I read that the other day. Yes, the guy is an irresponsible moron. But in my opinion, equal blame should be placed on the women who were dumb enough or careless enough to procreate with him.The headline drew you in. What your thoughts on this?
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ohio-man-ordered-not-have-more-kids-until-he-pays-child-support-loses-appeal
DC
Except that "be fruitful and multiply" is a religious command.they did not say he could not have anymore children. They said as a condition of his probation he could not have anymore children while on probation. That is a huge difference. A judge can impose a wide range of restrictions on a probationer. In this situation, given the restriction is directly related to the reason he is on probation, I see nothing improper about the restriction.
It would be no different than telling a guy on probation for DUI that he cannot drink while on probation IMO.
yes, 5 years probation but his restriction will be removed if he pays the $96,000 he owes.Isn't his probation five years? I haven't looked at the link yet, but will.
While the restriction itself makes a certain amount of sense, I do not see how the order can be enforced. If the judge wants him to stop having children, jail would be a more effective (although it won't help to remedy the child support arrears).
he has already multiplied. There is no commandment that you do it such that you personally are responsible for populating your own country.debtcollector`;3264420]Except that "be fruitful and multiply" is a religious command.
well and good. There is a cost of reproducing and in this case, his is having his probation revoked. He could choose to go to jail. Probation is not a right.Or that reproduction is a national right jurisdiction over which the court may not have.
the guy has the option.Or the court had better means of achieving this goal that were not morally ambiguous. Throw him in jail.
there is a difference between a basic need and a recreational activity.Could or should the courts order a person with a history of not paying their rent to remain homeless until the landlords are paid?
So, does the court intend to monitor his, uh, movements? A specially-designed ankle bracelet, perhaps?yes, 5 years probation but his restriction will be removed if he pays the $96,000 he owes.
Made by Trojan specially for Ohio courts...So, does the court intend to monitor his, uh, movements? A specially-designed ankle bracelet, perhaps?
So, does the court intend to monitor his, uh, movements? A specialcour-designed ankle bracelet, perhaps?
So, does the court intend to monitor his, uh, movements? A specially-designed ankle bracelet, perhaps?
Good points. Enforcing this is a whole different matter altogether.but I don't think it would be an ankle monitor.
but from the article, he is not prohibited from doing the nasty. Just doing it with the result of his partner having a child.
which makes me wonder; what if he impregnates a woman but for whatever reason it does not result in live birth. Would that violate his probation?
then, unless they do a dna test on a baby and it proves to be his, I do not see where they could enforce the restriction as anything less would be an unproven allegation.
are you thinking of some sort of reverse prostitution situation?Wouldn't it be illegal or at least immoral for a potential baby-momma to pay the $96k for him to be able to father her child?
how? if he piddles when he diddles, he will likely be charged with the cost of the DNA test that would be the cause for his probation being revoked.Does the order create more problems than it solves?
Ok, it is a a common rule of probationers to not leave the state they reside. So, given their crime was not committed in another state (hence they are on probation in the state they were incarcerated due to committing their crime in that state), the same argument could be made that restricting them from leaving the state is unrelated to the crime. Same thing for drinking or drugs. Standard rules of probation are no drinking and no drugs, even if the crime involved has no relation to drinking or drugs. Wouldn't that violate the rights of the probationer?And his crime wasn't fathering children. His crime was failing to pay child support. So the order proscribes an unrelated behavior in a way that could violate the man's rights. Would a better written order prohibit him from missing another child support payment for any current or future children during the term?