View Full Version : Child Found Dead in Car
WTF? (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080820/NEWS01/308200081/1055/NEWS)
What a tragedy.
Will charges be filed, or will the "I forgot" defense be enough in Hamilton County like it was in Clermont last year when Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby did the same thing?
This is unbelievable to me, that people can either knowingly, or forgetfully, leave their children in cars. What the hell is wrong with people?
Stonebreaker
08-20-2008, 07:12 PM
Feeling bad about it isn't enough. People can 'get rid' of kids by doing that and saying 'oops, my bad' and all is well? There needs to be some punishment, in some form or fashion.
XUglow
08-20-2008, 07:18 PM
We had something like that happen 2 years ago. Mom was taking her child to childcare. Forgot she had moved childseat to dad's car for church. So, she put the child in the car seat and went back in to get the other set of keys so she could drive that car. The dad came out and took his car, as usual. He never noticed the car seat of sleeping child in the back. When mom popped out and saw the car gone, she just assumed that the dad had taken the child to daycare, so she took her car to work. When the daycare called her about 2 hours later, she called the dad. He went out and found the child in the back seat on the hottest day of the year. It was too late.
Nice people. Hospital admin and nurse. Really, really dumb mistakes. Ugh.
We had something like that happen 2 years ago. Mom was taking her child to childcare. Forgot she had moved childseat to dad's car for church. So, she put the child in the car seat and went back in to get the other set of keys so she could drive that car. The dad came out and took his car, as usual. He never noticed the car seat of sleeping child in the back. When mom popped out and saw the car gone, she just assumed that the dad had taken the child to daycare, so she took her car to work. When the daycare called her about 2 hours later, she called the dad. He went out and found the child in the back seat on the hottest day of the year. It was too late.
Nice people. Hospital admin and nurse. Really, really dumb mistakes. Ugh.
Coupled with the other two cases it is obvious gross negligence and stupidity happens at all education levels. How big a car can you have that you don't see the back seat when you get in or out of it ?
Feeling bad about it isn't enough. People can 'get rid' of kids by doing that and saying 'oops, my bad' and all is well? There needs to be some punishment, in some form or fashion.
That is a chilling thought that someone would "get rid of a kid ". I know the prevailing thought is they suffered enough by the loss of a child, but you're right, there needs to be serious investigation and punishment in some cases. There is a disease where people harm their children to gain sympathy, Munchausen by Proxy. But killing is a whole other ballgame.
It is odd that both these mothers were educators. What any ugly tale.
Stonebreaker
08-20-2008, 07:45 PM
Some people are nuts. Some people are nuts and smart. Others do asinine things like a dentist who just ran in to get something at his office, was needed, forgot his baby in the car, and came out later horrified.
Every situation is different, and each one should be treated separately.
cinskyline
08-20-2008, 08:08 PM
Feeling bad about it isn't enough. People can 'get rid' of kids by doing that and saying 'oops, my bad' and all is well? There needs to be some punishment, in some form or fashion.
I agree 100%. It was an absolute crime that Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby got away with no charges being filed against her. At the very least, she should have been charged with child endangering.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with this case.
Stonebreaker
08-20-2008, 08:26 PM
It's a tough call, certainly hard to weed out those with ill-intent and those who had a catastrophic mind-fart.
Snipe
08-21-2008, 08:18 AM
Keep them all in your prayers. I would never be able to live with myself.
Tardy Turtle
08-21-2008, 08:38 AM
I have a 15-week-old girl so these kind of stories make me want to throw up.
Cheesehead
08-21-2008, 09:11 AM
I don't care if a parent is CEO of a Fortune 500 company; hell, I don't care if the parent was President of U.S., how does one ever forget that they have a child in a car? It's a child, not a piece of luggage.
Another thing that bugs me to no end, is allowing young children to sit in the front seat of a car. I see almost daily and it's illegal.
Kahns Krazy
08-21-2008, 11:12 AM
In cases like this, I absolutely believe it's accidental. I feel terrible for the mothers and the families.
However, accidents still have repercussions. If I'm driving, and I change lanes and didn't see someone in my blind spot and cause an accident, I'm still liable.
I don't think these people need to be punished severely, but I think there at the very least should be a suspended sentence and probation in the event they are involved with another child endangering charge.
JTG - I have a relatively small car, and it's very possible for me to get to work every day without seeing what's in the back seat.
Again, situations like this are terrible, terrible tragedies, but that does not make them blameless tragedies.
gladdenguy
08-21-2008, 12:34 PM
This "idiot" should be severely punished. I have no sympathy for the woman. You can not forget that your child is in the car. End of story. No questions asked.
ATL Muskie
08-21-2008, 02:56 PM
I'm going to reserve judgment since I don't have all the facts. She seemed like a "normal" professional who made a serious and possibly unforgivable mistake. I don't see how it is possible to forget your child is in the car, but as I said, I don't have all the facts and don't know what all was going on with the woman. I do know that it is a heartbreaking story and it made my skin crawl thinking about it. Terrible.
drudy23
08-21-2008, 03:26 PM
[QUOTE=ATL Muskie;52486]I'm going to reserve judgment since I don't have all the facts. QUOTE]
Jesus.
I'm with gladdenguy.
Kahns Krazy
08-21-2008, 03:45 PM
Those in favor of "severe punishment", what do you suggest? Incarceration? How long? Death penalty? Seriously, what would you suggest is the appropriate "severe punishment" in the case of an accidental death of a child?
ATL Muskie
08-21-2008, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=ATL Muskie;52486]I'm going to reserve judgment since I don't have all the facts. QUOTE]
Jesus.
I'm with gladdenguy.
Relax. I didn't say it was acceptable or even understandable. I just said I don't have all the facts so I will reserve judgment. I know that's a hard concept for some of you. And aren't you the one who condemned Sean Taylor before you knew all the facts? Yeah, you were. For all we know this lady's husband put the kid in the car without her knowing it and she drive to work oblivious to the fact that a sleeping baby was in her car. I just don't know, and you don't either. Let's not form a lynch mob.
It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which she never had any awareness the baby was in the car.
ATL Muskie
08-21-2008, 03:54 PM
It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which she never had any awareness the baby was in the car.
Actually, I just presented one. In fact, that happened to a neighbor once. Dad put baby in the car and never told mom even though he thought he did and mom drove halfway to work not knowing a sleeping baby was in her car. Evidently it was his turn to take the baby to grandma's that day or something and he spaced and thought it was mom's. Luckily she realized it before she parked and went to work for the day. I realize it's a bit of a stretch, but it does happen, and no drudy I'm not justifying this woman's actions. It seems to me it's a horrible accident and not some sinister plot to murder her child. Regardless of all of this, I still say we don't have all the facts so why the rush to judgment. I understand everyone is upset, as am I, but it seems like a horrible mistake and not some cold-blooded murder. There's a big difference, yet everyone seems out for blood.
drudy23
08-21-2008, 03:54 PM
She is, without a doubt, responsible for the death. If not her, then who?
It is not my job to determine the severity of her punishment, if any. But there is no doubt that she is responsible...I don't care what scenario or legal lingo you throw at me...she is responsible.
However, in our legal system, responsibility and accountability sometimes don't add up.
drudy23
08-21-2008, 09:08 PM
I just heard the 911 call in this case, and let's just say that I will in no way be surprised if more to this story comes out. The mom was eerily calm throughout the 911 call. Definitely not normal behavior for a mother who just lost her daughter. Very odd.
Kahns Krazy
08-21-2008, 10:03 PM
She is, without a doubt, responsible for the death. If not her, then who?
It is not my job to determine the severity of her punishment, if any. But there is no doubt that she is responsible...I don't care what scenario or legal lingo you throw at me...she is responsible.
However, in our legal system, responsibility and accountability sometimes don't add up.
Well, pretend it is your job. You opened your big mouth, so tell me, if you could make the rules, what would the appropriate punishment be for a parent who is responsible, accidentally, for their child's death?
wkrq59
08-21-2008, 11:11 PM
I have a 15-week-old girl so these kind of stories make me want to throw up.
Turtle,
When I was just starting at the paper back in the late 60s, I'd read the UPI and AP news wires at night waiting for the box scores to move so I could edit them.
One night I read a story about a father who beat his five-year-old son to death because the boy didn't say his night prayers respectfully. The little boys last words were "Daddy, I love you."
I stopped reading the news wires and stayed with the Toy Department.
To this day, I have a hard time forgiving the parents or anyone else who allows a child to bake to death in a car.
I find myself wishing they'd be placed in a maximum security prison with the worst murders etc. and made to go into the general population exercise yard every day.
I find it very hard to pray for them or any child abuser.
I guess that makes me a bad guy, but some places I draw the line.:D
D-West & PO-Z
08-21-2008, 11:14 PM
I have gone back and forth on on my opinions with cases like these. On the one hand you feel terrible for the parents that they made such a deadly mistake and having an 8 year old brother I know from when he was younger that things can get so busy and hectic that mistakes like these can happen. On the other hand I think there still has to be some sort of legal action but I dont know what it is or what the punishment should be. I think I have really just taken the position that I feel terrible for these families and I will pray for them and reserve judgment because it seems like it is something that can really happen to anyone on the wrong day.
Snipe
08-21-2008, 11:39 PM
I am with you D-West. I don't know why I continue to check out this thread because it tears my heart out. I keep picturing my own children. This parent can't suffer a penalty that is harsher than knowing that she is alive and that she killed her child. I pray for the children and the families that this happened to.
WKRQ, that "Daddy, I love you" got me. That is a totally different situation though.
I hate these threads. I should never read them. I have prayed my whole life but I never started really praying until I had children.
ATL Muskie
08-22-2008, 08:20 AM
Slighthly different scenario, but what do we do with the parent or sibling who backs up in the driveway and accidently runs over a child? Happens all the time. It happened recently to a country music singer (can't remember his name). he and hiis wife had adopted a girl and his 18-yr-old son was backing up and ran over her, killing her. Do we give him the chair? He's ultimately responsible for her death, but what's the proper punishment? Thats' why I say I don't have all the facts. Was it malicious or an accident? I don't know, and it seems Deter doesn't know yet either. Whatever the case, it's heartbreaking.
MADXSTER
08-22-2008, 08:48 AM
All of you sum up this case perfectly. And I appreciate that you put into words the many ways that I feel about this unfortunate event.
For the child there is nothing but sorrow. For the mother there are two sides. To feel absolutely horrible for her in this tragic event or to have complete and utter anger towards her.
Most people at work, not all, have left their child in a car for one reason or another. I have. My oldest was teething and was up for about 20 straight hours mostly crying. I put him in the backseat and went to the hardware store less than 5 min away. He fell asleep. I remember thinking, Oh Shit. This was 15 years ago. I didn't have the heart to wake him up. Ran (literally) into the store, got my screws and ran out. I still feel guilty but I know I would have felt horrible if he'd a woke up and cried another ten hours. He needed to get some sleep.
There's a point, a threshold where you feel completely helpless because as a parent there is absloutely nothing you can do to help your child. The fact that I remember this so vividly even surprises me. Why didn't I just go back home...I don't know. Just not thinking straight.
When I got home I left the car running with the AC on and went inside, got a book came back out and sat in the car and read until my wife got home.
XU05and07
08-22-2008, 09:05 AM
Her actions directly caused the death of her child...there has to be some consequences to her accident. Like Kahns said, if I cause a car accident even though I didn't mean to, I have to pay the consequences. I don't get a free pass.
I don't have any children of my own, but if my parents had done this to me or to my siblings, I would have held it against them for the rest of their lives and I would have wanted them to have some penalty.
It's a terrible story, but it continues to happen...how come people aren't learning from other people's mistakes?
Cincinnati.com has been running stories since this news broke about new technology to alert you if you leave children in your car. But why do we have to rely on technology and remove all personal responsibilities. Technology might be a good back-up, but people would completely rely on it.
Personal responsibilities need to be a priority
ATL Muskie
08-22-2008, 09:18 AM
Her actions directly caused the death of her child...there has to be some consequences to her accident. Like Kahns said, if I cause a car accident even though I didn't mean to, I have to pay the consequences. I don't get a free pass.
I don't have any children of my own, but if my parents had done this to me or to my siblings, I would have held it against them for the rest of their lives and I would have wanted them to have some penalty.
It's a terrible story, but it continues to happen...how come people aren't learning from other people's mistakes?
Cincinnati.com has been running stories since this news broke about new technology to alert you if you leave children in your car. But why do we have to rely on technology and remove all personal responsibilities. Technology might be a good back-up, but people would completely rely on it.
Personal responsibilities need to be a priority
i agree. And technology is great, but it shows just where we are in our society. We're so busy and preoccupied with other shit that we need a machine to tell us to check our kids. It's crazy. But again, I don't know if this woman had mental issues or if she just plain spaced out. I'd like to think we don't need machines to help us with our kids, but it's a sign of the times that some people do.
Billy
08-22-2008, 10:31 AM
Her actions directly caused the death of her child...there has to be some consequences to her accident. Like Kahns said, if I cause a car accident even though I didn't mean to, I have to pay the consequences. I don't get a free pass.
I don't have any children of my own, but if my parents had done this to me or to my siblings, I would have held it against them for the rest of their lives and I would have wanted them to have some penalty.
It's a terrible story, but it continues to happen...how come people aren't learning from other people's mistakes?
Cincinnati.com has been running stories since this news broke about new technology to alert you if you leave children in your car. But why do we have to rely on technology and remove all personal responsibilities. Technology might be a good back-up, but people would completely rely on it.
Personal responsibilities need to be a priority
Amen, brother.
Stonebreaker is also correct. We all have heard stories of where parents PURPOSELY kill their children...and many of those parents who have been convicted have also cried a lot of tears in front of TV cameras. Not only is it a matter of personal responsibility, but there's the fact that grief shown isn't ALWAYS an accurate indicator that there was no intent.
Ohio needs laws that will guarantee that a jury be entitled to make that decision.
Kahns Krazy
08-22-2008, 10:34 AM
I had a friend in high school that was killed in a single car accident in which his mother was behind the wheel. His mother was in control of the vehicle. In bad weather, she lost control and wrecked the car. She survived, but her son, who was 19 at the time, was killed.
Should she face charges as well? Is this the same as or different from the case of leaving an infant in a car.
I don't have all the answers. In my heart, I believe that this woman is already being punished more than the court could ever punish her. It doesn't make sense to me to incarcerate this woman and punish her husband also. However, I think there should be a legal proceeding to place blame and a punishment to be suspended assuming she doesn't have anything like this happen to her again.
I had another friend who was killed in a two-car accident where he was at fault. I believe it was determined that he ran a red light, or improperly turned left. Despite the fact that he was dead, he was cited for the accident. In this case, it's probably the reverse concept - to legally identify that the driver of the vehicle that struck and killed him was specifically not at fault or responsible for his death.
I don't know. I'd like to hope that we could make laws about what should happen next time and that those laws would never need to be used. The sad truth is that this happens about once a week in the United States.
XU05and07
08-22-2008, 10:42 AM
Amen, brother.
Stonebreaker is also correct. We all have heard stories of where parents PURPOSELY kill their children...and many of those parents who have been convicted have also cried a lot of tears in front of TV cameras. Not only is it a matter of personal responsibility, but there's the fact that grief shown isn't ALWAYS an accurate indicator that there was no intent.
Ohio needs laws that will guarantee that a jury be entitled to make that decision.
There is a bill in the Ohio legislature right now that would do that exact thing...but it hasn't been voted on yet
Raoul Duke
08-22-2008, 11:36 AM
Her actions directly caused the death of her child...there has to be some consequences to her accident. Like Kahns said, if I cause a car accident even though I didn't mean to, I have to pay the consequences. I don't get a free pass.
I don't have any children of my own, but if my parents had done this to me or to my siblings, I would have held it against them for the rest of their lives and I would have wanted them to have some penalty.
***
Personal responsibilities need to be a priority
Causation isn't the only element that goes into assessing consequences, whether it's a child's death or a car accident. From the article, "under Ohio law, no crime was committed if Edwards simply forgot Jenna was in the van."
I assume you're talking about legal consequences. With respect to philosophical or moral consequences, those have already been rendered. This woman's life will never be the same.
I know it's never a popular argument on the heels of something like this, but society needs to be careful before advocating strict liability for something like this. You have a delicate balance between protecting a child's interest and telling someone how to raise their kid. In other words, you have to consider the law (no pun intended) of unintended consequences. We should cool our heads before deciding whether we want to make it a crime every time a parent forgets to pick their kid up from soccer practice or leaves them at the hardware store.
In this case and at this point, you have to trust the legal system to investigate the facts and assess legal culpability based on the degree of the mother's fault.
Causation isn't the only element that goes into assessing consequences, whether it's a child's death or a car accident. From the article, "under Ohio law, no crime was committed if Edwards simply forgot Jenna was in the van."
I assume you're talking about legal consequences. With respect to philosophical or moral consequences, those have already been rendered. This woman's life will never be the same.
I know it's never a popular argument on the heels of something like this, but society needs to be careful before advocating strict liability for something like this. You have a delicate balance between protecting a child's interest and telling someone how to raise their kid. In other words, you have to consider the law (no pun intended) of unintended consequences. We should cool our heads before deciding whether we want to make it a crime every time a parent forgets to pick their kid up from soccer practice or leaves them at the hardware store.
In this case and at this point, you have to trust the legal system to investigate the facts and assess legal culpability based on the degree of the mother's fault.
Yes. The right balance.
Billy
08-22-2008, 12:42 PM
I had a friend in high school that was killed in a single car accident in which his mother was behind the wheel. His mother was in control of the vehicle. In bad weather, she lost control and wrecked the car. She survived, but her son, who was 19 at the time, was killed.
Should she face charges as well? Is this the same as or different from the case of leaving an infant in a car.
We can assume that because she was in the car with him, that there was no intent to wreck the vehicle.
The problem with leaving a kid in the car where they burn to death, is that you don't have a fail-safe way of determining whether or not there was intent by the parent.
GoMuskies
08-22-2008, 01:03 PM
The problem with leaving a kid in the car where they burn to death, is that you don't have a fail-safe way of determining whether or not there was intent by the parent.
That's true, but if the prosecution is reasonably certain that there was no intent on the parent's part, then they were correct not to prosecute.
Kahns Krazy
08-22-2008, 01:06 PM
How can you safely assume anyone's intent? Maybe my friend's Mom noticed that he wasn't wearing his seatbelt and aimed for a telephone pole on his side?
My point here is that if you want to "severely punish" the woman in this case, where do you draw the line? Who is to judge the intent of the mother?
In the Slaby case from last year, there were reports that it was not the first time she had left her baby in the car. Does that make her defense stronger or weaker? I think it supports the notion that she didn't leave her child in the car to die, so it's an accident. I also think it points to repeated, and therefore, gross negligence, in which case I think she deserves to be punished.
Let's take the hypothetical here Billy. Lets imagine that you were with this woman on that day, and you know, or believe beyond doubt, that she had no intent to leave her child in her car. How would you proceed?
GoMuskies
08-22-2008, 01:11 PM
How can you safely assume anyone's intent?
Intent is an element of just about every crime, so the criminal justice system has to somehow manage.
It's a job for the prosecutors in the first instance, and it must be finally decided by a jury.
Billy
08-22-2008, 01:12 PM
I know it's never a popular argument on the heels of something like this, but society needs to be careful before advocating strict liability for something like this. You have a delicate balance between protecting a child's interest and telling someone how to raise their kid. In other words, you have to consider the law (no pun intended) of unintended consequences. We should cool our heads before deciding whether we want to make it a crime every time a parent forgets to pick their kid up from soccer practice or leaves them at the hardware store.
I'm in favor of whatever makes parents do their jobs. I think if you look at some of the societal problems across the entire spectrum...shitty parenting contributes to many of them.
As to your hypothtical. If I (as a parent) don't pick a 7-year old kid up from soccer practice, and he gets abducted and killed as a result...then why shouldn't I be held somewhat responsible in a criminal sense? Or, at the very least, have a grand jury listen to the facts of the case.
We see this in traffic cases...and it works. The result of the negligent behavior is consequential to the punishment. If I go down the road speeding at 83mph, and the cop pulls me over without incident...I get a $100 ticket and get on with my day. If that same excessive speed were found to be a contributing factor in a fatal accident...well, I can be tried for involuntary manslaughter. Same obviously applies to DUI.
Those laws makes sense. No reasonable person would argue that because breaking traffic laws CAN cause death...that all speeding tickets should yield jail time. Just like I don't think a parent should be charged for being late to soccer practice unless their mistake yields harm to their children.
gladdenguy
08-22-2008, 01:24 PM
It should be just straight up murder.
I will tell you what. This would never happen to me because I'm not an idiot, but if I did something like this, there would be no reason to continue living.
Some people in this world can't have children because of medical reasons, and we have irresponsible nimbwits who can leave their daughters in the car for eight hours.
Unfreakin believable.
This is not your money, your coffee, or your homework, it is your freekin child.
Billy
08-22-2008, 01:31 PM
Let's take the hypothetical here Billy. Lets imagine that you were with this woman on that day, and you know, or believe beyond doubt, that she had no intent to leave her child in her car. How would you proceed?
I'm admittedly not an attorney, but as I typed above...I don't belive intent is necessary to bring someone up for involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, or whatever charge they would give someone in Ohio for a fatal DUI...no?
KK, I would let a jury listen to the facts and decide. I think on something like this every fact is really important, and I don't have all those facts. But for conversation here, let's assume that this woman is 100% sane, not on meds, no other extenuating circumstances...then I (as king) would still charge her with child endangerment. Not because I want to be mean...but mostly, because I want to make her an example.
I go back to the Slaby case last summer as sort of why facts are important. It was reported by the Enquirer that it wasn't the first or even second time she had left her child unintended in a car. However, that wasn't considered germane to the Clermont County Prosecutor...again, because in his opinion, past actions didn't have anything to do with her intent on the day her child died. To me, if Ohio had just laws...a jury would have at least had the ability of punishing Slaby due to her pattern of questionable parenting...even when there is an absence of intent.
Raoul Duke
08-22-2008, 01:39 PM
I'm in favor of whatever makes parents do their jobs. I think if you look at some of the societal problems across the entire spectrum...shitty parenting contributes to many of them.
Taken to its logical conclusion, doing 'whatever it takes' to make parents do their jobs would effectively result in a police state. I agree that many societal problems are caused by shitty parenting. But that doesn't mean you can fix the problem by any means necessary; you have to look at it in the construct of a number of other competing interests, e.g., the right to individual liberty.
As to your hypothtical. If I (as a parent) don't pick a 7-year old kid up from soccer practice, and he gets abducted and killed as a result...then why shouldn't I be held somewhat responsible in a criminal sense? Or, at the very least, have a grand jury listen to the facts of the case.
Because you didn't intend to abduct and murder the child; the murderer did. Depending on the facts, you could be criminally negligent though. If the facts reveal that the mother who left her van was criminally negligent, she should be held liable for that.
We see this in traffic cases...and it works. The result of the negligent behavior is consequential to the punishment. If I go down the road speeding at 83mph, and the cop pulls me over without incident...I get a $100 ticket and get on with my day. If that same excessive speed were found to be a contributing factor in a fatal accident...well, I can be tried for involuntary manslaughter. Same obviously applies to DUI.
Those laws makes sense. No reasonable person would argue that because breaking traffic laws CAN cause death...that all speeding tickets should yield jail time. Just like I don't think a parent should be charged for being late to soccer practice unless their mistake yields harm to their children.
We can't equate prophylactic traffic laws with prophylactic parenting laws. (I don't think you are.) What I'm concerned about is a law where you would be given a $100 ticket for leaving your kid at soccer practice. At some point, it amounts to the state telling you how to do your job as a parent. A parent has fairly compelling rights of liberty and privacy in raising a kid. There aren't any similar compelling rights in a speeding ticket scenario. That's why you can justify giving a speeding ticket when there was essentially no harm done, but you can't justify giving a 'bad parenting ticket' when no harm was done.
On the heels of an accident like this, I think the public outrage creates a risk that we will draft laws based not on reason but on a sense of vindication.
Billy
08-22-2008, 02:05 PM
We can't equate prophylactic traffic laws with prophylactic parenting laws. (I don't think you are.) What I'm concerned about is a law where you would be given a $100 ticket for leaving your kid at soccer practice. At some point, it amounts to the state telling you how to do your job as a parent. A parent has fairly compelling rights of liberty and privacy in raising a kid. There aren't any similar compelling rights in a speeding ticket scenario. That's why you can justify giving a speeding ticket when there was essentially no harm done, but you can't justify giving a 'bad parenting ticket' when no harm was done.
On the heels of an accident like this, I think the public outrage creates a risk that we will draft laws based not on reason but on a sense of vindication.
I am about as strict civil libertarian as it gets. However, I do believe society has the right, and even the responsibility, to apply some type of base parental standards. Leaving a child in a hot car is substandard parenting by any reasonable standard. Leaving a kid of a certain age unattended in certain situations...also substandard parenting. I have no problem with communities, states, etc. making those sorts of decisions. Being a Federalist, I believe people can pick up and move if the social laws passed are too invasive. Ohio (generally a fairly strtict state) has a law in regard to child endangerment that is not my own personal taste.
Should it be required that a child be educated if a parent feels it's unnecessary? Education is really an enrichment issue...and not a life-or-death matter as these other hypotheticals have been. Yet, I hear very few people grousing about the laws which mandate that children attend some type of school.
Kahns Krazy
08-22-2008, 02:07 PM
Billy, I just realized that I confused you with some of the other comments on this thread calling for severe punishment. I think in general we agree that there is some minimum level of accountability in the case of a pure mistake, and that it is appropriate that the legal system, including potentially a jury, review individual cases to make sure there are no other charges that are appropriate.
On the heels of an accident like this, I think the public outrage creates a risk that we will draft laws based not on reason but on a sense of vindication.
I couldn't have said it better. That is my biggest fear as well.
Raoul Duke
08-22-2008, 02:26 PM
I am about as strict civil libertarian as it gets. However, I do believe society has the right, and even the responsibility, to apply some type of base parental standards. Leaving a child in a hot car is substandard parenting by any reasonable standard. Leaving a kid of a certain age unattended in certain situations...also substandard parenting. I have no problem with communities, states, etc. making those sorts of decisions. Being a Federalist, I believe people can pick up and move if the social laws passed are too invasive. Ohio (generally a fairly strtict state) has a law in regard to child endangerment that is not my own personal taste.
My point is that the state can't apply base parental standards at all costs or in a vacuum. Those standards have to be applied in the context of other competing interests. Back to the example we were talking about before, my main concern would be prophylactic parenting laws.
Punishing bad parenting after something has gone wrong is one thing. But trying to prevent bad parenting using the legal system is quite another. It's a much more drastic and invasive remedy. In some circumstances it may be justified, but you'd better have a damn better reason than a high-profile, isolated incident.
Should it be required that a child be educated if a parent feels it's unnecessary? Education is really an enrichment issue...and not a life-or-death matter as these other hypotheticals have been. Yet, I hear very few people grousing about the laws which mandate that children attend some type of school.
Again, you can (and I think you have to) look at this one as a matter of competing interests. The state has a compelling interest in a well-educated populace. A parent has a right to liberty and privacy in raising their child. And the child has a right to an education. Education laws satisfy these interests. A parent is required to educate the child (satisfies state's interest); a parent can home school the child (satisfies parent's liberty and privacy interests); state provides education (satisfies child's right to an education.) Ok, the last one may or may not be true.
So there really isn't any issue to be had with laws mandating education.
drudy23
08-22-2008, 02:46 PM
And again...all of this "legal talk" doesn't matter. A mom left HER child in the car to bake to death. Who is utlimately responsible for the well-being of an 11 month old? The parents. Regardless if it's an accident or not, there should be SOME accountability. It's simple common sense. If the justice system used a little, it wouldn't be such a debate.
gladdenguy
08-22-2008, 02:57 PM
I block out all this legal bull**** as well. This lady is responsible for a young life. I don't care if I had a case of beer in the morning and rode in the passenger seat......I still wouldn't forget my child. Not that I would ever drink a case a beer if I was responsible for my young child......but this lady needs to be punished.
And if the 911 call was like you described drudy, she obviously needs to be punished because the worst punishment is that she has to live with this.
If its not, there is a problem.
Nonetheless, if you make a mistake and drink and drive and kill somebody you will pay.
If you leave a child in the car for 8 hours you should pay as well. And severely pay.
GoMuskies
08-22-2008, 03:12 PM
I block out all this legal bull**** as well.
Yeah, let's get all this legal bullshit out of the legal system!
Billy
08-22-2008, 03:16 PM
My point is that the state can't apply base parental standards at all costs or in a vacuum. Those standards have to be applied in the context of other competing interests. Back to the example we were talking about before, my main concern would be prophylactic parenting laws.
Punishing bad parenting after something has gone wrong is one thing. But trying to prevent bad parenting using the legal system is quite another. It's a much more drastic and invasive remedy. In some circumstances it may be justified, but you'd better have a damn better reason than a high-profile, isolated incident.
Again, you can (and I think you have to) look at this one as a matter of competing interests. The state has a compelling interest in a well-educated populace. A parent has a right to liberty and privacy in raising their child. And the child has a right to an education. Education laws satisfy these interests. A parent is required to educate the child (satisfies state's interest); a parent can home school the child (satisfies parent's liberty and privacy interests); state provides education (satisfies child's right to an education.) Ok, the last one may or may not be true.
So there really isn't any issue to be had with laws mandating education.
Ok, so exactly whose interests are not being fulfilled by laws that mandate people should take reasonable care of their children? The way I figure it...it would be confined to the "irresponsible parents of the world". I'm sorry, but I can live with trampling on their interests.
I don't see anyone implying that the state should craft a 900-page document with laws on every single parenting scenario that could occur. This slope you are worried about just isn't all that slippery. As it sits now...juries don't get to hear child endangerment cases if there isn't intent in Ohio. That's all we're really talking about here. In my opinion, there's no chance that someone like Brenda Slaby, who apparently left her child in the car unattended repeatedly, should've gone uncharged. Not when she proved to be a wildly irresponsible parent by any reasonable standard.
Raoul Duke
08-22-2008, 03:36 PM
Ok, so exactly whose interests are not being fulfilled by laws that mandate people should take reasonable care of their children? The way I figure it...it would be confined to the "irresponsible parents of the world". I'm sorry, but I can live with trampling on their interests.
I never said there's anything wrong with laws that mandate people taking care of their children. In fact, I think I said that's perfectly fine. It's just a question of the manner and extent of those laws. In this situation, it's the prophylactic manner that concerns me. Again, you can have situations where a prophylactic measures are appropriate, but it's a drastic remedy, so you need a strong justification.
I don't see anyone implying that the state should craft a 900-page document with laws on every single parenting scenario that could occur. This slope you are worried about just isn't all that slippery. As it sits now...juries don't get to hear child endangerment cases if there isn't intent in Ohio. That's all we're really talking about here. In my opinion, there's no chance that someone like Brenda Slaby, who apparently left her child in the car unattended repeatedly, should've gone uncharged. Not when she proved to be a wildly irresponsible parent by any reasonable standard.
Maybe we're talking about two different laws then. Here (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080822/NEWS0107/808220344) is the one proposed in response to this incident, and the one I was thinking of. From the article:
Fourteen states have laws that make it illegal to leave a child alone in a motor vehicle. Fifteen others, including Kentucky, are considering such laws. In Florida, it's a felony, according to Kids and Cars, a group that works to prevent child injuries and deaths in non-traffic, motor vehicle-related events."
"White's proposed law would make it a minor misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $150 fine, to leave a child alone in a car where there is potential danger. Should serious physical injury or death result, leaving the child alone would then be a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.
I honestly don't know about the jury trial issue and didn't see it mentioned in that article. So I can't really comment on that. But the laws mentioned in the block quote are the type that concern me. I think the Slaby thing was a pretty close call from what I remember. Really it could have gone either way. I probably would have put it to a grand jury.
Billy
08-22-2008, 03:58 PM
Aren't all laws meant to be somewhat "prophylactic" by nature? Perhaps I am not sure what you mean. The word is defined as:
pro·phy·lac·tic
–adjective
1. defending or protecting from disease or infection, as a drug.
2. preventive or protective.
–noun
3. Medicine/Medical. a prophylactic medicine or measure.
4. a preventive.
5. a device, usually a rubber sheath, used to prevent conception or venereal infection; condom.
It's always been my understanding that laws serve to be both punitive and preventive.
On the heels of an accident like this, I think the public outrage creates a risk that we will draft laws based not on reason but on a sense of vindication.
Could not agree more. In fact, that is why we have the pit bull ban here in Cincinnati. Not because it makes sense, or increases public safety, or is in any way practical, but because there was a tragic incident in the early 1980s involving a pit bull, a child, and a very stupid parent.
Raoul Duke
08-22-2008, 04:57 PM
Aren't all laws meant to be somewhat "prophylactic" by nature? Perhaps I am not sure what you mean. The word is defined as:
pro·phy·lac·tic
–adjective
1. defending or protecting from disease or infection, as a drug.
2. preventive or protective.
–noun
3. Medicine/Medical. a prophylactic medicine or measure.
4. a preventive.
5. a device, usually a rubber sheath, used to prevent conception or venereal infection; condom.
It's always been my understanding that laws serve to be both punitive and preventive.
Well I guess another way of saying it would be inchoate crimes, or prior restraints. Laws that are purely prophylactic - criminalizing something before any harm has been done. One possible analogy (and I hesitated to use it earlier because I'm not sure it's a good one) is the Pentagon Papers case, NY Times v. United States. The government wanted to prohibit the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. The Times argued that the Pentagon Papers should be published, and any punishment could be decided afterwards. I think the court held that the government hadn't shown enough of a compelling interests to justify such a drastic measure of preventing the Pentagon Papers' publication. So, to punish conduct after the damage is done is one thing; to punish or prevent conduct before the damage is done is another.
So I'm basically talking about criminalizing something before any harm has been done. A speeding ticket does that, which is fine. It serves a good purpose (preventing accidents) and doesn't have any compelling interests weighing against it. (You don't have a constitutional right to drive like a maniac, to my personal dismay.)
A 'bad parenting ticket' would also criminalize something before any harm has been done. It serves a good purpose too (preventing child deaths.) But my point is that there are significant competing interests you have to deal with.
I think the tendency, when laws are drafted in response to situations like this, is to overreact. Everyone is outraged and demands retribution. You end up with laws that cover situations that they should (genuinely bad parents), but too many that they shouldn't. I think the law being proposed runs that risk.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.