Here is a link to a story in the Rocky Mountain News. A few weeks ago a dad decided to take his kids rafting/fishing on Waterton Canyon on the South Platte outside Denver. They did not have a raft suited for whitewater, they were not wearing lifejackets, and were not dressed properly. Needless to say the worst happened and one of the boys drowned. The dad has been arrested for child abuse. Do you feel this is what is just, or are they “beating a dead horse”. The poll adjacent to the article shows 80% think that he should not be charged with child abuse.
The dad broke his leg, compound fracture, trying to save his son.
80% of the people are wrong IMHO. IANAL but could he be charged with manslauter? The father did a stupid thing. He put his children in harms way. He needs to be punished.
Do I think he aught to be charged with a crime?? absolutely. Don’t know enough about the state laws to know which one, of course. He put two kids into an unsuitable watercraft, w/o suitable gear and clothing, one dies. Yep.
yes, he feels badly. No, I don’t think he’ll feel any worse, less responsable and so on for being prosecuted.
However, the prosecution of any person is taken on, on behalf of “The People of the State”, not the crime victim. The thinking is that each crime, in effect, causes harm to all. So, the state has a viable reason to prosecute - if nothing else, to bring a level of awareness to other parents - you do something incredibly stupid and your kid gets hurt, in addition to everything else, you may be prosecuted.
For example - would you feel any differently if the case had been drunk driving instead? I wouldn’t.
But then you’re getting into a debate about assumptions on what the law should be “for.”
Do you think the legal system should exact retribution or seek to rehabilitate?
I don’t think what he did is child abuse so much as child endangerment, which he most assuredly did. I can see involuntary manslaughter for the child that died.
? why does it have to be one or the other? legal system has several issues :
-
Protection of society from those who would do harm
-
Punishment/negative consequences for those who would do harm.
-
Rehabilitation for those who would do harm.
-
Revenge /retribution/ restitution for the victim (both direct and indirect - so, for example, community service can be seen as a ‘restitutionary’ factor for the community at large when financial restitution is not a factor).
and there may be others.
To focus on only what is fair and just and right for the perpetrator is not generally considered to be the way to go. (and people think I’m liberal!)
and, although most prosecutors do ask for input by the victim, they are not bound by the victim’s desires. And for good cause - in situations where the crime occured amongst a family, often the loyalties are conflicted (for example, one child sexually assaults a sibling).
INAL but if I remember correctly from some of the law classes I took as undergrad electives, the unofficial definition of manslaughter is a negligent action resulting in the death of another.
Child abuse is a bit more nebulous, but tends to lean toward an action or series of actions that results or could result in lasting harm to a minor child.
I’d say the appropriate call here would be involuntary manslaughter, in which case the father could probably plead it down to child endangerment, usually a high-level misdemeanor.
But as I said, I’m not a lawyer.
Question:
Isn’t the legal system supposed to be about justice?
I don’t see any justice in rubbing this idiot’s face in the consequences of his actions. He’s gonna live with them every day, and I frankly don’t see how anything the law can do is going to:
-
Make him less likely to do it again. I think we can safely call this a one-time offence.
-
Make him feel any worse that he already does (assuming he’s even close to being a loving father).
-
Greet the O’Cat.
-
Repair any harm to society he may have caused (excepting, perhaps, restitution for the cost of the rescue).
-
Bring his child back from the dead.
I can see the law:
-
Ruining his chances to support what’s left of his family (hard to win bread while in jail, folks).
-
Excercising public outrage and vengeance (Our legal system, as best I remember, isn’t about revenge).
-
Scritch the pretty kitty behind the ears.
Mostly what I’m hearing in here, so far, are cries of outrage and vengeance. Outrage will do nicely, thank you, but this idiot will handle our vengeance for us, quite effectively, as he lives out his guilty life. We would be more appropriate expressing our shock and sadness, I think.
I, for one, want to weep.
Tranq - It’s not that I’m unsympathetic to the father here. I’m sure he feels really badly. Of course, one of the things about being a good parent is that one’s supposed to think about potential consequences and attempt to steer one’s children away from harm, not directly place them in it’s tracks.
Consider: He also placed another child at risk there, ya know.
And who says our CJ system isn’t about revenge (at least in part)?
anyhow. You ignored the other aspects of prosecution - the public education aspect. “if we prosecute him, we can hopefully demonstrate to other parents who might want to place their children in harmful settings”
You are also assuming that he’s helping to support the kids now, he might be. might not. he also had prior records (according to the link) for domestic assault, drugs, etc. (but neither really plays into if he should be charged)
Do you see this as the same or different as a drunk driver who also manages to kill some one in their own car? I really don’t see a difference.
As for your objections, the CJ system isn’t just about having them feel badly (they almost always do) or preventing them from doing it again. It’s also about taking responsability for the consequences of your own actions, even if your intent was not criminal. If you act in a manner that is reckless, and by your actions, another person is harmed, you are responsable, no matter how badly you feel about it, no matter how much you’ve learned from this experience and promise to never, ever do it again.
**
It’s not about sympathy. It’s about Justice. Taking criminal action because someone made an error in judgement, one they aren’t likely to repeat, isn’t about justice, it’s about vengenace. Or do you believe he’s likely to do this again? There is no need to punish here, what’s done is done, and unless there’s a likelyhood of a repeat, a lesson for him to learn, punishment is nothing more than torture.
As for what makes a ‘good’ parent, much of that is subjective. Bikes are dangerous. Shall we prosecute parents whom give bicycles to their children? Firearms are dangerous. Shall we prosecute parents whom teach their children to hunt? River rafting is dangerous. Shall we prosecute this man for bad judgement while introducing his children to this?
**
I do. And, unless I completely miss my reading of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers do, too.
**
Nope. Didn’t ignore it, but I didn’t address it, thinking it to be obvious: Any parent whom can read, and learn, will have already learned. Any whom can’t learn, won’t learn any better for the prosecution. In this case, and similar ones, the fear of loss is far better a goad than the fear of law. What it would do is increase the resentment the law enforcement already faces. We don’t need law enforcement looking like a bully, kicking grieving folk when they’re down.
**
Actually, I think the article addressed that pretty clearly: He was considered by his wife to be a good father to his step-children. I realize that’s reading between the lines a bit, but the tone struck by the journalist indicates that the various charges were from his younger days. And, as you pointed out, they’re immaterial. Unless you wish to re-punish him for past issues. Do you beat a dog today, for crapping on the carpet last year?
**
Not necessarily the same, although a point to consider. Certainly this would be a stronger point if this were likely to be a repeatable offense, but even as it stands, this is really the only point for debate here, even if it is ‘apples and oranges’.
Completely true, but again, punishment is for making someone take responsibilty, teaching them not to do it again, and showing society that an action is wrong. I pretty sure he’s taken responsibility, I’m pretty sure he’s not going to do it again, and I’m damn sure that society knows this was wrong.
Taken very coldly, society has suffered very little harm. Yes, I know: One less productive citizen, but still, where there is little harm, the law has little business. If he were a credible threat to others at this point, then, yes, lock him up. I don’t see him as a threat anymore. Further, you can’t go around making stupidity illegal. Who decides where to draw the line? What is the standard? Hell, how do you even define it?
If you wish to drag this case about like a bloody shirt, advertise it, use it as a bad example, it will serve some positive purpose, but locking this man away won’t serve him, his family, or society. Also, remember this: Vengance is never about the deceased, or the offender, it’s about us. It’s about our anger, our grief, our hurt. Anyone whom doesn’t understand this needs to take a long, hard look into the darkest depths of their soul. There are better ways to handle those hurts.
cool down. we disagree.
re: founding fathers etc., please provide for me the part of the constitution where they discussed murder, disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment etc. - see, our code of laws have evolved from that. Not everything is in the Constitution. But you knew that.
Justice is not just for the victim and the perpetrator. Justice is also for the rest of us. Vengence? Not to me, how about personal responsability?
I’ve known quite a few folks who ‘made a supreme error in judgement’. And weren’t likely to repeat it. And, should have been (and were) locked up for a while. Yes, that is justice, too.
“should we prosecute some one who introduces their child to river rafting/ hunting etc.” well, yes, if in the introduction of whatever sport they failed to take rudimentary steps to insure their childs safety. Here’s a bike son, now go ride over to gramma’s across the highway.
“any parent who can read will learn w/o prosecution”, and therefore we shouldn’t prosecute them ? Ok. I work with convicts. some of them have killed people. Some intentionally, some not so intentionally. Most of them were really, very very sorry, and many of them went on to not kill again. They still did (and should) get prosecuted.
I’m really not understanding your rationale for deciding who not to prosecute. Man kills his wife. He’s really, very sorry. Gee, he didn’t realize the gun was loaded, or he was really mad, or really drunk whatever. And he’s not likely to do it again. And, gee, now his kids won’t have either parent. Are you really suggesting that those are the factors to determine prosecution? Please elaborate on how these situations differ.
I agree this guy is unlikely to again take kids riverrafting in an unsafe boat w/o proper gear. Does that mean he’s now less likely to decide they really need to learn rock climbing, and yea, let’s use the clothesline and some duct tape?
Consider this: You choose not to prosecute him, 'cause he’s learned his lesson, feels really bad and so on, and you’re certain that people now realize how dangerous it is. But next month some other guy takes his kid out on a river raft… and the kid dies. Do you prosecute him? Gee, you thought he’d have learned from the first guy. No, he’s really, very sorry, etc etc. etc. Now, of course, how can you defend prosecuting anyone for accidentally causing some one’s death?
Is it the relationship that does it for you? If it had been a neighbor’s kid or another adult would you feel the same way?
I’m pretty liberal (just ask around here), and I still feel that folks need to be accountable for their actions and sometimes inactions (failure to take due care for example)>
He’s a good father. except for that little thing where he helped cause his kids death.
I think it is yet another case of how ridiculous our justice system is getting. According to all other news sources I’ve seen on this, they were not whitewater rafting. They were not fishing. The two boys, both of them 11, were in the raft at shore while the father was loading fishing equipment into it when it suddenly drifted away, later striking a rock and flipping over. No they weren’t wearing life vests but it is not mentioned anywhere whether or not there were life vests in the raft. It is not mentioned if the father was yelling for them to put on life vests while they were drifting. I suppose some will argue that he should have had the two boys in life vests, safety harnesses and helmets 50 feet before reaching the shoreline to fully protect them of all possible accidents.
If that is representative of what defines neglectful child abuse, then I’d say that 90%, if not all, of people with children are guilty of child abuse. Telling an 11 year old to get in the car while you load groceries in the trunk without first ensuring that they are buckled up in case the parked car gets hit by another car is the same type of situation.
Had anyone taken a photograph of the father loading the raft with the boys sitting in it, 5 seconds before it drifted, nobody would call it child abuse. It would have been a nice family photo.
Moderator’s note
This discussion is becoming involved enough that it’s gone beyond an exchange of opinions, i.e. the nature and purpose of criminal justice, etc. I’m moving the thread over to Great Debates.
TVeblen
for IMHO
From my professional experience in the juvenile court system, there is a legal obligation to charge the parent when it appears there has been some type of wrong-doing, especially when it involves the death of a child, so that a formal investigation can be conducted. It may very well turn out that the father is completely innocent, but the necessary steps have to be taken.
That’s the system: guilty until proven innocent.
IMHO stupidity is it’s own punishment.
Many of the previous objections might better be held in abeyance until a) a conviction, and b) a penalty/sentencing phase. The choice of charges filed may well be influenced by how much latitude would be given to the judge at any sentencing. I have no objection to the charges; based on my minimal knowledge of the case, I would perhaps frown on a jail sentence, or a felony… but a conviction with creative probation provisions and a suspended sentence would be productive. Criminal penalties are able to reflect mandated rehabilitative steps, so IMHO it’s premature to dismiss the notion out of hand.
To crib from an incomplete example above: no, it isn’t illegal to teach your kids to hunt. But if I hand Junior a rifle and the keys to the car, without first spending the effort to get him/her proper training & equipment, hunter safety classes and a license [both required by law], and some experience with me [or other mentor] in the field, and something went wrong, yeah, I oughta be called to account. Depending, obviously, on the severity of the facts in this hypothetical case, any “creative” probation might include hunter safety class, hunting suspension, community service, x hours working at a state park with wildlife managers, etc…
As a parent I have a great deal of difficulty with this sort of logic. Had he thought about it clearly enough to realize he was putting the kids in danger then he wouldn’t have done it anyway. The idea that his own self interest will suddenly make him more careful is close to ludicrous. In his shoes I would happily spend my life in prison to have my child back. For the average parent it is imposible to come up with something that has more deterant value than the death of their child. Its just gratuitous piling on.
I have no problem enforcing safety regulations on parents before the fact but this sort of thing has no value whatsoever.
wring
I’m not hot, just passionate about this. And it’s OK, You can disagree, but that doesn’t mean I won’t try to alter you point of view a bit my way, though.
That said…
Hunting accidents happen.
Boating accidents happen.
Accidents happen. People die. When that happens, I get angry, sad, or sometimes just sick. These are tragedies, but even though most accidents are preventable, whacking people with the justice system for thoughtless behavior, unless that behavior is a significant risk to others or to society, isn’t just. Some behaviors are sufficiently damaging that they must be regulated and sanctioned, and yes, sometimes that means prison (I’ve got disagreements about how our prisons are run, but that’s another thread). However, I don’t think it’s called for in this case, and frankly, I’m not sure that I’m comfortable with the idea that a criminal charge need be filled before an accident can be fully investigated. Turbo Dog’s info makes me even more confident that criminal charges in this case are uncalled-for. We’re reaching the point where everything is actionable in either a criminal or civil sense, and that’s not appropriate, either.
As to whether or not this man was a good father at the moment of his son’s death (I happen to think he wasn’t), it’s kinda immaterial, now. Whether or not he’s going to be allowed to continue to try and be a good father is material, and I still don’t see any purpose in creating another felon, locking away another life, and placing another family in hardship. This guy doesn’t present a risk, IMHO.
Please note: My opinions here (and they are just opinions, and worth just what you’ve paid for them: Nothing) are in response to whether or not the punishment is appropriate, not whether or not the law has a right to go after this guy.
Jorge I realize that conviction in this case is still hypothetical, but it does make for good debate.
[sub]Oh, and I know the Constitution doesn’t directly address the subject of vengance vs justice: Again, you have to read between the lines[/sub]
Of course there will be accidents. And some of them (not all) have atributable causation. Preventable accidents should be , prevented. If they aren’t, then person responsable, should be held reponsable.
I’m still having a tough time understanding your positon. Let me try this:
Two people are in a car together. Car hits tree, killing passenger cause passenger wasn’t wearing seat belt. Which factors make the difference for you?
- Age of victim (child vs. adult)?
- Direct negligence of driver (impairment, violating traffic laws etc.)
- Relationship of victim (ie if it’s my child who was killed, I already feel as bad as I can)
- Degree of responsability towards victim (own child, other child, person with handicap, etc.)
To me, the relevant factors are: 1. If the victim is an adult, I have no responsability towards their own actions - so if they failed to wear a seat belt and died, sorry. If it’s a child, regardless of my relationship, I have a duty to insure that child is wearing seat belt. 2. If I have direct negligence, the victimology is unimportant - I’ve caused the accident. Maybe could get brownie points if the death was solely due to the seat belt, but iffy. 3. doesn’t matter - except as adult or child. I may feel as bad as I can about my spouse dieing, but that doesn’t change my culpability. 4. Is another iffy one to me- if I have a duty to protect that person (be they a minor or handicapped or whatever), then again, I should insure the seat belt compliance. If it’s an employee, I’m not certain yet what postion I’d take.
I agree that some one who has unintentionally caused the death of their own child is probably in a special hell of their own making. I disagree that this should be made the rationale for how society deals with the death.
Where I have a difficulty understanding for instance Ned’s position, is that it seems to indicate that we’d prosecute in any case except where the person causing the death had an even greater than normal responsabilty towards the victim. And that just seems wrong. (so, if the other kid had died, since it wasn’t his kid, then he should be prosecuted? - note, I’m not saying that this is what you directly said, just a logical extension of your position)
It comes down to responsibility for the results of actions. Result: death. Responsible: father. All the rest may be used to adjust the punishment, but the crime is clear.
Don’t see what the debate here is.