Negligent homicide or terrible mistake?

[ruksak]

FOXNews.com - Hooters Mom Charged With Homicide After Toddler Dies in Hot Car - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

PHOENIX — A 17-month-old boy left unattended inside a hot car for at least seven hours in a north Phoenix Hooters restaurant parking lot was found dead Tuesday afternoon. FOX 10 Phoenix reports the baby's mother had planned to drop the child off at childcare before heading to work at a restaurant near Bell Road and Interstate 17. Instead, authorities say the mother went to work with the child still inside the car. Police say the mother returned to her car after work and discovered the child. People in the parking lot at the restaurant ran to help when they heard the mother scream and a passerby called 911. Firefighters were unable to revive the child and pronounced the boy dead at 5:15 p.m. Police spokesman Sgt. Joel Tranter said, "(The boy's mother) was visibly upset. She forgot the child was in the car until she unlocked it." Ashly Duchene, 22, was booked into Maricopa County jail on a felony count of negligent homicide, police said.

I can almost see this happening. A nightmare. One I have all the time. Dreams where I'm walking around with my kid, and later I remember I had my daughter with me, and now shes not. Sheer panic, even in the realm of dreams.

This lady wasn't drunk. She wasn't high. She was just busy and no doubt her child was sleeping quietly in the back seat. Her mind was elsewhere.

An oversight? Terrible was the outcome, but the act itself no more difficult than leaving the house without your keys. Except of course, your child is supposed to be a priority. Prison time is NOT warranted in this case. A lifetime of nightmares and horrible thoughts beseech her.

Her actions were negligent, but not purposeful. No extenuating circumstances (drinking, drugs, partying). No homicide.

I don't know how to feel about this. Usually when you hear of something like this, either the parent was intoxicated, or even did so on purpose.

She should NOT be given ANY jailtime.

The fact that she worked at Hooters restaurant has nothing to do with it. This is being tauted by the media for sensationalist value. I feel TERRIBLE for the mother. Sympathy is indeed warranted.

The charges can't stick. Theres no way she will be convicted of negligent homicide. I think the only crime being committed is prosecuting the mother. The prosecutor gets his name in the news, ALOT. He likes that. Good for his career.

They should throw the prosecutor in jail for being an asshole and jailing a grieving mother. It sucks, ya. People drop their babies down the stairs because they were trying to carry laundry at the same time. People accidentally put their kids in scolding hot bath water, forgetting to check it. People accidentally fire off their hunting weapons while they clean them, killing their children. People make mistakes.

And a mistake is all this was. No matter how horrible the outcome.

I feel extraordinary compassion for the mother.

[tinybear]

Mere carelessness is no reason to charge the mother with homicide. The degree of negligence required has to be very high. In this case, I think the level of negligence was indeed high. I'm sympathetic towards the mother too. She will have to live with this for the rest of her life. But that is a matter of mitigation. My guess is she'll probably be convicted, but will receive a light sentence.

[ruksak]

Quote by: tinybear Mere carelessness is no reason to charge the mother with homicide. The degree of negligence required has to be very high. In this case, I think the level of negligence was indeed high. I'm sympathetic towards the mother too. She will have to live with this for the rest of her life. But that is a matter of mitigation. My guess is she'll probably be convicted, but will receive a light sentence.

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?

[Jack]

Her actions were negligent, but not purposeful. No extenuating circumstances (drinking, drugs, partying). No homicide.

In most crimes, pretty much ANY crime I can think of, the defendant made a decision that led up to the crime.

I understand your sympathy with the mother's situation, but from the viewpoint of the legal system, she may be guilty of negligent homicide. As the term implies, her negligence led to the death of another. Homicide simply means the death of a human being. It does not imply murder or any other act of willful killing. Her lack of due diligence in the care of her child may have lead to his death. The death of the child was not natural, so the state bears the responsibility of determining whether his death was accidental or a direct result of her negligence.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Isherwood I understand your sympathy with the mother's situation, but from the viewpoint of the legal system, she may be guilty of negligent homicide. As the term implies, her negligence led to the death of another. Homicide simply means the death of a human being. It does not imply murder or any other act of willful killing. Her lack of due diligence in the care of her child may have lead to his death. The death of the child was not natural, so the state bears the responsibility of determining whether his death was accidental or a direct result of her negligence.

I understand, but I am torn. What did she neglect to do? She neglected to remember her child in the back seat. So by this example, mistakes made unintentionally are prosecutable crimes.

I have so many issues with this I don't know where to start. What good does it do to anyone to imprison her? She has to pay with imprisonment for forgetting? Does it bring her child back? No. Does it teach others to not do what she did? No. Mistakes are mistakes, and punishing someone for making a mistake does nothing to prevent further mistakes.

I can't imagine what this woman is going through. But I bet the threat of prosecution is secondary on her list of worries. I'm gonna follow this case and try to dig up more info.

Quote by: Isherwood Her lack of due diligence in the care of her child may have lead to his death.

Very well worded, Ish, but couldn't any accident have this wording applied to it? This accident cannot be equated to property damage. Example: I throw a baseball through a window, I must pay for it. Prosecute me for vandalism? Nope.

Another example of negligence: I forget to or choose not to salt my walkway, and the mailman slips and fails. I must pay for his medical bills and pain and suffering. However I cannot be prosecuted for assault or battery.

So why does she bear a legal bind to pay for this accident with her freedom?

Am I making sense?

[Jack]

Her potential conviction for negligent homicide and the punishment handed down for that conviction are two separate issues. Without knowing much more about the situation than what you've posted, I'd say she stands a good chance of being convicted. That does not mean the state is obliged to seek a prison sentence. The court may well decide she's suffered sufficiently for her crime and sentence her to probation.
There is no legal allowance for "mistakes". Typing "then" instead of "than" is a mistake. Forgetting your child in a car and the child dying as a result goes beyond most people's definition of "mistake". Whenever a death of a human being is involved, the cause of death must be determined by either a doctor or the medical examiner. If the death is not natural it is presumed to have a cause. If the cause is determined to be the negligence of another, that person most likely will be charged with a crime. Whether or not they are punished with a prison sentence is another matter. That's why the penalty phase of a trial is separate from the criminal phase.

[Jack]

Mistakes are mistakes, and punishing someone for making a mistake does nothing to prevent further mistakes.

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.

[triad]

I absolutely hate how the media has to include, "Hooters mom" in the headline. What kind of label are they aiming for? Trying to make her look worse than she already feels by making her career sound like a factor in the case? If she was a waitress at "The Keg" would they include that in the title? No.

Since the word "Hooter" is in the headline they know more people will read it.

Stupid media, they are the root of evil on this planet.


That poor mother; when the unspeakable happens to innocent people I feel deep sympathy. I hope she can persevere and continue to live a healing life.

[tinybear]

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.

Deterrence is not relevant in crimes of negligence because it is impossible to deter people from negligent acts or omissions. Such acts/omissions are, by definition, unintentional.

Hence a penalty for a crime of negligence is pure retribution and nothing more.

[Jack]

Deterrence is not relevant in crimes of negligence because it is impossible to deter people from negligent acts or omissions.

I think it might. 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.

I also used the example of prosecuting petty thieves even when the property is retrieved. Why do we bother if we didn't hope that prosecution would deter further acts of petty theft?

[Jack]

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

It is sad that the media can't just tell a story without thinking they have to add an element of sensationalism to it to catch our attention. I see it as a desperate measure to retain readers in an industry which is becoming irrelevant thanks to the internet.

[triad]

Quote by: Isherwood I think it might. 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.

Swearing is an act that you know you are doing, forgetting is when the mind is not aware that you have neglected. Does punishing for forgetting make people forget less? Not directly. It may raise awareness that forgetting your baby is in the backseat is a possibility, but it could surely not deter someone from mentally forgetting - which should not be mistaken for someone that has committed a transgressive act.

[Jack]

I see your point and admit I'm not 100% sure that any punishment in this case would be either effective or warranted.

[ZNFYRH]

Well, break down the charge: negligent homicide.

Was she negligent?

Yes. Literally. She forgot about her child, and thus neglected him.

Was there a homicide?

Yes. The baby died.

With cases like this, the trial won't determine guilt. The trial will determine punishment.

No punishment?

Bloody heck no.

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.

[triad]

ZNFYRH

I agree with you, but is involuntary negligence the same an voluntary negligence?

Example: Those Quebec parents lock baby in car while at show purposely, that is voluntary negligence. This mother literally "forgot" her baby, miraculously forgetting your own child isn't a choice that was made.

Now I know negligence is negligence no matter how you look at it - but when does the defects of one's mind (something has to be wrong with her if she managed to forget about her kid) - account for negligence due to the mind neglecting itself?

I dunno, I feel bad for her - but I guess negligence shouldn't be a matter of subjective difference, but objective reasoning.

Er, what a bad thing.

[Jack]

With cases like this, the trial won't determine guilt. The trial will determine punishment.

There can be no punishment without a determination of guilt. There is no penalty phase without a criminal prosecution first. She could be adjudicated not guilty, thus bypassing the penalty trial altogether.

[triad]

Question:

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?

I know that is extreme, but when does "forgetting" permit valid innocence or discount one's foundation as a law obiding citizen?

[Jack]

That's not extreme, it's happened. I don't recall at the moment the outcome of the cases, whether the parents were considered at fault in part or not.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: triad I agree with you, but is involuntary negligence the same an voluntary negligence?

In my experience and understanding, negligence is involuntary.

I can't remember the term, but there is another word for when it's intentional.

I know what you're saying, though.

I think voluntary is worse than involuntary.

But think about it...

What scares you more? When someone is killed due to intent, or stupidity?

The intentional person has to dedicate their thought to it.

The unintentional person has no thought of action or consequence.

That scares me more.

Quote by: Isherwood There can be no punishment without a determination of guilt. There is no penalty phase without a criminal prosecution first. She could be adjudicated not guilty, thus bypassing the penalty trial altogether.

There is no question of guilt.

She forgot. The baby died.

Negligence. Homicide.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ruksak FOXNews.com - Hooters Mom Charged With Homicide After Toddler Dies in Hot Car - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News I can almost see this happening. A nightmare. One I have all the time. Dreams where I'm walking around with my kid, and later I remember I had my daughter with me, and now shes not. Sheer panic, even in the realm of dreams. This lady wasn't drunk. She wasn't high. She was just busy and no doubt her child was sleeping quietly in the back seat. Her mind was elsewhere. An oversight? Terrible was the outcome, but the act itself no more difficult than leaving the house without your keys. Except of course, your child is supposed to be a priority. Prison time is NOT warranted in this case. A lifetime of nightmares and horrible thoughts beseech her. Her actions were negligent, but not purposeful. No extenuating circumstances (drinking, drugs, partying). No homicide. I don't know how to feel about this. Usually when you hear of something like this, either the parent was intoxicated, or even did so on purpose. She should NOT be given ANY jailtime. The fact that she worked at Hooters restaurant has nothing to do with it. This is being tauted by the media for sensationalist value. I feel TERRIBLE for the mother. Sympathy is indeed warranted. The charges can't stick. Theres no way she will be convicted of negligent homicide. I think the only crime being committed is prosecuting the mother. The prosecutor gets his name in the news, ALOT. He likes that. Good for his career. They should throw the prosecutor in jail for being an asshole and jailing a grieving mother. It sucks, ya. People drop their babies down the stairs because they were trying to carry laundry at the same time. People accidentally put their kids in scolding hot bath water, forgetting to check it. People accidentally fire off their hunting weapons while they clean them, killing their children. People make mistakes. And a mistake is all this was. No matter how horrible the outcome. I feel extraordinary compassion for the mother.

Something similar happened in my area and there was this whole debate about whether the woman should be charged with a crime. I think it is negligent homicide - the mother was negligent (in both cases) and it resulted in a dead kid. There is never any excuse for this kind of thing. Whatever happened to that so-called "maternal instinct" that's supposed to kick in when a woman has a kid? We know that if the kid's dad had left the kid in the car he would automatically have been charged.