want to know) is to ensure the child is entrusted to a responsible guardian. This can be state-endorsed foster care, or it can be a capable, competent relative, or, in some cases, a group home or assisted living facility, depending on the kid's needs.

Ooo -- the aforesaid better half just phoned me, serendipitously enough. Here's what she said regarding this case.

1. England is under federal jurisdiction, not state. The military has their own abuse investigation system, and their own policies for children born to incarcerated mothers.

2. In general, children taken from a parent usually wind up with their grandparents. (I think part of the issue is that an abusive spouse/parent will have greater access to kids who are with their other parent than those with grandparents, but that's just a guess on my part.)

3. "Egregious abuse" would be the official grounds for termination of parental rights. In this case, since no children were in Abu Ghraib, the abuse might not be considered "egregious" enough -- torturing prisoners of war is not the same as abusing kids. There's no precedent, really, for her case -- and that could work in her favor in any court martial deciding on her parental rights. Termination of parental rights is really, really difficult, says my authority.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:11 / 24.05.04

Egregious abuse" would be the official grounds for termination of parental rights. In this case, since no children were in Abu Ghraib, the abuse might not be considered "egregious" enough -- torturing prisoners of war is not the same as abusing kids.

Well, quite. People who have committed inhuman acts in war have been crying at Bambi since it came out. Since Pvt. Englund has at no point shown any signs of being abusive towards children, what exactly is the *extra* quality that makes us want to discuss whether she will be allowed to keep her baby? Is it simply that, as the mother, she will be most likely to have access to her baby in prison, unlike the male torturers? But have we exactly checked out how many children the others have and what their parenting arrangements are?

21:49 / 24.05.04

But also, the question seems to me to be partly about whether England should be treated in the same way as any other prisoner or whether she should be singled out, in which case it's surely relevant to look at other analogous cases, or, again, to try and work out by comparison to other cases why this question is being posed in this particular way.

As horrific as what those soldiers did is, we would descend into anarchy-not-in-a-good-way if we threw out the statute books every time a particularly emotive case came along.

12:19 / 29.05.04

opb Deva: So why does this case in particular demand our attention? Is there a particular risk that the "wrong" decision will be made in England's case? If not, why are we talking about it any more than we speculate about the outcome for any other pregnant person accused of a crime?

Because England is the latest hate figure for those on the left who need someone to zero in on, far as I can see. She conveniently pushes a number of buttons - more so now she's pregnant - which elicit certain reactions.

And cause we're still being urged to keep zeroing in on her and what was done months ago, we're thereby not examining quite so closely what's going on right now. Conveniently.

I suggest we throw England in a large lake - if she sinks, she can keep the baby...