Good fucking grief.
It is when they FORGOT the kid was in the car in the first place. Or do you actually think people plan on forgetting?
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.
You would deduce this the same way you would with any other crime. Why would it be different here?
This is not a profitable analogy. It does not involve an act of negligence on the part of the driver. Forgetting a baby is negligence. It’s not an excuse, it’s a negligent act in itself.
It certainly does involve an act of negligence on the part of the driver. If the driver had been paying attention to his surroundings more carefully, he could have seen the person about to run into the street. I’m not just trying to be cute, either; there are plenty of times that I’ve been driving along, seen children playing very near to the street, and slowed to almost a crawl, just in case one of them darted out in front of me.
guilty until proven innocent…no, wait, innocent until…which is it?
When your kids are molested by a pedophile, I am just going to assume that you as a parent just didn’t work hard enough to protect your children and therefore you are a bad parent. I mean the proof is in the pudding isnt it? Bad results for child equals bad parent. Its obvious right? Or maybe that you even PLANNED for it to happen.
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 not what a number of juries have decided.
Well, the details weren’t described very well. It all boils down to individual circumstances whether or not the driver was negligent. That is something that can be worked out forensically. What was going on in a parent’s mind when he/she left a baby in the car is not.
No. It’s not that hard. If the mother just began an affair and wanted out of the marriage, and if she’d been complaining about the burden of having a child, if they’d just taken out a large insurance policy on the kid, that kind of thing, you might have some evidence that suggests a deliberate act. Why would intent to harm be assumed as a matter of law? How the hell does that make sense? You evaluate each case on its own merits.
I don’t care. I’m not asking those juries anything, I’m asking whether people posting here think leaving a baby in a car until it dies should be legalized. They seem to think it does.
Are you saying intentionality should have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? What exactly are you sying the law should be?
I don’t think anyone is saying that. You’re creating a false dilemma: it’s always a criminal act or it’s a free pass. How about a third option–evaluate each case on its own merits, as we do with any other potential crime, considering background details, intent, any other evidence. That’s what those juries did.
What is the specific, negigent act with forseeable risks that you see present in this analogy?
That each case should be evaluated based on the available evidence, just like every other potential crime. If someone deliberately did such an act, they should be put away. But if someone had zero intent (as determined as best we can), then it’s a different matter.
You are the one that thinks pedophiles lurk around every corner.
Therefore, if you ever let a child outa your sight…well you knew the risks and takes your chances right?
Guilty untilproven innocent, but in thsese circumstances, guilt already HAS been proven. Leaving a baby in the car is a crime in itself, and if those facts are not disputed by the defendant, then you have proof of guilt.
The issue is that some people apparently want to change the law so that it is NOT automatically a crime to leave a baby in the car as long as they snivel a lot and say they “forgot” when they get caught.
What is the specific, negligent act with forseeable risks you are asking me about?