Legal question: letting a child die

[Chronos]

Interesting cite, Cheesesteak… That seems to indicate that the skier in our hypothetical would be guilty… But it also seems to imply that a lot of other folks are guilty. Somewhere in some third world country, some kid is starving to death, and I’m permitting it. I could load up my duffel bag with Ramen noodles and book a plane ticket to Somalia, but I don’t. Am I guilty, under that law? (Ignoring, of course, the fact that I’m not in California.)

[Badge]

Here in Washington state, I would throw our hypothetical skier in jail for First Degree Murder:

Revised Code of Washington
9A.32.030
Murder in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:

 **(b) Under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life, he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to any person, and thereby causes the death of a person;**

I’m just a street cop, so the lawyers here may tell me I’m wrong (the local prosecutors do all the time), but I don’t think that “engages in conduct” would require anything more than ignoring a starving child.

I wouldn’t apply this to any situation where a person sees another in mortal danger, but under the specific circumstances in the OP, I think we could get a conviction.

And the mandatory sentence is life in prison without the possibility of parole.

[Cliffy]

You’re wrong. In the hypo, under the common law, the skier has not engaged in any conduct; he has merely refused to do anything. Active != passive.

–Cliffy

P.S. Again, this is the type of thing that legislatures may change if they want; I see nothing in Badge’s cite that indicates they have done so.

[Cliffy]

Clarification: Should be “has not engaged in any relevant conduct.” Sorry.

–Cliffy, again

[Zonyx]

@madcossack

IANAL,

Does that stand for I Am Not A Lawyer??? Is there really an acceptable abbreviation for I Am Not A Lawyer? That’s bloody astounding!

[Random]

@Zonyx

Does that stand for I Am Not A Lawyer??? Is there really an acceptable abbreviation for I Am Not A Lawyer?

Yup. (See also[/] IAAL.)

[Cheesesteak]

Chronos, true, if you interpret it broadly, it could encompass just about everyone. However, even if you interpret it narrowly, our hypothetical situation is covered. I think the clear intent of this law is to prevent people from just ignoring children who are in trouble, and who they can help out of trouble.

I think it comes down to what “willfully” means in this context. I think our skiier fits that definition. He knows the child is starving, it is completely within his abilities to prevent starvation, but he permits it to occur. You, OTOH, could potentially help a few kids you are not at all acquainted with, temporarily, at great expense to yourself. I think it’s harder to call your inaction willful.

[Blalron]

@Bricker

Recklessly means having a duty of care and violating it. Show that the adult has a duty of care to the child in this instance.

If you were a District Attorney and something like that occurred in your juridiction, would you just wring your hands helplessly and lament there’s nothing you could do?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@KGS

If I were trapped under an avalanche that killed everyone but a three-year-old child…I would eat the child.

That’s more-or-less what I said in the thread linked in the OP, but I don’t get the impression either of us is being taken seriously.

[Bricker]

@Blalron

If you were a District Attorney and something like that occurred in your juridiction, would you just wring your hands helplessly and lament there’s nothing you could do?

I think if I were a California DA, I’d roll the dice – the law quoted here seems like it deserves a test run, and this would be a good case to do it.

In every other state I’ve heard of, I’d probably be stuck. I’d be tempted to indict the guy anyway, and force him to pay to defend himself… but that would be wrong on my part.

[Jonathan_Chance]

And, frankly, you still might get a ‘conviction by emotional jury’.

[Cartooniverse]

@barbitu8

As LawHog has indicated, the states that have enacted Good Samaritan laws have done so to protect those attempting to render aid. Under the common-law, you have no duty to render any aid (barring relationships or circumstances that impose a duty), but if you attempt to do so, and the person is injured, you can be liable. The classic case is of a person drowning. If you throw him a life preserver and it hits him, you could be liable for any injury resulting from your action. So, it is just the opposite of what you said, and I don’t know what it has to do with the train system.

Take it a bit further. A state-certified emergency medical person is legally obliged to stop and render aid. To fail to do so, and be seen doing so, will cost you your certification. A “civillian” is not obliged to do so, but- at least in NY State- if you DO stop and attempt to render aid, you can NOT be sued for negligence for not saving a life, or for anything you attempt to do. That is the very core of a Good Samaritan Law. You are protected from suit, for having tried to help out.

Cartooniverse, retired NYS E.M.T.

[clairobscur]

@badmana

There might be a law somewhere but the next problem is, how the hell do you enforce something like this? Arrest everyone who passes a bum on the street? Or a driver who passes a stranded vehicle?

In France, where the OP in this hypothetical situation would most certainly be criminally liable (up to five or seven years behind the bars, I don’t remember which), the law doesn’t define precisely the situations where your responsability could be engaged. So, the interpretation has been left to the courts and essentially depends on the meaning given to a single word (“peril”).
And it’s clearly enforceable, since it’s enforced. One could find extreme examples like the ones you provided to demonstrate that no law is ever enforceable. It’s eventually always up to courts to decide whether a particular law applies or not in a specific situation, barring an extremely precise and detailled wording of the law (and even then…).

[badmana]

@clairobscur

In France, where the OP in this hypothetical situation would most certainly be criminally liable (up to five or seven years behind the bars, I don’t remember which), the law doesn’t define precisely the situations where your responsability could be engaged. So, the interpretation has been left to the courts and essentially depends on the meaning given to a single word (“peril”).
And it’s clearly enforceable, since it’s enforced. One could find extreme examples like the ones you provided to demonstrate that no law is ever enforceable. It’s eventually always up to courts to decide whether a particular law applies or not in a specific situation, barring an extremely precise and detailled wording of the law (and even then…).

I’m not even talking about it going to court. Just how is an officer going to arrest anyone ignoring such a thing?
And the California law is interesting but just how many pizza guys have been arrested for not reporting child abuse? Or neighbours of a home with abused children? Heck, have any teachers been changed for ‘ignoring’ an abused child? (I know we normally hear the opposite, a non-abused child being questioned).

[Mesquite-oh]

If this occured in Texas, maybe the individual could be charged with neglect of a child:

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 261.001 (West, WESTLAW through End of 2001 Reg. Sess.)

‘Neglect’ includes:

-The leaving of a child in a situation where the child would be exposed to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm, without arranging for necessary care for the child, and the demonstration of an intent not to return by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator of the child;

The following acts or omissions by a person:

-Placing a child in or **failing to remove a child ** from **a situation ** that a reasonable person would realize requires judgment or actions beyond the child’s level of maturity, physical condition, or mental abilities and that results in bodily injury or a substantial risk of immediate harm to the child;

-Failing to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for a child, with the failure resulting in or presenting a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury or with the failure resulting in an observable and material impairment to the growth, development, or functioning of the child;

-The failure to provide a child with food, clothing, or shelter necessary to sustain the life or health of the child, excluding failure caused primarily by financial inability unless relief services had been offered and refused; or

-Placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to a substantial risk of sexual conduct harmful to the child; or

-The failure by the person responsible for a child’s care, custody, or welfare to permit the child to return to the child’s home without arranging for the necessary care for the child after the child has been absent from the home for any reason, including having been in residential placement or having run away.

-Person responsible for a child’s care, custody, or welfare’ means a person who traditionally is responsible for a child’s care, custody, or welfare, including:
A parent, guardian, managing or possessory conservator, or foster parent of the child;
A member of the child’s family or household, meaning persons living together in the same dwelling, without regard to whether they are related to each other, and includes persons who previously lived in the household;
A person with whom the child’s parent cohabits;
School personnel or a volunteer at the child’s school; or
Personnel or a volunteer at a public or private child-care facility that provides services for the child or at a public or private residential institution or facility where the child resides.

I find it odd that they don’t specifically say “Person responsible for a child’s care, custody or welfare” on that highlighted part, but instead say “a person.” Since this is the Texas family code, is it possible that these definitions only can apply to Persons responsible for a child’s care, custody or welfare? Obviously, the other items on the list would seem to apply only to guardians. Did they make this vague on purpose? In addition, Texas law says that everyone has a responsibility to report abuse and neglect. If he had access to a phone, he is required to let the authorities know that there is an abandoned child.Texas Family Code 261.001

[Princhester]

@Chronos

I don’t think that it can be illegal to neglect the child in this case. For those saying that the situation has created a guardianship, consider a slightly different scenario: Suppose that the avalance leaves three survivors, two adults and a child. None of the three has had any previous contact or any sort of legally-recognized relationship with either of the others, and the child is unable to fend for himself. Does one of the two adults become the child’s guardian? Both of them? Can each of the adults independently decide that the child is the other’s responsibility, and both therefore neglect him? And if the child dies in that situation, is either or both of the adults liable? Or suppose that there are even more survivors. Is it possible for a child to have three guardians? Four? A dozen?

Yes.

[Princhester]

Sorry, that was a bit hasty: in my jurisdiction it is. It’s not at all uncommon to have joint and/or several guardianships. I don’t think this argument is likely to get you anywhere. If the circumstances of the OP create a duty of care towards the child, they are likely to do so regardless of there being several people who may be held to have a joint and several duty.

I don’t know of any duty in my jurisdiction, though.

Plus what Cliffy said about not relying on this etc.

[Cliffy]

@chriscya

If this occured in Texas, maybe the individual could be charged with neglect of a child

Interesting cite, chriscya. Just reading that, I think the guy in the OP hypo would be indictable were it to occur in Texas. Of course, I haven’t done the research I’d need to do (such as looking up the definitions section of the Family Code to see if there’s an idiosyncratic definition of “person,” as you suggest) to be sure.

–Cliffy

[Mesquite-oh]

@chriscya

I find it odd that they don’t specifically say “Person responsible for a child’s care, custody or welfare” on that highlighted part, but instead say “a person.” Since this is the Texas family code, is it possible that these definitions only can apply to Persons responsible for a child’s care, custody or welfare? Obviously, the other items on the list would seem to apply only to guardians. Did they make this vague on purpose? In addition, Texas law says that everyone has a responsibility to report abuse and neglect. If he had access to a phone, he is required to let the authorities know that there is an abandoned child.Texas Family Code 261.001

Oops, bad link. Let me try again: Texas Family Code 261

[Chronos]

Sorry, that was a bit hasty: in my jurisdiction it is. It’s not at all uncommon to have joint and/or several guardianships. I don’t think this argument is likely to get you anywhere. If the circumstances of the OP create a duty of care towards the child, they are likely to do so regardless of there being several people who may be held to have a joint and several duty.

But guardianship of a child carries with it both responsibilities and rights. The guardian of a child can legally decide how the child can or cannot spend money, and can administer corporal punishment, and can require the child to engage in chores, with or without compensation, etc. Would these rights also devolve upon all of the dozen other skiers, as well? Or do they inherit only the responsibilities inherent to guardianship, and not the rights?