[ozzythecat]

> Holmes is the mother of a young child and punishment for her is simultaneously punishment to the innocent child.

If we make the case that a criminal should receive a lessor sentence because it impacts their child, does that mean that any single mom or dad who robs a business should be able to get the same treatment? A reduced sentence for armed robbery, for example?

Continuing to play devils advocate here: how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image?

My own 2 cents: from the literature I’ve read about Elizabeth Holmes, it would not shock me that having a child was part of the defense’s strategy.

[ClumsyPilot]

> how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image?

How do you know a 16-year old single mother will create apropriate atmosphere? Should we perhaps mandate abortions to anyone who hasn't passed an exam and hasn't been issued a breeding licence?

The way this works today, a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty.

[ozzythecat]

> The way this works today, a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty.

Nobody is talking about 16 year olds or abortions. Are you sure you’re not deliberately changing the topic and really are debating in good faith?

Why do you believe it’s appropriate to compare a random 16 year old with a convicted criminal, who is awaiting sentencing?

> a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty

And no one is arguing against that. You’re making a straw man argument.