The Australian "custody sisters"

[joesixpack]

So is it just kidnapping that cannot be illegal and justified? Or are you extending this to any crime?

If so, you're saying that no criminal act can ever be justified.

If not, why not? What is so unique about kidnapping that makes it impossible to justify?

You seem to want to extrapolate this into a Socratic argument about the nature of justice. That's an entirely different discussion and philosophy has moved it pretty far down the field since Plato's Republic.

For this discussion of this particular issue, everyone seems pretty satisfied with a pretty rough and ready definition of "just". And again, in this particular case, Lionking was asked how kidnapping is justified and illegal at the same time. The rough and ready definition of "just" being used here carries with it the implication that the letter of the law is less important than its spirit, which is to protect both the well being of children and parental rights.

Now you show up with your friend Jean Valjean to suggest that OnlyTellsTruths is making an assertion which s/he is not, to wit, that just laws will never produce unjust consequences. This is not the argument. What was requested by OnlyTellsTruths was an explanation of how THIS law produced an unjust consequence. This remains to be answered.

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, if you're going to move the goalposts when the implication of what you say it is pointed out, then I suppose it will be difficult to have a productive discussion.

Carry on.

 

[Caper]

No, the parent who takes the kids to a foreign country to avoid having a court decide custody is always wrong.

I wouldn't agree with that. If you are in a country like say Saudi Arabia..... it your husband is beating you and the kids.... and say the mother became an athiest.... I would say it's a good idea to get out of Dodge and take the kids.

 

[Matthew Best]

I wouldn't agree with that. If you are in a country like say Saudi Arabia..... it your husband is beating you and the kids.... and say the mother became an athiest.... I would say it's a good idea to get out of Dodge and take the kids.

No, Caper. Kidnapping can never be justified - it's illegal, you see.

 

[joesixpack]

Well, if you're going to move the goalposts when the implication of what you say it is pointed out, then I suppose it will be difficult to have a productive discussion.

Carry on.

Sounds like you're slinging BS to me. Why not just tell me how in this case kidnapping was justified? It's a very simple question.

 

[Caper]

Is this based on mind reading?

I'd simply like someone to articulate why the children are better off with the father, other than saying it's the Italian law (which the Amanda Knox case shows isn't infallible). The opposite is usually the case.

It doesn't matter. You can't take someone's kid and simply have to prove I can give it a better home in order to keep it.... parent or not.

If I know a parent that lets their kid stay up late, watch too much tv and eat alot of junk food.... I can't simply walk up and take the child on the basis of me being able to give the child a better home.......

 

[Matthew Best]

Sounds like you're slinging BS to me. Why not just tell me how in this case kidnapping was justified? It's a very simple question.

And one that is impossible to answer without further facts.

But that's not what I was addressing. When you move from the specific to the general, you will encounter problems. If you say that this kidnapping was not justified, you may be right. If you go on to argue that kidnapping cannot be justified, that's something different.

 

[joesixpack]

I wouldn't agree with that. If you are in a country like say Saudi Arabia..... it your husband is beating you and the kids.... and say the mother became an athiest.... I would say it's a good idea to get out of Dodge and take the kids.

For what it's worth, Saudi Arabia is not a signatory to the Hague convention on Child Abduction. In this case the law would be on your side.

 

[WildCat]

I wouldn't agree with that. If you are in a country like say Saudi Arabia..... it your husband is beating you and the kids.... and say the mother became an athiest.... I would say it's a good idea to get out of Dodge and take the kids.

OK, but we're talking about Italy here, hardly a hellhole.

 

[Caper]

Question to those who support taking these kids away from their mother like this :

If a few years from now the adult girls come back into the spotlight and say "that was the worst thing that ever happened to me, being forced to live with my father was pure hell on Earth and the only thing that kept me going was the thought that the second I came of age I could jump on a flight and go straight back to my mother. Screw the courts and police for doing this to me, and screw my father too."

...what would your reaction to that be?

And let me throw this back at you. If I went to Ethiopia found a struggling but loving mother of 5 kids and simply took one of them....... because I wanted too.... and the rest of your scenario played out exactly the same way (the kid was later returned after a few years of legal wrangling) ...... How would you feel?

 

[joesixpack]

And one that is impossible to answer without further facts.

But that's not what I was addressing. When you move from the specific to the general, you will encounter problems. If you say that this kidnapping was not justified, you may be right. If you go on to argue that kidnapping cannot be justified, that's something different.

Impossible to answer but some seem quite willing to presume that the consequences of the law are unjust, and that this is an example of it.

Look, you are simply equivocating here and disguising it as a syllogism. The presumption of the question was that laws producing unjust consequences are ipso facto unjust laws. You want to call OnlyTellsTruths out on that, fine. Reword the question.

Kidnapping and abduction are two different things. Murder and Homicide are two different things. If you kill someone in the course of defending your own life then it is called "justifiable homicide", nut "justifiable murder". Kidnapping, by the legal definition is different than "rescuing". What you and lionking have been asserting is that the legal definition of kidnapping produces unjust consequences. No one argues that this cannot be so. What is argued is that there is some element of this abduction that either disqualifies it as a kidnapping, or that the legal definition of kidnapping has produced an unjust result.

 

[Matthew Best]

Impossible to answer but some seem quite willing to presume that the consequences of the law are unjust, and that this is an example of it.

I don't think anyone has argued that the consequences of a law against kidnapping are always unjust, just that they may have been in this case, but I haven't been so arguing so I think I can safely ignore this paragraph as it's obviously not addressed at me.

Look, you are simply equivocating here and disguising it as a syllogism. The presumption of the question was that laws producing unjust consequences are ipso facto unjust laws. You want to call OnlyTellsTruths out on that, fine. Reword the question.

You lost me. Reword what question? Why should I be rewording someone else's question?

Kidnapping and abduction are two different things. Murder and Homicide are two different things. If you kill someone in the course of defending your own life then it is called "justifiable homicide", nut "justifiable murder". Kidnapping, by the legal definition is different than "rescuing". What you and lionking have been asserting is that the legal definition of kidnapping produces unjust consequences. No one argues that this cannot be so. What is argued is that there is some element of this abduction that either disqualifies it as a kidnapping, or that the legal definition of kidnapping has produced an unjust result.

If you want to make up my position for me and then argue against that, go ahead. You'll probably win that argument! I am slightly surprised to hear that I have been arguing that the legal definition of kidnapping produces unjust consequences. It's the first I have heard of it.

To clarify, I was responding to this statement:

You appear to be saying there are cases where kidnapping is justified and illegal.

Caper already identified a situation where this would be the case.

 

[Caper]

Really? Your certain the kids were unhappy with their mother? I think people here want very much for the kids to have been unhappy with their mother because she's the villain. But life isn't Disney. You can be happy with bad people and unhappy with good. Thats why I would let the kids decide rather than rule on the merits of which parent followed the rules the most.

But what about the kidnapping part? Shouldn't she be charged with that? Will they go to prison with her?

 

[joesixpack]

Caper already identified a situation where this would be the case.

Oh those inconvenient facts

"(e) that “there is grave risk that the child’s return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation,” under Article 13(b); or

(f) that return of the child would subject the child to violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, under Article 20."

 

[Caper]

If you discovered tomorrow that you had been kidnapped as an infant, would you stop loving your "parents" and have them prosecuted and jailed? Because that's what the rules say?

No and No.... but I hope they would be charged and jailed. I most certainly would want the kidnappers of my child punished.

 

[WildCat]

So far all the pro-mother side here can argue is that if the facts were different then the kidnapping was justified.

That's nice, but why are you defending this kidnapping in this particuilar case?

 

[Caper]

If you love someone, laws do not matter to you. I'd break the law for my mom. I'd lie, cheat, steal, murder, and genocide for her.

Really? If your mother asked you to commit genocide.... you would?

 

[Matthew Best]

Oh those inconvenient facts

"(e) that “there is grave risk that the child’s return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation,” under Article 13(b); or

(f) that return of the child would subject the child to violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, under Article 20."

That's talking about the return of "a wrongfully removed" child. The removal was still wrongful. It's just that the return may not be necessary.

 

[joesixpack]

I don't think anyone has argued that the consequences of a law against kidnapping are always unjust, just that they may have been in this case, but I haven't been so arguing so I think I can safely ignore this paragraph as it's obviously not addressed at me.

Wait, you're misreading me. I mean that there are those who argue that in this case the consequences are unjust, not that they are always unjust.

 

[Matthew Best]

Wait, you're misreading me. I mean that there are those who argue that in this case the consequences are unjust, not that they are always unjust.

If you would just say what you mean, this discussion would be so much simpler.