Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So read this court case today. The gist is simple: two fine specimen of humanity from Arkansas sold their baby to a stranger for $1000 and a case of beer (there was a written contract and everything, they are not some kind of savages!). A neighbor noticed and informed the police. The rest is predictable. But then we come to the sentences.
The man:
The woman:
So this is where I wonder - they guy pled guilty to just one count and got 3 years inside. The girl - who did absolutely the same thing, they did it together and in concert, and who pled to the same count and one more, worse one if I understand correctly - got essentially nothing, if she manages not to sell another baby within 6 years, she's free. So she clearly got much lesser punishment for at least the same - and formally, by charges, actually more severe - crime. Because she's female, I understand? Nobody think this is wrong? I really hope they don't plan to give the baby back to the "mother" and that's not the reason why she's not in jail.
Looking at the court records, the sentencing's probably in part due to the 'endangering welfare' bit -- it's not in most of the reporting, but there's pretty overt evidence of both neglect, and directly handing the kid to an incredibly drunken guy who still was more concerned about the child's welfare than the alleged parents.
That said, if I've got the names right, the difference in sentencing may just reflect Urban already being on probation for "receiving" a stolen bike (... I'd be dollars to donuts he just stole it) and a previous domestic violence arrest. Ehlers had a shoplifting arrest, too (and maybe jumped bail?), but that's not going to weigh as heavily in most cases, even ones as weird as this.
I can't see anything about the disposition of the kid, but I'd be very surprised if the kid didn't go straight to child protective services. The six-pack of beer wasn't really part of the whole 'adoption-for-sale' gimmick... but it was part of loaning the kid out overnight, instead. Optimistically, that's just an incredible level of neglect by a man and woman too dumb to realize that concerned bystanders were trying to get the kid into a safer location... but pessimistically, they might just not have cared why people were wanting to borrow a 2-month-old baby for one night.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link