I think they should be sterilized because if they did that to their child, they will do it to a new child all over again. Making them sterilized would remove any future problems. They should have themselves sterilized right after trail. But, a loophole for them would be being convicted. If they are, they should be sterilized. If not, no.
Women who have taken part in the abuse of children (Myra Hindley, for example) shouldn't be allowed the privilege of loving and raising a child, especially after harming somebody else's.
I believe that people like this can reform and maybe even get to a state where THEY are a suitable parent, but if they are convicted, they should be punished indefinitely, sterilise them when they are convicted. They don't deserve any form of interaction with a child, let alone having their own.
In my opinion, the only con with this idea is that women could be sterilised, and then found to be wrongly accused and innocent.
Why, because no child to come to this world to be mistreated, abused and suffered by irresponsible parent without love for others. Mother like that doesn't know how those child feel when they are abused, and they future for those children is probably uncertain and dark in this society .
To actually be convicted of child abuse, or even just to have ones children taken away requires substantial evidence and has to be obviously serious. This means that what ever they've done was enough to seriously damage another person for the rest of their life.
They should not have the chance to do it to another child. You could say "but you could put the rest of the children they have in care!" But who honestly thinks that's a viable solution. If the kid isn't adopted and is bounced from foster home to foster home, they could end up leading just a damaging a life as if they'd stayed with said abuser.
In my opinion one chance is all any person should get at raising another human being. If they fail so epically that the child has to be removed then they don't deserve to do it again.
Another argument against is "everyone has the right to have kids" but you could also say "everyone has a right to be free" meaning that we shouldn't lock up criminals. Yes, everyone deserves a chance, just like everyone is guaranteed freedom - Until they do something to warrant removing that right.
And if in the future, they turn their life around and want to finally give a loving home to a child - They can always adopt! They'll have to jump through 1000s of hoops, and be deemed legally mentally worthy by psychologists and have tons of home visits, if they really have turned around and really have earned that second chance then and only then should they get it.
Women who abuse their children shouldn't be aloud to have more children. If she was convicted and spent time in jail for child abuse. I think that that she should have no more children, to be put through the abuse the child before had to go through. I don't care if its done when shes in prison or if they do it after she she get out it should be done.
It makes ethical sense for proven child abusers to be rendered unable to have children. Some may not find it ethical to physically sterilize them (a permanent, irreversible decision done without their consent), so a compromise would be to have any resulting children removed by the state. And in either scenario, the abuser should be prohibited from adoption. I believe this should go for anyone convicted of child abuse, regardless of gender.
In cases of a criminal conviction for child endangerment, sexual abuse, or any violent crime, sterilization for any person (mother, father, step parent, uncle, etc.) is a good idea. However, ‘child abuse’ is not a legally defined crime, and its investigation and determination is not overseen by any court. Therefore it should not include that sort of a penalty. There are just too many openings for injustice to take over.
CPS determinations are not ‘convictions’, nor are they arbitrated by any court or formal judicial process. In Texas, and most states, CPS (or some analogous state agency) deals only with CIVIL not CRIMINAL law, and the investigators make determinations regarding:
a) Physical abuse
b) Sexual abuse
c) Emotional/Mental abuse
d) Physical Neglect
e) Neglectful supervision
Each of these has a strict legal definition, which is very different from, and in some cases is opposed to, the vernacular use of the term. Of this list, only sexual abuse is also automatically a crime, but the criminal definition of Sexual Abuse is different than the civil (CPS-related) definition. Again, a CPS determination is not a conviction.
Law Enforcement may become involved for actual crimes such as:
a) Sexual abuse
b) Child endangerment
d) Child molestation
e) Attempted murder
f) Wrongful death
These have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEGAL DEFINITIONS than child abuse, and are investigated by the police, not Child Protective Services. If at any point in a CPS case, facts or suspicions come to light that indicate a crime like child molestation, attempted murder, or child endangerment may have occurred, the police are called, and law enforcement conducts a separate investigation.
Here is how it works:
The investigator interviews all parties involved or potentially involved, conducts background checks of various sorts, talks with experts like medical personnel, maybe has the child examined by a doctor and reviews medical ,school, legal, and other records.
Most people hide all or parts of the truth, and many lie to the investigator. Sometimes the child lies. The investigator has to determine which people, if any or all, lied. Truthfully, the investigator often just has to guess at what the truth is. That means that the determination may be based on investigator biases, moods, or who lies most convincingly.
Based on this, the investigator makes a determination/finding of one of the following:
a) ‘Reason to Believe’ (the incident/condition was found to be abuse/neglect/neglectful supervision)
b) ‘Unable to Determine’ (there is not enough non-conflicting evidence)
c) ‘Rule Out’ (either the incident did not occur, or the incident does not meet the legal definitions for abuse/neglect/neglectful supervision)
At this point the investigation is over. It is critical to note that AT NO POINT HAS A COURT BEEN INVOLVED prior to the determination. In the case of ‘Reason to Believe’ CPs may refer the child to Family Court, which may take some action, but this is in regard to custody issues only, just like in a divorce case.