[ad_1]
The case of a woman who was arrested but not charged after leaving her three children, ages 2, 7 and 9, to work the night shift at a nursing home has ignited a complex and dangerous debate that oscillates between solidarity and compliance with the law.
Recognizing that my views may be misunderstood, judged, and criticized, I believe that no one can seek to improve themselves by refusing government “handouts,” as she puts it, at the expense of the physical integrity of our children. I go a step further and believe that as a society, the public interest must protect minors because they are defenseless when faced with inappropriate situations. Protecting adults who violate the safety of minors out of compassion or solidarity may sound oddly good, but it is not correct.
Let’s put it this way, if those children had died in the fire at that residence, I’m sure today we would all be attacking the security guards at that complex who knew those children were alone and didn’t call the police. Isn’t that right?
The debate here must revolve around failed public policies to combat poverty and social inequality, with around 65,000 households headed by single women still below the poverty line by 2024, according to a recent study by the Youth Development Institute.
In a country where nearly 70% of the population who are able to work live on government support or in the informal economy, it is a wonderful drop of water in the desert for a woman to say outright that she wants to work rather than live on assistance. However, this should never endanger your children.
It may sound ugly, but having children is a choice. The decision to have children, and how many children to have (if more than one), must be based on responsible sexual behavior and take into account the socioeconomic and personal environment one lives in. The opposite is irresponsibility, which in the long run translates into a burden on society and in many cases leads to problems that we all end up paying for.
Beyond that, the government’s decision not to proceed with the case in order not to “criminalize poverty” seems to me to open a dangerous door. I think it’s good that the state has decided not to criminalize poverty, but such a statement leads to great hypocrisy when they carry out anti-drug operations and police interventions every day in the poorest neighborhoods, not in areas where the wealthy who consume live or from where they facilitate the entry of illegal goods.
It should not be up to the police or prosecutors to decide whether to apply the law based on their level of sympathy or solidarity with the person who arrested or reported a crime. Ultimately, our system provides that the power to pardon a convicted person belongs to the Governor and no one else. Today, this woman was pardoned in a case that was broadcast nationwide, which seems good to us, but from now on, will we continue to pass on pardons that police and prosecutors have secretly given in not-so-good cases, or will we advocate for the principle of equality before the law?
20 years ago, a gubernatorial candidate was nearly lynched for doing the same thing, this time for taking on a campaign job. In this case, they were older children, not 2, 7, or 9-year-olds. Even so, the treatment was different, simply because of the social class a person belonged to.
So be careful not to get sucked into a debate between the rich, the middle class, and the poor. Everyone’s goal must be to reduce the gap in social inequality and create a better economic environment so that women like the woman in this case, and citizens at large, can get jobs and adapt to their realities and life circumstances. As it stands, leaving a 2-year-old baby in the care of a 9-year-old is not the solution.
[ad_2]
Source link
