~ archived since 2018 ~

Severely drunk mother puts toddler at risk by driving under the influence and totaling her vehicle in a crash that looks like a movie stunt. Gets to keep the baby she almost killed, is sentenced softly. Would a man get the same sentence & punishment?

fogoticus

April 10, 2018

314 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Severely drunk mother puts toddler at risk by driving under the influence and totaling her vehicle in a crash that looks like a movie stunt. Gets to keep the baby she almost killed, is sentenced softly. Would a man get the same sentence & punishment?
Author	fogoticus
Upvotes	314
Comments	19
Date	April 10, 2018 6:02 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8b9t1a/severely_drunk_mother_puts_toddler_at_risk_by/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/severely-drunk-mother-puts-toddler-at-risk-by.903025 https://theredarchive.com/post/903025

Comments

[–]jazzbeaux59 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zetsthamys 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frescoraibo 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zetsthamys 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pitstatic 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The__Tren__Train 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditIsMyCity 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]The__Tren__Train -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedditIsMyCity 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AWildDeku 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Pause, this is just blatantly incorrect. I’ve sure been severely drunk, as many have been, and am perfectly capable of coming to the determination that I am unable to drive, as many do.

So not only do I severely doubt the validity of this claim as far as culpability goes, it also wouldn’t matter whether it is valuable or not. It would behoove you as a responsible adult to make responsible decisions whilst you are still responsible, in other words, sober. Before the drinking even began she should have handed off her keys, had someone else watching her child, and had a plan of action for returning home or going wherever she needed to BEFORE getting drunk.

She obviously did none of those things and that is where she is entirely responsible for a litany of crimes. Let’s be real, she was irresponsible before the alcohol.

[–]AWildDeku 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403183048.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3593065/

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-11/ace-afd111213.php

Executive performance, such as attention and memory, is associated with the frontal lobes. Researchers found specific structural changes in the prefrontal area and left cerebellum can predict executive performance in alcoholics. These volumes may identify executive dysfunctions even when clinical signs of alcohol dependence are absent or mild and a more general mental status appears normal. Frontal lobe deficiency, characterized by executive dysfunction such as deficits in attention and working memory, has been linked with an inability to abstain from alcohol. However, "high-functioning" alcoholics with frontal executive dysfunction may nonetheless appear to have a "normal" cognitive mental status. Findings from a new study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to examine volumetric measurements of segmented brain structures suggest that executive function and general mental status are affected differently by long-term use of alcohol.

"An individual with executive dysfunction may not be able to anticipate and plan for the future, making the associated decisions,"

Before the drinking even began she should have handed off her keys, had someone else watching her child, and had a plan of action for returning home or going wherever she needed to BEFORE getting drunk.

Well, there you go.

Furthermore, a person never plans on getting drunk to kill people or harm themselves. We can conclude that wrecking your car from being drunk, possibly being imprisoned or at least fined heavily, is all a form of harming yourself through 'bad choices'.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/04/26/17584.aspx

"Studies into the molecular changes that alcohol and smoking have on the body and particularly the brain are crucial for understanding the disease state," said Nikki Zuvela, a doctoral student in molecular neuroscience at The University of Queensland. "There are actual molecular changes to parts of the brain involved in developing addiction; most importantly, within those centres known to mediate desire, craving, pleasure, self control, decision making, fear and emotion."

"Changes to the release or reception of neurotransmitters effect downstream functioning of these centres and, as such, play an important role in the development of addiction and tolerance, craving and loss of impulse control witnessed in so many drug-affected states.

http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/alcohol-and-your-brain/

Alcohol is a depressant of the CNS. That means that alcohol makes nerve cells in the brain less excited, causing them to slow down. Does this surprise you? People often think that alcohol is a “pick-me-up” experience because it causes drinkers to become more animated and less reserved. That's because the first areas affected by small amounts of alcohol are those involved in inhibiting behaviors, which can cause an increase in animation, an increase in talkativeness, and greater sociability. But there are many indications that the brain is slowing down. Here are a few:

Altered speech

Hazy thinking

Slowed reaction time

Dulled hearing

Impaired vision

Weakened muscles

Foggy memory

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/you-illuminated/201006/your-brain-alcohol

At the same time, behavioral researchers sought to understand the physiological and psychological effects of drinking. Drinking profoundly alters mood, arousal, behavior, and neuropsychological functioning. However, studies have found that the specific effects depend not just on how much someone drinks, but also on whether blood alcohol content (BAC) is rising or falling; while in the process of drinking, alcohol acts as a stimulant, but as drinking tapers off it begins to act more as a sedative.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.authcheckdam.pdf

I n 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally retarded persons. This decision, Atkins v. Virginia, cited the underdeveloped mental capacities of those with mental retardation as a major factor behind the Justices’ decision. Adolescence is a transitional period during which a child is becoming, but is not yet, an adult. An adolescent is at a crossroads of changes where emotions, hormones, judgment, identity and the physical body are so in flux that parents and even experts struggle to fully understand. As a society, we recognize the limitati

The largest part of the brain is the frontal lobe. A small area of the frontal lobe located behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, controls the brain’s most advanced functions. This

part, often referred to as the “CEO” of the body, provides humans with advanced cognition. It allows us to prioritize thoughts, imagine, think in the abstract, anticipate consequences, plan, and control impulses. Along with everything else in the body, the brain changes significantly during adolescence. In the last five years, scientists, using new technologies, have discovered that adolescent brains are far less developed than previously believed.

[Well yeah. The brain doesn't actually mature in the PFC until the 30's or 40's]

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-12-brain-fully-mature-30s-40s.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852146/

Research linking the brain to antisocial and criminal behaviour also raises neurophilosophical questions concerning our liberty. Most neuroscientists hold that “minds are simply what brains do” [62]. Indeed, with the omission of metaphysical constructs like the “mind”, many take the view that we are tied to the physical brain and, as a consequence, have little personal choice.

Modern empirical endeavours support the claim that the human PFC, a latecomer in the brain's phylogenic history, is what makes us rational, intellectual, and moral entities (Table 1). For example, several studies on patients with focal frontal lobe injuries have supported Harlow's case [4,5]. In one of the largest studies of patients with brain damage to date, Grafman and colleagues found that increased aggressive/violent scale scores were most strongly associated with similarly localized PFC lesions in a sample of 279 veterans of the Vietnam War [6]. Higher scores were, however, mostly associated with verbal aggression and less so with physical aggression, again fitting with Harlow's observations of Gage [2]. These studies, along with clinical observations, have led many to suggest that damage to the PFC results in “acquired sociopathy” or “pseudopsychopathy”.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1225

When he was 17 years old, Christopher Simmons persuaded a younger friend to help him rob a woman, tie her up with electrical cable and duct tape, and throw her over a bridge. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Missouri court in 1994. In a whipsaw of legal proceedings, the Missouri Supreme Court set the sentence aside last year. Now 27, Simmons could again face execution: The state of Missouri has appealed to have the death penalty reinstated. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case in October, and its decision could well rest on neurobiology.

At issue is whether 16- and 17-year-olds who commit capital offenses can be executed or whether this would be cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Constitution's eighth amendment. In a joint brief filed on 19 July, eight medical and mental health organizations including the American Medical Association cite a sheaf of developmental biology and behavioral literature to support their argument that adolescent brains have not reached their full adult potential. "Capacities relevant to criminal responsibility are still developing when you're 16 or 17 years old,"

https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/3/1/120/1751245

Shortly after turning 40 years old, Michael developed an interest in child pornography. This was surprising because he had had no interest in such materials up to that point in his life. He also found himself attracted to his 12-year-old stepdaughter, with whom he and his wife lived. One night, while putting his stepdaughter to bed, he fondled her. He was convicted of a crime of sexual molestation of a child. The judge gave Michael the option of avoiding jail time should he pass successfully through a treatment program. Anxious to avoid jail, Michael agreed. He did very poorly in the program. Among other things, he came on to the staff and other patients. Michael also complained of headaches, and a neurologist, working with the patients in the treatment program, recommended a structural magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) of Michael's brain. The MRI revealed a large orbitofrontal tumor. Surgery was performed to remove the tumor, and, after recovery, Michael no longer had sexual urges directed towards children. He returned to the treatment program and passed without difficulty, meeting the judge's demands. He returned home and seemed to be having no problems, beyond those that might be expected of someone who had undergone brain surgery. Months later, however, his sexual desires for children returned. Another MRI revealed that the tumor too had returned. The tumor was again removed, and, again, Michael's urges went away.1

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Before the drinking even began she should have handed off her keys, had someone else watching her child, and had a plan of action for returning home or going wherever she needed to BEFORE getting drunk.

"Before you get raped from drinking too much, you should decide to have a plan, not drink so much when you get there, not go, or any other safety nets".

Long story short of all the brain and neuron gobbledygook... We recognize the role of the PFC in culpability. We even go so far as to say that 16-17 year olds have limited capacity for understanding their criminal behavior. That's kind of bullshit, I don't know anyone who was that age who committed crimes, and I was fully aware of what criminal behavior was an abstinence from it, e.g. murder, rape, theft.. hey, maybe this is why you think its bullshit that people on alcohol shouldn't be considered as responsible. You're not people who have that difficulty, just as I was not a teen who had a difficulty in understanding criminal behavior and right from wrong.

We claim that it is unfair and awful to treat people of diminished PFC ability (regulation, impulse control, etc, e.g. teens) like they're fully autonomous and moral beings, capable of making good choices.

As we can see, alcohol, whether acute or long term aka alcoholic, affects the PFC and has an identical deleterious process to all the same abilities that we considered compromised in teen brains.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AWildDeku 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

No, because your argument is flawed in every fashion and I do not require any amendment. Allow me to repeat myself... because I apparently have to. I’ll break it down Barney style:

A.) I doubted you were correct. Good job on the research. I might have thanked you, but execution needs work, though. Especially your condescending attitude, which will bite you, because, as I’ve already stated, I don’t care about the validity of your claim post inebriation. Your massive walls of text were not only a massive waste of everyone’s time, but also a poor rebuttal. Next time, post links. You talking? Not necessary.

B.) You’ve listed mental illnesses. The article listed none. This is not an argument to anything I’ve said, and is an exception, not a rule. We do not base standards on what can be reasonably expected from a human being based on the deficiencies of some. This... is ludicrous, but why am I not surprised? Your response is pretty much a blanket argument to remove personal responsibility entirely, listing a multitude of factors that may or may not apply. This is a horrible attempt at debate.

C.) And this is the worst one... the reviled rape argument. It’s terrible on multiple levels, and I can’t believe I have to explain it. It really embodies why I find academics that haven’t a Ph.D. or are not at the top of their class so revolting, because they tend to fall into this very trap; reading all the research they can and yet being unable to incorporate it into their argument whilst littering the debate with assumptions to fill in the gaps. A display of comprehension with regurgitated research without any cognitive ingenuity is infuriating.

First of all, egregious false equivalence. One involves a malicious crime perpetrated by a third party that one cannot possibly account for the intentions thereof, the case in question involves only the perpetrators own actions. That disqualifies this right off the bat, but we’ll take this even further. Your entire argument just devaluated every rape claim made whilst both parties involved are drunk because your entire argument hinges on how alcohol should nullify or at least mitigate some culpability... wow, “rape culture” much? This argument is self defeating in light of everything you said, and isn’t even applicable.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I hope this teaches you a very valuable lesson. Do not be intimidated by people that simply regurgitate peer reviewed research with a false sense of superiority. Chances are, if you actually dig into the discussion, their arguments are still demonstrably flawed.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The rape argument was meant to be inflammatory. And if you really think about it, its the same argument. "You should've had a plan and not put yourself in X position".

Where X means "drinking too much and getting date raped" or "driving drunk and running someone over".

If you had considered reducing the argument to pure logical arguments, it reads just like that. "Make a smart decision before drinking so X doesn't happen".

You can call it a false equivalence

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

But they are not opposing arguments. The consequences or who is to blame might be opposite, but the logic is the same.

Run someone over with your car while blindingly drunk? Oh, you were responsible and made bad choices before getting drunk, even though you are in no state of mind to protect yourself when you run someone over.

Hav sex while you're blindingly drunk? Oh, any past decisions on your part don't play a role. You were raped and its completely divorced from your choices beforehand.

You’re entire argument just devaluated every rape claim made whilst both parties involved are drunk because your entire argument hinges on how alcohol should nullify or at least mitigate some culpability

Yes. Similar to the argument that two teens having sex is mutual rape. And yes, teens have gone to prison despite both of them being 'equally mentally incompetent by virtue of age of consent law'.

And yes, when two people are really, really drunk and fuck, the male is considered the rapist and often tried as such in court.

You’ve listed mental illnesses. The article listed none. This is not an argument to anything I’ve said, and is an exception, not a rule.

It, like everything else shown, is an example of the way brain daamge (tumors) can affect a person's behavior. If you believe that people who have compromised PFCs, like children or people with brain tumors, are less responsible, then you cannot refuse to extend this reasoning to those under the influence of drugs, because they are also of compromised PFC ability.

I assume you'd say

But wait! A person chose to get drunk and possibly hurt others in a drunken state! That's why they're responsible!

Which goes back to blaming people for taking drugs and for the consequences. Which goes back to blaming victims of date rape. You see, I'm not making that claim. You'd be implicitly making that claim.

I doubted you were correct. Good job on the research. I might have thanked you, but execution needs work, though.

You didn't doubt. You claimed that it was completely false. And now you're attacking 'execution' as a means of red herring counterattack.

Your massive walls of text were not only a massive waste of everyone’s time, but also a poor rebuttal.

The 'massive wall of text' is about a 2-3 minute read for anyone who's serious about the discussion and learning, and context is required to understand the core arguments. That's why high school essays require more than a conclusion line, a single sentence of 'argument'.

A display of comprehension with regurgitated research without any cognitive ingenuity is infuriating.

You're still upset about how the message was delivered to you. The point was to give you information across multiple vectors of brain study, so that you can synthesize your own realizations.

"oh, so if people can be compromised by a brain tumor (an organic disorder), and if people are all unique individuals due to genetic variation, and if that could mean some people have 'better' or 'worse' PFCs as a consequence of the genetics they're given, and if we judge people as less capable for having 'compromised PFCs', and if we understand thoroughly that alcohol directly attacks all the executive functions, then... ".

Lets assume she's a person who's a chronic drinker. Because of her age and her behavior, we can be pretty assured of that. And what do those articles I gave you say about people who are chronic drinkers/alcoholics? They have damaged PFCs. Now watch the video.

https://youtu.be/obmt_PkIfBE?t=3189

If you've got a shred of self-reflection, people 100 years from now will say 'look how ignorant they were'. That medieval destructive belief in free will..

I hope this helps you understand your position and the issue better, sweetie.

https://youtu.be/obmt_PkIfBE?t=1328

I got another timestamp for you regarding socioeconomic status and PFC development. And if you behave differently due to different PFC development, then your brain is sculpted, literally, by the reacting forces of life to your behavior.

[–]The__Tren__Train 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link