ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Health & Wellness
Have you personally been affected by the novel coronavirus?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cataceous" data-source="post: 178355" data-attributes="member: 38109"><p>A cursory reading of her story doesn't get into what level of due process she received. The first time she was confined:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>Under sections 1169 and 1170 of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Charter" target="_blank">Greater New York Charter</a>, she was arrested as a public health threat. Under questioning, she admitted that she almost never washed her hands.</em>[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon" target="_blank">R</a>]</p><p></p><p>It doesn't seem likely the Supreme Court weighed in on these statutes. In any case, her behavior was pretty egregious; they released her in 1910 after she promised to protect others, but she returned to her old ways—being a cook with poor hygiene—sickening many more and killing some.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>After arresting her, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health" target="_blank">public health</a> authorities returned her to quarantine on North Brother Island on March 27, 1915.</em></p><p></p><p>Even if she didn't get proper legal due process at the time, it seems as though the state had more than enough evidence to prove the danger she presented. Her second arrest was even more clear-cut. She was certainly guilty of some flavor of manslaughter.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cataceous, post: 178355, member: 38109"] A cursory reading of her story doesn't get into what level of due process she received. The first time she was confined: [INDENT][I]Under sections 1169 and 1170 of the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Charter']Greater New York Charter[/URL], she was arrested as a public health threat. Under questioning, she admitted that she almost never washed her hands.[/I][[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon']R[/URL]][/INDENT] It doesn't seem likely the Supreme Court weighed in on these statutes. In any case, her behavior was pretty egregious; they released her in 1910 after she promised to protect others, but she returned to her old ways—being a cook with poor hygiene—sickening many more and killing some. [INDENT][I]After arresting her, [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health']public health[/URL] authorities returned her to quarantine on North Brother Island on March 27, 1915.[/I][/INDENT] Even if she didn't get proper legal due process at the time, it seems as though the state had more than enough evidence to prove the danger she presented. Her second arrest was even more clear-cut. She was certainly guilty of some flavor of manslaughter. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Health & Wellness
Have you personally been affected by the novel coronavirus?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top