Because they don't know the limits of their tools and were convinced they're infallible, and as a result an innocent woman was punished by the state. Just a guess.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works -3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Nobody knows the limit of their tools until those limits are known. Where did you decide they thought they were infallible? They followed the law they have, as is their job. Justice is not perfect, we don't have all the answers, jumping to such vicious conclusions speaks more about you than them. The entire incident, and her successful appeal after further investigation, was like a year. Nobody threw the woman into prison for a decade or something. Seriously, people are so reactionary.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody knows the limit

I'm not sure, but let's say that's true. They usually also don't care to know the limits. Another interesting case is Patricia Stallings (emphasis mine):

an American woman who was wrongfully convicted of murder after the death of her son Ryan on September 7, 1989. Because testing seemed to indicate an elevated level of ethylene glycol in Ryan's blood, authorities suspected antifreeze poisoning, and arrested Stallings the next day. She was convicted of murder in early 1991, and sentenced to life in prison.

Stallings gave birth to another child while incarcerated awaiting trial; this next child was diagnosed with methylmalonic acidemia (MMA), a rare genetic disorder that can mimic antifreeze poisoning. Prosecutors initially did not believe that the sibling's diagnosis had anything to do with Ryan's case. Stallings' lawyer was forbidden from producing available evidence as proof of the possibility. After a professor in biochemistry and molecular biology had some of Ryan's blood samples tested, he was able to prove that the child had also died from MMA, and not from ethylene glycol poisoning.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

One incident does not prove another.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That kinda depends on the circumstances, but I'll try to stop arguing after this reply

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

Respect the self control.

[–] ReasonablePea@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean unless they proved she was not providing for the kid I think they're assholes. But I shouldn't assume

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If the state has good reason to believe someone had abducted children, I would want them to intervene, would you not?

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

If no one is missing those children, that's not good reason to believe she kidnapped them at all. I want the children to be happy, and regardless of genetics taking them from the parents that raised them into a foster home will just damage them (unless parents are just very abusive)

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago

There are plenty of missing children, of all kinds of ages that went missing at all kind of times. So yes, they could have been. What was known of the situation more than justified taking some kind of action on behalf of the children, incase they were not hers.