Heh- I’m going to agree with Bricker (not that I think a disagreement would have given him heartburn).
Diogenes does not have a grasp of what happens in life.
Friends of mine had their infant die in their car. It was at night; they left it unattended. Those things were okay in the 70’s. They were probably careless, but they weren’t bad parents as far as I knew. Their other children were great and affectionate.
It does happen.
There area actually two things that the statutes do in those states that have them:
Provide an offence (ranging from a traffic ticket to a misdemeanor) for leaving your kid alone in a car under specified conditions); and
In some cases (I know Florida does this), creating a strict liability felony if a kid dies under the conditions mentioned in point 1.
Point 2 is still, apparently, quite rare in US state-level laws. In most US states, seemingly, if a kid dies when unattended, a prosecutor still has to prove negligence, which requires an analysis of the state of mind - “I forgot”, if believed by the trier of fact, will still ‘work’.
I don’t think you can use an infraction to prove a felony in criminal law. The felony requires proof of the mental state. The infraction is a strict liability lesser included offense and will not support a manslaughter conviction. Someone feel free to correct me.
ETA: hitting on the same point as Malthus
Though you still have to be careful in the interpretation.
The legal system (judges, lawyers, prosecutors, juries) and or the details in the statue can/may still make a distinction. Lets look at a non-death scenario where someone finds a kid and its an “Officer, I forgot the kid was in the car while I ran into the post office to buy some stamps real quick”. In that case there is a damn good chance of the forgetting excuse being just that. In addition, getting a ticket for it aint going to ruin the persons life. And thirdly (sorry Opal), thats reminds the person who did it how dangerous it is to do it on purpose OR accidentaly forgetting it if thats what really happend. In this case there is no significant social downside to make it strict liability and uniformly enforcing it as such and plenty of upside. It teaches people, it discourages bad behavior, it helps to detect people who may not be responsible enough to be parents (if you get charged with leaving a kid in a car there is fair chance something like child protective services is going to do an investigation of your overall parenting skills). And it raises money!
On the other hand, lets look at the kid left in the car to die scenario because someone actually just forgot. The charges on them could be much more severe. They most likely did JUST forget. You arent teaching them anything they havent just figured out the hard way. And you can’t save that kid because he is already dead. The system may still look at it as a strict liability issue, but in many cases they obviously don’t always look at it from a “strick liability, its like a murder!” way because some? cases never get prosecuted, and juries and judges often let the folks go with a slap on the wrists or no punishment at all. So, even IF its always technically strict liability, plenty of damn “experts” and people informed in the cases sure don’t see it that way.
I don’t know what the penalty is. It’s probably more than a $100 fine if the kid died. The punishment isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is that it was a crime, and people who are arguing to the contrary are wrong.
The text of the Florida law seems to do this - though I’d say you need an express drafting to get that result, and as I’ve said, most state laws don’t appear to do it.
As can be seen subsection 1 is “strict liability”, and so, seemingly, is subsection 3.
Edit: though the statute falls short of “death”, mentioning only “great bodily harm”, so it would appear an actual child death isn’t “strict liability” even in Florida.
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
For the record, I never claimed it was a felony, I just said it was illegal.
I argued there was no crime, based upon the law of criminal negligence. I asked for contrary cites. I am happy to see statutes proving me wrong.
Not to worry… ask me how much I remember about expectancy interests in a trust, or whether excise taxes are divisible.
Negligence per se typically works the other way: violation of a criminal statute, if proven, shows negligence per se for a civil cause of action arising from the same conduct. I don’t know of any instances where violation of criminal law A would serve as per se negligence for conviction under criminal law B, where B has a negligence scienter requirement.
Are you stupid or just being disingenuous? The fact that “hundreds or thousands of parents” do not forget their kids in a car has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that any one of those parents is capable of forgetting their child in the “perfect storm” of circumstances. Similarly, just because one has done an action correctly hundreds or thousands of times has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that one is capable of making a mistake once.
It could be either.
I didn’t say that I didn’t like the note idea. I said that people don’t generally make notes about not leaving their child in the back seat because, like you, they are positive that they could never do such a thing. Like you, they are wrong. FWIW, the note idea is not a bad one, especially if one’s routine has changed.
Expert operators use checklists because operating procedures and regulations require them. The reason that operating procedures and regulations require them is because even experts make mistakes. Back to the landing gear example–if you talk to a pilot, he/she will insist they could never attempt a landing without remembering to lower the landing gear, but they use the checklist anyway because they are required to do so.
:rolleyes: Holy shit! I’m having a discussion with a couple of fucking idiots!
No, it’s not OK–however, it’s not a criminal act. Pilots are not prosecuted for accidents, even those due to “pilot error.” Similarly, surgeons are not criminally responsible for errors, even if such an error leads to the death of a patient.
Of course you are. 
My wife keeps reminding me that if you see a normal intelligent person in a huge argument with several idiots, it’s hard to know which is which.
You are still not precisely wrong - the legal situation is complex. Currently, it appears many states have made it a “strict liability” offence to leave your kid alone in the car. Some states (notably, Florida) have made it a “strict liability” felony if you leave your kid alone in a car and the kid is injured as a result.
So far, I haven’t yet seen a state law that takes the final step and makes it a “strict liability” felony if you leave your kid alone in the car and the kid dies as a result - which is, I think, the reasonable interpretation of the legal issue under dispute.
That doesn’t mean some state out there doesn’t have such a law - I haven’t by any means read them all. I’m thinking though that there is probably a reason that the states (even Florida) are careful not to make a matter of death an issue of strict liability.
No. Murder is a legal offense. What? You don’t read cites or you just don’t understand them?
Right. How about get with the topic, then?
And what other misdemeanors do you feel merit life imprisonment? You did say that they deserve to jailed for life.
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).
This objection has no relevance to the legal discussion. It’s just you being offended by my opinion of people who commit a particular crime.
Thanks you, but I readily admit I was wrong in my assertion there was no crime.
Come to think of it, Dio, are you a politician or something?
Y’know what, I’ve never had a brain aneurysm, and it doesn’t happen to 99% of people. But I still know it could happen to me.
Your brain is a bag of chemicals that cause certain connections to occur, certain thoughts to happen. You can work to modify those chemicals, but you can’t change what it is entirely. And this horror is one of the many horrors that has an exceedingly unlikely chance of happening to you. And to me.
It almost certainly won’t happen to me, or to you. But “almost” has a meaning in that sentence.
And admitting that it could happen isn’t a sign of bad parenting. On the contrary, admitting that it could happen will lead to a higher level of awareness–admitting it could happen paradoxically reduces the chance that it will happen.