Again, we’re judging actions, not people. The actions that the parents took on that date that led to the horrible death of their child were negligent.
If you want to discuss how one series of negligent acts should color our judgment of a person, by all means, have at it. But know that it isn’t something I said, and is just another strawmen you’ve created to make yourself feel better.
I will stop calling you an asshole. (I didn’t call you one in the post you quoted either, but I understand what you mean.)
It just felt good to say it, is what you’re saying. And I might have replied that some things it feels good to say, nevertheless shouldn’t be said. But you’re saying it’s good to have a place like this where people can feel free to say things simply because it feels good to say it, because this leads to good results through the value of multiple perspectives etc.
I can make sense of that.
Just as a philosophical point, I want to point out (I’m not calling you an asshole, just addressing your argument) none of that means you can say anything you want in the Pit and not be an asshole for it. There are things it feels good for an asshole to say as well.
But with that said, I think you have ideas about what is implied by posting in the pit that the other posters in here don’t share. I can’t blame you for it. Pit threads could easily give the impression you’re expressing here. What you’re saying is almost true of them, even! Indeed… I’d say I now think your post was perfectly reasonable and prudent. 
That’s not true of what you said in this thread. By emphasizing the parent’s responsibility, you are explicitly judging the parent him or herself, not “just the action”.
I’m judging the parent based on their actions. That’s what we do, judge people based on their actions. Their actions were negligent. They were negligent. They made a seriues of negligent mistakes, and their child died because of it. As I said earlier in the thread: “Despite the strawmen to the contrary, I don’t think these parents are all horrible, unredeemable monsters who need to suffer for their actions.” But they were negligent, and it did result in the death of a child.
Are we done now, or must I repeat myself again?
This is why the law distinguishes between pre-meditated murder and negligent homicide. The latter has considerable lighter penalties than the former. I can certainly see a parent of a deceased child left unintentionally in a car facing negligent homicide charges, and being subjected to an investigation, but I have an issue with those who want automatic condemnation and harsh penalties.
We agree. Progress!!!
Me too. That’s one of the most honest and heartfelt things I’ve read on these boards. choie, thanks for posting that.
Okay then. Telling the world that only bad parents would do this is telling the world that only bad parents need help.
If by “done,” you mean, do we all agree with you, the answer is “No,” but please stop repeating yourself. I understand what you are saying. I just don’t agree. People are not disagreeing with you because you aren’t making your argument clear; people don’t agree because they simply don’t.
Which is fine. Disagreements happen. But those disagreements don’t have to devolve into the ad hominems, the strawmen, and the hostility that this thread did.
No, but that’s where the climate here – and I don’t mean just in the Pit – has been heading in the past five or so years.
Bullshit, you piece of crap! The tone and level of civility is as high as it ever was, you son of a motherless goat. Why do you hate children. … and puppies … and apple pie!
I’ve also heard that you should put something in the car seat when the child isn’t in the seat. Something like a Barney the purple dinosaur, or a can of expired tennis balls, or something else that would be eye catching and that you otherwise wouldn’t have in your car. When you put the kid in the carseat, you put the item up front where you can see it. Then when you get to your destination, you see that there’s a Barney toy in your front seat, and it reminds you that there’s a kid in the back in their car seat. Then you take the kid out the car seat, and put the Barney back into the car seat. It’s not a perfect system, but hopefully it would help you go from the 99.9% chance of remembering the kid, to 99.999% chance of remembering your kid.
Putting your cell phone or your briefcase or something important in the back seat might be good as well. But there’s that one day that you don’t need your briefcase, or you have your phone up front with you because you need to look up an address before you go and you forget to put the phone in the back seat, and it throws everything off.
I don’t want to pile on to Hamlet because I think that the problem with using the word negligent is that there is both a specific legal meaning of the word as well as a more casual meaning and it means different things to different people. However, I just want to comment on the notion that if one should charge a paid caregiver criminally for an action then the same charges should apply to a parent.
First of all, I reviewed Hamlet’s three links and found that none of them were actually germane to this discussion. All of those cases involved caregivers deliberately and knowingly leaving a child in a car while going off to do something else. In these cases the caregivers were either deliberately recklessly endangering the children or lacking essential knowledge required for their jobs (which is that a child cannot be left alone in a car).
Second, I do think that there is a difference in the duty a paid caregiver owes to a child. It is admirable that there are parents here who are able to think of the welfare of their children constantly. I would wonder how they get anything done. I would assume that these would have to be stay-at-home parents who carefully avoid any other potentially distracting tasks; that they never take telephone calls or go shopping or read the news while the child is under their care since this might distract them for the precious few seconds it can take for a child to get into danger. In fact, it is because the majority of parents have other responsibilities such as work that they hire daycare workers who are paid to spend their entire time worrying about the child and to not be distracted by other activities while the child is under their care. The tradeoff is that the parent should be able to have some time while the child is at daycare where they are freed from the constant worrying. This is where we run into trouble because in these cases, the parents were sure their children were at daycare and therefore they could be safe from the constant worrying.
I suppose one answer would be to have only stay-at-home parents, with the caveat that the working parent do all of the household chores so that the caretaking parent could focus on the child at all times, but that is not viable for most people.
I’m not sure about that. Adding steps to a procedure can often just create more openings for failure - a dog runs out in front of you and you brake hard - the can of tennis balls rolls off the front seat and disappears - the indicator you (perhaps unconsciously) built reliance upon, is now sending a false signal.
All of these systems tend to comprise two key steps:
[ul]
[li]Set a reminder at the start of the journey[/li][li]Be reminded by it at the end of the journey[/li][/ul]
Either of these can fail or be forgotten for myriad quite trivial reasons (a neighbour talks to you as you load the car; your phone rings or a colleague buttonholes you as you enter the car park at work), so these systems cannot be relied upon.
I disagree, and I think this is the core of where people are talking past each other.
I don’t think a parent who did this is necessarily more negligent parent than average, or than I. They are just unlucky. So while on one hand, it’s true that negligence contributes, that negligence is basically canceled out by it’s universal nature, leaving luck as the only difference between them and me.
I agree.
I mean, there are situations in life where one must apply greater care than others, in order to try to avoid being unlucky (i.e. child vs umbrella), but the absolute elimination of unlucky outcomes is impossible - we are imperfect machines.
But luck has legal consequences. Otherwise, there’d be no difference between the legal penalty for murder and for attempted murder - after all, it is often just luck that the murderer failed.
Right, but in terms of my emotional reaction, the outcome is much less important: I wouldn’t be more comfortable associating with an attempted murderer than with a successful murderer. I feel like there is difference in character between me and someone who starves a baby to death because they are too busy to feed him/her. I don’t know that there is any difference at all between me and one of these parents that forgets a baby in the car except for luck. So my reaction to them is very different.
My impression of Hamlet is that he thinks there is a spectrum, with parents who starve themselves to death on one end, these parents somewhere in the middle, and himself at the far end–that the fact that he hasn’t ever done this is, in itself, evidence that he is less negligent than those parents. I don’t know if that’s really his position, but I think that’s what people are reacting to.
“Starve [their children] to death,” yes?
I don’t know if that’s Hamlet’s position, either, but it certainly seems to be the position taken by a couple of others earlier on in this thread.
While I don’t agree with much of what Hamlet has said, I actually find the remarks of people like CalMeacham much more troubling. If you cannot believe yourself capable of making a fatal mistake–or believe any of the people you know capable of it–then such mistakes are necessarily only the province of those who don’t care about their children, or don’t care about their children enough (read: as much as I do). That is just not my experience of the world. Having just read through the thread, I’m a little surprised that it’s Hamlet who is getting the brunt of the pitting.