Negligent homicide or terrible mistake?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: triad Should a mother that forgets to lock the door to her house at night be charged with homicide if a criminal walks in and kills one of her kids?

She didn't kill the kids. The criminal did.

She could be charged in a civil suit, but not a criminal one.

If they caught the criminal, his defense could say that she enabled him by forgetting to lock the door, thus allowing him the ability to choose to commit the crime. It would a defense aimed at a lighter sentence.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ruksak Heres what troubles me with cases like this. In most crimes, pretty much ANY crime I can think of, the defendant made a decision that led up to the crime. What decision did she make?

She chose not to make sure she took her kid to where she was going to take it.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Isherwood If you were in church and swore out loud (negligence), and the other members asked you to leave (punishment), you might watch your language in your next church. The punishment for your negligence would deter you from repeating the behavior which earned you punishment the last time.

In that case, that wouldn't be negligence. Swearing out loud in a church is an intentional act.

[tinybear]

Quote by: ruksak
Heres what troubles me with cases like this. In most crimes, pretty much ANY crime I can think of, the defendant made a decision that led up to the crime.


What decision did she make?


In crimes of negligence, you don't intend the consequence to occur. so there's no question of you making a conscious decision to bring about that consequence. So in the present case, the mother did not intend or decide that her child should die, but nonetheless, because of her extreme carelessness (i.e. gross negligence), the child died.

[gallo]

Quote by: ruksak Heres what troubles me with cases like this. In most crimes, pretty much ANY crime I can think of, the defendant made a decision that led up to the crime. What decision did she make?

Do you understand the legal meaning of the word 'negligence'?

[tinybear]

Yup, you must understand the 3 states of mind in criminal law: intention, recklessness and negligence. Do you know the difference between the 3? :)

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chancellor She chose not to make sure she took her kid to where she was going to take it.

No. She never made a conscious choice. Tinybear posted an example of a parent making a conscious choice to leave their kid in the car unattended. In this case, the women just "forgot", however awful the outcome of her forgetfulness.

Quote by: gallo Do you understand the legal meaning of the word 'negligence'?

Yes, hence my citing of her behavior as negligent. Which is why I thought this would make good debate fodder. There are two kinds of negligence; Voluntary and involuntary. Some people choose to be negligent. Sometimes the negligence is spawned from no choice being made, or no conscious awareness that a negligent act is being committed.

Quote by: Traid I absolutely hate how the media has to include, "Hooters mom" in the headline.

Thats one of the first things that stuck in my craw. I suppose it makes it easier to hate her. No doubt the prosecutor will rely on this during the trial.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I have never once forgotten about my child being in the car... asleep or not. Part of what I think has made me an excellent parent is that I am always, somewhere in my mind, thinking about my children.

I believe this is why I have so many dreams in which I lose track of my daughter. Because I am always thinking of her. I cannot fathom just up and forgetting my daughter.

For the law to address this, is not surprising to me or unwarranted. What is unwarranted is arresting her immediately and jailing her when she should at least be allowed time to grieve. She is not a menacing criminal. Not a danger to herself or others (an exception being made for her child care skills).

Prison is as much a punishment as it is a deterrent. In this case, neither applies as functional. She, or others, will not be deterred from committing an unforeseeable act; See 'Shit Happens' bumper sticker for this conformation. Why punish someone for a mistake? As I said earlier. Hitting a baseball throw a window is negligence. Is it negligent vandalism? Forgetting to salt your icy walkway is negligent. Is it negligent battery? Why are these examples not prosecutable crimes?
Is it because there isn't a parallel emotional response as we see when a child gets injured?

Quote by: Isherwood It is generally believed in the legal community that punishment can be a deterrence. Why do we convict and punish people for petty theft even when the property is returned? We hope their punishment will deter them and others from considering this an acceptable behavior. In this case, the state may seek punishment in hopes that it will be a deterrent for others, that they may think twice and avoid such negligence. A social psychologist would have to say whether or not it truly serves that purpose. From statistical evidence, I tend to think the idea of deterrents is wishful thinking. I haven't heard of many criminals being turned away from a life of crime because of the punishments handed down to others like themselves.

Damn Ish, law degree? Or too much Law & Order?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Ruksak No. She never made a conscious choice. Tinybear posted an example of a parent making a conscious choice to leave their kid in the car unattended. In this case, the women just "forgot", however awful the outcome of her forgetfulness.

Right which is why this is an incident of Negligent homicide and not Reckless Homicide / Manslaughter

[Jack]

Damn Ish, law degree? Or too much Law & Order?

Ex-cop who spent too much time listening to lawyers.

Swearing out loud in a church is an intentional act.

I could argue that it isn't. Do you intentionally swear every time you do, or is it often a result of habit (unintentional)?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Right which is why this is an incident of Negligent homicide and not Reckless Homicide / Manslaughter

It was an accident. We DO NOT prosecute people for accidents. If you run a red light and cause an accident that results in serious bodily injury and/or death, you will not be prosecuted, because it was an accident. If you were speeding, driving recklessly or intoxicated, then legally it is not recognized as an accident and you may face criminal charges.

If I forget to put my car in park and it rolls on top of my daughter and kills her, should I be imprisoned with rapist, murderers and robbers? Hell no. It was an accident. If I was high at the time, then we have just cause to term it not as an accident, but a negligent action.

Quote by: Isherwood Ex-cop who spent too much time listening to lawyers

I thought you seemed rather sharp on the legal process.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ruksak No. She never made a conscious choice. Tinybear posted an example of a parent making a conscious choice to leave their kid in the car unattended. In this case, the women just "forgot", however awful the outcome of her forgetfulness.

Well, yes, she did make a choice. She chose not to make sure she didn't forget anything. "I forgot" doesn't cut it!

Yes, hence my citing of her behavior as negligent. Which is why I thought this would make good debate fodder. There are two kinds of negligence; Voluntary and involuntary. Some people choose to be negligent. Sometimes the negligence is spawned from no choice being made, or no conscious awareness that a negligent act is being committed.

Voluntary or involuntary is really irrelevant: parents have a unique responsibility that does not allow for negligence.

Thats one of the first things that stuck in my craw. I suppose it makes it easier to hate her. No doubt the prosecutor will rely on this during the trial.

Hate has nothing to do with it.

I believe this is why I have so many dreams in which I lose track of my daughter. Because I am always thinking of her. I cannot fathom just up and forgetting my daughter.

No half-way normal parent could!

For the law to address this, is not surprising to me or unwarranted. What is unwarranted is arresting her immediately and jailing her when she should at least be allowed time to grieve. She is not a menacing criminal. Not a danger to herself or others (an exception being made for her child care skills).

She's not entitled to grieve: she caused her child's death!

Prison is as much a punishment as it is a deterrent. In this case, neither applies as functional. She, or others, will not be deterred from committing an unforeseeable act; See 'Shit Happens' bumper sticker for this conformation. Why punish someone for a mistake? As I said earlier. Hitting a baseball throw a window is negligence. Is it negligent vandalism? Forgetting to salt your icy walkway is negligent. Is it negligent battery? Why are these examples not prosecutable crimes? Is it because there isn't a parallel emotional response as we see when a child gets injured?

I could care less about the deterrent factor: this is all about punishment, about society exacting revenge.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chancellor Well, yes, she did make a choice. She chose not to make sure she didn't forget anything. "I forgot" doesn't cut it!

You cannot choose to forget.

Voluntary or involuntary is really irrelevant: parents have a unique responsibility that does not allow for negligence

I would argue that it is relevant, when considering criminal charges. Crime is an action. A choice made.

Hate has nothing to do with it.

Then explain the headline; "Hooters mom"? It doesn't matter if she worked at Hooters or was the CEO of a multi-national corporation. But her social class and place of employment is somehow relevant? If we were talking about a 65 year old widowed grandmother, she would not be sitting in jail. Sympathy thwarted due to her social standing. I see it clearly.

No half-way normal parent could!

I feel this women may be guilty of stupidity. Which if illegal, would be cause for 60% of our entire population to be imprisoned.

She's not entitled to grieve: she caused her child's death!

Thats just horrible! Wow. Horrible.

I could care less about the deterrent factor: this is all about punishment, about society exacting revenge.

You said it all right there. Revenge. A child was harmed; SOMEBODY MUST PAY! "Lynch mob, wield ye pitchforks and storm the castle".

[triad]

Well, yes, she did make a choice. She chose not to make sure she didn't forget anything. "I forgot" doesn't cut it!

You really need to explain your standpoint. Do you choose to stub your toe on the coffee table? Did you forget it was there? Did you misjudge it's position? Simply, you made a mistake. The brain is just like a computer with circuits and electrical transmission, sometimes things can get scewed.

Voluntary or involuntary is really irrelevant: parents have a unique responsibility that does not allow for negligence.

Yes it is. Unless you're comparing an alcoholic woman who leaves her baby at home for a day because she got drunk and passed out and didn't make it home to feed her baby - to a woman that had the unthinkable mind slip and forgot her baby in her car, retract your statement.

She's not entitled to grieve: she caused her child's death!

:eek: You didn't just say that. Did you just say that? I can't beleive you said that. Holy shit.

Quote by: ZNFYRH She didn't kill the kids. The criminal did.

The "hooters mom" didn't kill her kid either. The hot weather did. See where this subjective difference makes justice so f*d up?

Quote by: ruksak You cannot choose to forget. I would argue that it is relevant, when considering criminal charges. Crime is an action. A choice made. Then explain the headline; "Hooters mom"? It doesn't matter if she worked at Hooters or was the CEO of a multi-national corporation. But her social class and place of employment is somehow relevant? If we were talking about a 65 year old widowed grandmother, she would not be sitting in jail. Sympathy thwarted due to her social standing. I see it clearly. I feel this women may be guilty of stupidity. Which if illegal, would be cause for 60% of our entire population to be imprisoned. Thats just horrible! Wow. Horrible. You said it all right there. Revenge. A child was harmed; SOMEBODY MUST PAY! "Lynch mob, wield ye pitchforks and storm the castle".

I agree with everything you've said 1005%. THATS A LOT OF PERCENT. And for a bonus, your Lynch Mob comment made me laugh.

[Jack]

If you run a red light and cause an accident that results in serious bodily injury and/or death, you will not be prosecuted, because it was an accident.

Don't mean to nitpick, but if you run a red light, you are responsible for any action that occurs as a result of that criminal act. If a collision results from the illegal action of failing to yield to a red light, you will be charged. If that includes a death, you can be charged with vehicular homicide.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Isherwood Don't mean to nitpick, but if you run a red light, you are responsible for any action that occurs as a result of that criminal act. If a collision results from the illegal action of failing to yield to a red light, you will be charged. If that includes a death, you can be charged with vehicular homicide.

Ohhh c'mon bro, I thought you knew the law?

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/Vehicul...de%20chart.pdf

State by state, the law is slightly different, but one thing remains constant;

Quote by: ARIZONA (State where this "crime" occured); A person commits negligent homicide if with criminal negligence such person causes the death of another person.

Traffic violations are not crimes. Criminal negligence requires a crime. Hazerdous driving is a crime, requiring impairment or willful violations.

In my state, Indiana, it would appear you must be intoxicated to even qualify;

(a) A person who causes the death of another person when operating a motor vehicle: (1) with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least ten-hundredths (0.10) gram of alcohol per: (A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or (B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath; (2) with a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II of IC 35-48-2 or its metabolite in the person's body; or (3) while intoxicated; commits a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if, within the five (5) years preceding the commission of the offense, the person had a prior unrelated conviction under this chapter.

Mistakes ARE NOT crimes. They are accidental and involutary.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ruksak You cannot choose to forget.

But you can choose not to exercise the due diligence that you are obligated as a parent to exercise - which is what she did.

I would argue that it is relevant, when considering criminal charges. Crime is an action. A choice made.

Not all actions are physical. And the woman did make a choice here: she chose not to exercise appropriate parental diligence.

Then explain the headline; "Hooters mom"? It doesn't matter if she worked at Hooters or was the CEO of a multi-national corporation. But her social class and place of employment is somehow relevant? If we were talking about a 65 year old widowed grandmother, she would not be sitting in jail. Sympathy thwarted due to her social standing. I see it clearly.

It's headlines that sell newspapers.

I feel this women may be guilty of stupidity. Which if illegal, would be cause for 60% of our entire population to be imprisoned. Thats just horrible! Wow. Horrible.

Her intelligence, or lack thereof, is not relevant. She is not guilty of stupidity, she is guilty of negligence.

You said it all right there. Revenge. A child was harmed; SOMEBODY MUST PAY! "Lynch mob, wield ye pitchforks and storm the castle".

Revenge has its place.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ruksak Ohhh c'mon bro, I thought you knew the law? http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/Vehicul...de%20chart.pdf State by state, the law is slightly different, but one thing remains constant; Traffic violations are not crimes. Criminal negligence requires a crime. Hazerdous driving is a crime, requiring impairment or willful violations.

Traffic violations are crimes since it is illegal to violate traffic LAWS.

In my state, Indiana, it would appear you must be intoxicated to even qualify;

Yes, but people who call themselves hoosiers must have something not quite right in their brains. :)

Mistakes ARE NOT crimes. They are accidental and involutary.

This was not a mistake, it was negligence.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: triad You really need to explain your standpoint.

What don't you understand about it?

Do you choose to stub your toe on the coffee table?

I chose not to watch where I was going.

Did you forget it was there? Did you misjudge it's position?

I wasn't paying attention.

Simply, you made a mistake.

No, I didn't merely make a mistake. I failed to exercise due diligence and, as a result, I injured myself.

The brain is just like a computer with circuits and electrical transmission, sometimes things can get scewed.

Nonsense.

Yes it is.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Unless you're comparing an alcoholic woman who leaves her baby at home for a day because she got drunk and passed out and didn't make it home to feed her baby - to a woman that had the unthinkable mind slip and forgot her baby in her car, retract your statement.

I will retract nothing. I said what I meant and meant what I said. Unlike these idiot politicians, I will not apologize for something I said intentionally.

:eek: You didn't just say that. Did you just say that? I can't beleive you said that. Holy shit.

I most certainly did say it.

The "hooters mom" didn't kill her kid either. The hot weather did. See where this subjective difference makes justice so f*d up?

No, it was not the heat that killed the child.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, but people who call themselves hoosiers must have something not quite right in their brains

LOL, touché !!!!

Traffic violations are crimes since it is illegal to violate traffic LAWS.

Maybe I worded that poorly, check that....I did word that poorly. There is a difference between a misdemeanor and a criminal misdemeanor. Thus, why we have traffic court separate from criminal court.

Nevertheless, you cannot be charged with criminal negligence for a non-criminal act i.e. a mistake, running a red light as a mistake with no negligent criminal offense; purposeful and blatant disregard for traffic laws ; excessive speeding, intoxication.

Read the link I provided. It's quite clear.

This was not a mistake, it was negligence.

In this case they act as one in the same. How can you say this wasn't a mistake? What evidence do you have or see presented that shows criminal negligence?

But you can choose not to exercise the due diligence that you are obligated as a parent to exercise - which is what she did.

No no no...........She is either stupid, or made a stupid mistake. I cannot fathom how you can say she made a choice to be stupid.

Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does"

It's headlines that sell newspapers.

I guarantee you this point will be addressed in court. I just know it. The prosecutor will make sure that the jury is aware of her place of employment, and will most likely vie for plenty of women on the jury, as they are far more likely to show disdain for a "Hooters gal".

Her intelligence, or lack thereof, is not relevant. She is not guilty of stupidity, she is guilty of negligence.

There is a reason for everything. Either she made the decision to leave her kid in the car, or she did not. If she did not, than either she has a horrible memory, she is stupid as a box of hair or she displayed criminal negligence by being neglectful in the respect that she was either intoxicated or some other form of criminal neglect.

Neglect is forgetting something. Criminal neglect is getting stoned and forgetting something. You seeing the difference yet?

Now, if you will excuse me, this Hoosier boy has some corn to crop. Yeeeeehaaaaw!!!

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Her actions, or lack thereof, resulted in a life ending. And it wasn't intentional. It was pure stupidity. She should be sterilized if she is allowed to live. I have never once forgotten about my child being in the car... asleep or not. Part of what I think has made me an excellent parent is that I am always, somewhere in my mind, thinking about my children. Even now, my daughter's daycare is less than 10 minutes away on foot. I look at the clock and wonder how she is. In the car, I have a little mirror that is aligned so I can see her face when she is in her car seat. We can talk, I can keep an eye on her... it's invaluable. I agree with ruksak about that kind of nightmare, but someone died in this case. There was a homicide. And it was a child killed by his own mother. I doubt she'll get the death penalty, as her attorney will try to show that her own anguish is punishment enough. But she will go to jail... probably 5 to 10, with parole on good behavior. I hate to be stereotypical, but a mommy who works at Hooters that is dumb enough to forget her baby? Probably white trash. I hope she doesn't make the same mistake again... or that they put her in jail until menopause.

I agree, I can't imagine forgetting your kid under any circumstances. Surely she should have thought of him at some point during the day, and then it would have gone off like a lightbulb, "I left him in the car", then panic and running for the car immediately.

Moments after she walked into the building something should have felt "wrong". We do have these inner alarm clocks.

She needs to go to jail for being that stupid. That sounds mean, but she is a dumbass.

I've heard of people doing stuff like this, but it just doesn't sit well that you could be that self involved. She probably had the radio on full blast, and was totally unaware of the kid. I constantly was watching my kids in the rearview mirror when they were young. I never had them off my mind. Nothing was as important as they were. I thought of them throughout the day at work. This woman never thought about this kid all day.