Negligent homicide or terrible mistake?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe 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 rear view 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.

Very well said. This is where I'm torn, aside from legality and criminal semantics, on a personal level, I cannot understand. Forgetting your kid is in the car is one thing (bad as it is), not being able to recall that something is amiss during a seven hour period, thats ........indescribably stupid.

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

Yes, she is obviously a stupid ass. Despite her gross negligence, I still refuse to believe sending her to prison is accomplishing anything but making a bad thing worse.

Really I'm trying to argue for her, but at the same time I'm furious at the stupidity involved. My bet is she was chatting on her cell phone, but STILL! How, as you so very astutely pointed out, could she not recall the mistake before she was starring it in the face?

Putting her in prison with REAL criminals, is a bad idea and a sign of lynch mob revenge style justice. However I would think maybe some sort of legal process must be followed to protect any other children she may have from her obvious shortcomings as a parent.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: ruksak 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.

The problem is that it is not possible to tell the difference without getting in the perpetrator's head. Some people do accidentally run red lights. Others purposefully run red lights. Since it is not possible for us to differentiate the accidental ones from the purposeful ones, we must give the same punishments to all of them.

Also, I'm sure you know someone in your life, maybe it is even yourself, who has a lot of "accidents." And then there are people that rarely, if ever, have an "accident." Proper planning and attention to the details of daily life can mitigate most accidents before they occur. There are sometimes exceptions but many careful people are able to live primarily accident-free lives.

The person who is running late, blows a red, and kills a kid in the crosswalk is no more or less guilty than the person trying to dial their cell phone when they blow the light and kill the kid. They are not more or less guilty than someone that worked two shifts and fell asleep at the wheel, blew the red light, and killed the kid. All of these individuals were negligent, broke the law, and caused a death. They all could have made choices to mitigate their chance of causing such an accident but they didn't.

Now, here's the kicker. What about murderer that purposefully runs the red light in order to kill their intended target - the kid? If the police find no evidence to support the idea that the perpetrator had motive, and the perpetrator claims it was an accident, then do they get a freebie? That is why crimes of negligence are harshly punished. A failure to punish appropriately can result in abuse of the laws and can provide great loopholes for real criminals to perform pre-meditated crimes without consequence.

So back on the topic. To all the posters saying the woman in question should not be punished:

How do you know she didn't intend to murder her child?

If she is cleared of all charges due to this "accident," how can you ensure that some other whacko won't see the article in The Times and plan that as their free ticket out of parenthood?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Ruksak Ohhh c'mon bro, I thought you knew the law?

Isherwood is right. And traffic violations are still considered crimes. That's why we have vehicular manslaughter laws.

Manslaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vehicular manslaughter is a kind of misdemeanor manslaughter, which holds persons liable for any death that occurs because of criminal negligence or a violation of traffic safety laws.

Sorry dude. You're wrong.

[Jack]

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. In my state, Indiana, it would appear you must be intoxicated to even qualify; Mistakes ARE NOT crimes. They are accidental and involutary.

I don't want to belabor this point, but her situation may make more sense if you understand how the law looks at situations like this.

The Arizona statute is clear; negligent acts which result in a death are considered criminal negligence. There is no legal allowance for "mistakes", it's not a legal term. Even if an act is not a case of willful negligence, if it results in the death of another it will be considered criminal negligence.

Traffic regulations are codified into state law. They are laws, and breaking them is an unlawful act. Unlawful acts are criminal acts. Running a red light is a crime, a violation of state law. An accident resulting in the death of another subsequent to running a red light is grounds to bring a charge of vehicular homicide. If you violate a state law, be it a traffic law or any other, you are a criminal in the eyes of the courts.

I'm not sure what you meant in your reference to Indiana law. I see...

Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-4. Involuntary Manslaughter (b) A person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit: (1) a Class C or Class D felony that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury; (2) a Class A misdemeanor that inherently poses a risk of serious bodily injury; or (3) battery; commits involuntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. However, if the killing results from the operation of a vehicle, the offenses is a Class D felony. Class D felony Term of imprisonment: min 6 months max 3 years (§35-50-2-7; §35-50-2- 1) Fine: max $10,000 (§35-50-2-7)

None of that applies in the case of this mother, however. The fact this occurred in a motor vehicle is irrelevant, since the vehicle was parked and not moving. The sole criteria to charge (not necessarily convict) her is that she committed a negligent act that resulted in the death of a human being. The court may decide she was not negligent and then the charges will most likely be dismissed. The court may decide she's guilty of criminal negligence but decide not to assign any penalty to the conviction. In the case of negligent homicide, she'll still be convicted felon even if she avoids all penalties. Or she could be found guilty and sentenced to a term in prison.

If anyone is ever convicted of a crime, especially a felony, I would strongly urge them (and I'm sure their attorney would as well) not to get up in court and try to characterize their actions as mistakes. "Ooops" is not a smart legal defense.

[tinybear]

When an act or omission is INTENTIONAL, you make a conscious decision to do the act or omit to do something bringing about a certain consequence which you want to occur.

When an act or omission is RECKLESS, you don't really want a certain consequence to occur, but in your mind you know that it might and you nevetheless do the act or omit to do something which ultimately leads to that consequence.

When an act/omission is NEGLIGENT, you do or omit to do something, bringing about a consequence which you never knew would occur, but which any normally prudent person would.

Please bear the above in mind when debating this topic. It seems to me many people here don't appreciate the difference between the 3 states of mind.

[ZNFYRH]

Negligence is more along the lines of unintentionally omitting to do something.

I seriously doubt she intentionally left her baby in the car not thinking it would die after 7 hours.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: ruksak Very well said. This is where I'm torn, aside from legality and criminal semantics, on a personal level, I cannot understand. Forgetting your kid is in the car is one thing (bad as it is), not being able to recall that something is amiss during a seven hour period, thats ........indescribably stupid. Yes, she is obviously a stupid ass. Despite her gross negligence, I still refuse to believe sending her to prison is accomplishing anything but making a bad thing worse. Really I'm trying to argue for her, but at the same time I'm furious at the stupidity involved. My bet is she was chatting on her cell phone, but STILL! How, as you so very astutely pointed out, could she not recall the mistake before she was starring it in the face? Putting her in prison with REAL criminals, is a bad idea and a sign of lynch mob revenge style justice. However I would think maybe some sort of legal process must be followed to protect any other children she may have from her obvious shortcomings as a parent.

I think she might need to spend a little time in jail, not a year, but maybe a couple months, and the rest be suspended. Negligence when death is involved is a pretty serious crime. She may be claiming ignorance, but how do we really know that's the case.

If she truly was just being stupid I'm sorry for her, but still she did a bad thing. You can't always claim ignorance. You can't with taxes. You have to know. You have to know you have to file, and what's what, can't claim stupidity. Everybody would be doing it.

[ZNFYRH]

To add to what Marilyn wrote, you really can't say you "made a mistake" or "didn't know" when it comes to a baby.

I don't see her getting anything less than 10 years.

[tinybear]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Negligence is more along the lines of unintentionally omitting to do something. I seriously doubt she intentionally left her baby in the car not thinking it would die after 7 hours.

Yep. Negligence by definition presupposes you didn't know and therefore did not intend the consequence to occur. So the mother did not know and did not intend the death of the baby to occur. But the law says that she should have known and by failing to know she is guilty of negligence serious enough to warrant a criminal sanction.

[ZNFYRH]

tinybear

Agreed.

I was just clarifying, because your previous bit on negligence made it seem like you did the action intentionally but weren't aware of the consequences.

Instead, it's that you did the action unintentionally.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Sorry dude. You're wrong.

Sorry, wikipedia is not to be trusted. Anyone with a keyboard can edit it. I already posted a link to a REAL source for information, which clearly states Vehicular homicide to require a criminal act be the cause for the accident, at least in most states. Then again, I am not a lawyer.

Quote by: Muckraker How do you know she didn't intend to murder her child? If she is cleared of all charges due to this "accident," how can you ensure that some other whacko won't see the article in The Times and plan that as their free ticket out of parenthood?

Our justice system requires evidence of a crime. It is not based on emotion and possibility.

Quote by: ZNFYRH To add to what Marilyn wrote, you really can't say you "made a mistake" or "didn't know" when it comes to a baby.

Sure you can. A baby is the most precious thing a person could be responsible for. The responsibility of being a parent is the greatest and most sacred responsibility in a persons life.

BUT, that doesn't mean a person can't be truly stupid enough to make a serious mistake involving the care of the child. Stupidity isn't even required, just a lapse in judgment. People do things like this all the time. Good parents. They run their kids over with their car. They drop them in scolding bath water. They drop their babies down the stairs.

I don't like the sentiment being conveyed in this thread. That if your child is harmed while in your care, that somehow this means you are a criminal and you deserve to be shut in a cage for ten+ years with REAL criminals.

Shit happens, right? And not always can this "shit" be foreseen. To err is human.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Negligence is more along the lines of unintentionally omitting to do something. I seriously doubt she intentionally left her baby in the car not thinking it would die after 7 hours.

You could argue that what she did was unintentional. That's why it would be negligent homicide. However, she did - consciously or unconsciously - choose not to exercise appropriate diligence and the result of that choice was that her kid died.

[triad]

Quote by: Chancellor You could argue that what she did was unintentional. That's why it would be negligent homicide. However, she did - consciously or unconsciously - choose not to exercise appropriate diligence and the result of that choice was that her kid died.

CONTRADICTION:

If you choose unconsciously to do something then are you unintentionally acting? Do you unconsciously choose? I don't think so..


If someone "forgets", once again, that is not a choice or an intentional act of any sort. The mind fucks up, its as simple as that.

Just like people that stop at a green light... I've done it before. The mind can get tired or busy and even your most important priority and responsibility can slip for a moment.


HOWEVER, the only thing that has hit me as scary is she went for 7 hours without even thinking about her kid. If she forgot to drop her baby off and thought she did, with the baby asleep - fine. Not figuring out she didn't actually drop the baby off within 7 hours... weird.

[ruksak]

Quote by: triad HOWEVER, the only thing that has hit me as scary is she went for 7 hours without even thinking about her kid. If she forgot to drop her baby off and thought she did, with the baby asleep - fine. Not figuring out she didn't actually drop the baby off within 7 hours... weird.

That is the hardest pill to swallow in this case. As horrible and unforeseeable an act as forgetting your baby in your car is, never having that cerebral bell go off, alerting her that something was forgotten or not right, is very very difficult to understand.

[ruksak]

UPDATE:

Mom In Boy's Heat Death Released From Jail - Local News Story - KPHO Phoenix

PHOENIX -- A mother who left her 17-month-old son in the car for at least seven hours while she worked at a west Phoenix Hooters was released from jail Wednesday night. Ashly Duchene, 22, was charged with negligent homicide in the child's death after investigators learned she had said she wanted her freedom more than her son. Sheriff's Detective Charles Scudella said on Thursday that Duchene had received medical treatment for undisclosed reasons while in the care of the county Sheriff's Office. Police are trying to pin down what exactly what led her to leave left her infant son in her hot, stuffy car while she worked a seven-hour shift as a waitress, resulting in the child's death. People close to Ashly Duchene told investigators that she made statements over the past few weeks that she thought parental responsibilities encroached on her freedom. "Caring for a child was not a top priority. It may or may not have played a role (in her son's death)," police Sgt. Joel Tranter said. Duchene usually dropped Ryan Gallagher off at a day-care center on her way to work, but for unknown reasons failed to do so Tuesday, Tranter said. Instead, she left her son in the car when she arrived at the north Phoenix Hooters restaurant where she works at about 10 a.m. Tuesday, police said. The child was dead when she returned after her shift at nearly 5 p.m. Authorities said Duchene was hysterical and immediately summoned for help. Efforts to revive the boy by witnesses, officers and firefighters were unsuccessful. Temperatures hit nearly 90 degrees Tuesday, but it would have been more than 100 degrees inside the car, Tranter said. Officials believe the boy, who was in a car seat, was invisible to people going in and out of the restaurant and a nearby car wash because the car has tinted windows. Duchene told police she walked to her car, unlocked the driver's door, sat in the vehicle and immediately realized she had forgotten Ryan in the back seat. Duchene said the boy had recently spent a few weeks out of town with his grandfather and that she had gotten out of the habit of dropping him off before work, according to a probable cause statement released by the court Wednesday. One factor that led to the negligence charge was that Duchene said she remembered glancing at her son in the rearview mirror on her way to work that same day, and that Ryan "was smiling at her and happy," the court document said. The document said Duchene told investigators that she also forgot Ryan was in her car the day before he died, but remembered him when she arrived at work. Later that same day, Duchene complained to the boy's father, Clayton Gallagher, that she "couldn't do it anymore" and that all Ryan did was cry. When Gallagher offered to take Ryan, Duchene declined, saying she needed to see her son every day. The document also said Duchene had once attempted suicide. The restaurant where Duchene works reopened Thursday after holding counseling sessions for employees the day before.

I was wrong. Apparently, very very wrong.:(

A true "mistake" will have no extenuating circumstance.

I shall spend 15 minutes in the naughty chair for sticking up for her.

[triad]

aHhhhhhhhhhhhh!


Wait - she was released from jail? Sooo.. are you being sarcastic ruskak? Because wouldn't that make you right? :eek:

[ruksak]

Quote by: triad aHhhhhhhhhhhhh! Wait - she was released from jail? Sooo.. are you being sarcastic ruskak? Because wouldn't that make you right? :eek:

Released pending trial. Bonded out.

And I'm never right, just ask ZNFYRH.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: ruksak Our justice system requires evidence of a crime. It is not based on emotion and possibility.

There is evidence of a crime - a dead body. And that body did not die of natural causes. There is no emotion or speculation there.

And now that this criminal was released we have given the green light to any other parents that feel parenting responsibilities are encroaching on their personal freedom to plan the "accidental" murder of their children.

Criminals - read the newspaper and take notes because all you have to do to get away with the murder of your child is claim you "forgot," put on a good show, and you are home free. You may even have people feeling sorry for you.

[Jack]

And now that this criminal was released...

Evidently just on bail. She's still to be tried.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Ruksak Sorry, wikipedia is not to be trusted. Anyone with a keyboard can edit it.

Yeah and Britannica was hand written by third world impoverished orphans who can't afford keyboards. This is basic CJ 100 stuff. Criminal Negligence is a part of Vehicular Homicide. If you purposefully use a car to kill someone it's First Degree Murder.