You argued that it was murder and criminal negligence per se . You argued mental state is irrelevant to a legal discussion on this topic. You argued mental state is irrelevant to criminal negligence. You argued the act is criminal negligence regardless of mental state. You argued criminal negligence is “automatic” by statute. You were wrong.
When the infraction cites were presented, I immediately admitted I was wrong in claiming there was no crime. There is a crime: an infraction. I was right as to criminal negligence and homicide, but wrong in saying there is no crime.
Why don’t you step up and do likewise?
Diogenes_the_Cynic:
You’re grasping at straws. It is possible to have an opinion that someone is a murderer without that person having to be convicted of it. It’s not just a legal term (actually, I think “homicide” is more common in the written statutes).
Diogenes_the_Cynic:
What did I say that was factually wrong, dude, and what have I changed position on? I made one legal claim. I was right. Other people were wrong (and they DID deny that it was a per se crime to leave a kid in a car. It wasn’t a “no shit” situation). I think you’re reading a different thread than what’s actually here.
Diogenes_the_Cynic:
Not special, NORMAL. MOST parents would never do it. It’s fucking bullshit to say that they would.
That’s not what the pitting is for, though. The pitting is because I said that it isn’t necessary for leaving the aby to be intentional in order for it to be negligent homicide. That is a factually correct statement, not an opinion. Some people want to change the laws to make it legal if they say it was an acident. I object to that.
Diogenes_the_Cynic:
A reasonable person would be aware that leaving a baby in a car could hurt it.
Plus, it’s just flat illegal to leave a baby in the car. There aren’t any loopholes or exceptions. Whether it results in death is neither here nor there. it’s negligent whether the parent intended it or not.
Diogenes_the_Cynic:
It sounds like they are. If they know the danger, then they are negligent.
What cases would those be? Cite?
Diogenes_the_Cynic:
Ok, I said “murderers.” That’s a subjective opinion. You don’t have to like it, but it’s just an opinion. I still didn’t say the punishment was life in prison. I just said it was illegal to leave the baby in the car, and everyone else kept talking about criminal negligence laws when I was talking about unattended child laws
There is no contradiction. A few seconds is not a few hours.
I am not just like them, and you do have to put parents who do this in jail or you’re just giving people a legal way to kill their kids on purpose and get away with it by saying it was an accident.
They’re not innocent, they killed a baby, and if you don’t want to jail them, then you’re saying it should be legal to leave a baby in a car until it dies. Why do you want to legalize that? That’s horrific.
It automatically means you committed an act of negligance, How you are as a parent otherwise is utterly irrelevant.
Should it be legal to leave a baby in a car until it dies, yes or no?
So it should be legal to leave a baby in a car until it dies?
If somebody decides they want to kill their baby on purpose, you would be in favor of giving them a free and legal way to do it?
How should I know? That’s my point. How can ANYBODY tell if its intentional or not? What would be the means of making that determination? If they cry a lot, they’re innocent? Susan Smith cried a lot. Casey Anthony cried a lot. So what?
If a parent leaves a baby in a car, and the baby dies, and those facts are agreed to, we have a case of negligent homicide. If you want to make an exception and let them go if the act was unintentional, somebody is going to have to PROVE it was unintentional. How do you do that? Are you going to let them go unless intentionality can also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? In that case, you’d be making it awfully easy to get away with.
If you give them the loophole, there definitely are parents who would plan on “forgetting.”
Forgetting is not an excuse.
How exactly are you defining the “crime” now? The act of leaving a baby in the car until it dies IS the crime. If that much is proven, the crime is proven. What other circumstances are you suggesting should be present?
It sounds like you’re saying the state should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the parent did it on purpose. Is that what you’re saying? If that’s the case, you’re essentially making it legal, since it would be virtually impossible to ever prove intentionality unless the person confessed to someone.
That’s what I’M trying to find out. Apparently, they at least think the law should be changed so that intentionality has to be proven. If that’s the case, they’d be making it almost impossible to get convictions.
I meant to say that the other way around. I can’t believe I did that. I meant to say the presumption of innocence still obtains, yes of course, but that the burden is already met if it is undisputed that a parent left a baby in the car. Intentionality is not something that has to be proven, only that they did it.