jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (10 posts)

Caylee Anthony case -- Is the family still an important part ----

  1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    of our lives or it is where deception and lies thrive?

    I am watching the Casey Anthony case and this is related to it. (Although I don't know why they televised it, trial by the media and people). The defense argue that Casey's family is dysfunctional and the father sexually abused Casey justifying her behavior. And that the child died in the family swimming pool and that the case is a cover up.

    Are the benefits of belonging to a family still greater in our society today?

    Are we better off without a family?

    Is the family as an institution threatened by many factors, can we still consider it as a protective factor or it adds to our miseries? Does family help us to become a better person?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm skeptical of defense attorneys attempts to excuse criminal behavior due to childhood abuse or trauma. I suppose it makes sense in mitigation hearings in capital cases, mainly because I don't believe in capital punishment and support anything that works.

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
        prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't support capital punishment either.

        What about your take on "family" usefulness in our present time?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not sure I get your drift? I'm not sure what the concept means. ??Does it refer to taking into account family issues in the sentencing of a parent? It seems to me that a mother or father of young children should not be sent to prison if there is a way around it, assuming they aren't abusive or neglectful parents.

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
            prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't clarify the issue I would like to discuss.

            Moving away from the case of Casey Anthony, I would like to ask about opinion whether family is still beneficial to an individual as a whole. Yes there are dysfunctional families, because we tend to think about an ideal family, parents who are supportive etc.

            Could we do better without a family? If we don;t belong to any family, will we emerge more successful?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              On average, family is important. But some are so dysfunctional that the child is better off in foster care.

  2. Lisa HW profile image83
    Lisa HWposted 5 years ago

    It depends on the family.  If you're lucky you're born into a "regular" one that's either whole and healthy or else has only a few minor "issues".  If you're unlucky, you're born to one or more jerks/losers/imbeciles/freaks for parents; or else parents damaged by their own family enough that they don't know to complete separate from them.

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for the response Lisa, do you think that the discussion about family is just finding the "ideal family" which is of course different in every family dynamics and composition.

      1. Lisa HW profile image83
        Lisa HWposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My own thinking isn't coming from an "ideal family" kind of thing.  I think there's a difference between "ideal family" and "normal family".  All kinds of families are normal, and all families have their problems.  There are things about either individuals or families, though, that go outside what is pretty well established (in, say, the fields of psychiatry/psychology) as "within normal".  What's "normal" is sometimes be tied to a person's age-versus-maturity; and sometimes, for one reason or another, a kid from even a normal family won't mature "on schedule".  (One  cause of that is the fourteen-old kid who tries drugs, get involved too seriously with them, gets involved with a social circle where the only thing anyone is interested in is drugs, and spends x number of years when he'd otherwise be maturing "on hold" and on drugs.  The kid might have gotten more involved with drugs for some reason other than his family.  Some social/school issues can make a kid unhappy, insecure, and in need of escaping, belonging, or feeling cool.

        So, the kid who's been a "problem kid" since he was fourteen can get into bigger and bigger problems (like having a baby too young), and you can end up with a young mother whose emotional maturation process has been stunted, is really on "emotionally fourteen", doesn't have the patience, protective instincts, or ability to do what "regular" mothers of infants and toddlers know they need to (like control themselves, for example); and a whole continuing cycle/downward spiral that brings the person farther and farther away from family and "the mainstream" of normal living, and puts him/her deeper and deeper in with a circle of people who are bad/misguided as, or worse than, he is.  It doesn't help that daughters from the best families can, for one reason or another, end up with loser or psycho boyfriends, who can be a big influence on even otherwise and generally "regular" young women.

        Personally, I don't any normal (even not ideal) family will turn out a sociopath kid.  I think it takes something serious to be wrong for a kid to be a serious sociopath.  Maybe it doesn't have to be as seriously wrong for a kid to be a "borderline sociopath", but I think there's still something seriously lacking in the parents/ family in order for that to happen.

        In an example like the one above, though, I don't think it necessarily takes a sociopath to, say, lose control of a temper and end up unintentionally hurting a child more seriously than s/he thought s/he would.

        I knew a little girl who grew up to be a teen who did some things (serious things) that made those who knew her wonder if she was a sociopath.  Having known her since she was placed in a (good and loving) foster home at two or so (and after neglect and abuse), I'd always had the feeling there were things (intangible things) she needs and wanted from the people around her that she wasn't getting (because nobody seemed to be able to figure out what those things were, and because she was too little to be able to figure out, and voice, those things for herself).  Sometimes, I didn't really think she was a sociopath after all.  I'd think she was a hurt little girl who put on a tougher, colder, front in the interest of her own dignity.

        So, I do think what goes on (or doesn't) in families matters.  I'm not watching the case, but I can see that defense as either a way to try to prove reasonable doubt or else as a completely plausible scenario.  I suppose where it may most matter is in a case where abuse could make the difference between, say, the death penalty and no death penalty (if the verdict is guilty).

        What would be really horrible is if this individual really is a sociopath who's willing to let those kinds of accusations be in the air about innocent parents.  Equally bad, or worse, would be rotten/sociopath/sick parents who would be willing to let their daughter get, say, the death penalty for something they did.

        Either way, I think it's a case for, and lesson in, getting away from, and staying away from, any family members who show any signs of being "seriously off" before one ends up with his own life in a big, horrible, disaster.

        Also either way, I do think what did or didn't go on in the family can be very relevant.  So, with regard to the question about whether there are benefits in belonging to a family, I go back to the thing, "it depends on the family" (whether that "family" is made up of nobody but one's mother, a couple of parents, or a whole group of nearby family members).   hmm   smile  )

        (Hmm.  My post seems to have turned ridiculously long for no reason other than pondering yours.   lol   Sometimes we never know when the urge to "ponder" will hit.   lol  )

  3. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    I'm watching the trial also and thought that,since her defense is childhood sexual abuse, he needs to contact as many teachers and childhood friends and ask them if she ever did anyhting odd or whether she told anyone...I wonder if there are those who will contact the defense and claim she told them something...tv bring outs the attention seekers...