JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 6th November 2012, 08:57 PM   #201
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay of Islands NZ
Posts: 6,133
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Do you have kids? Have you ever made a mistake that put them in danger whether the mistake had serious consequences or not?

Parents are human. Humans make mistakes.
Deliberately bypassing safety features does not meet the definition of 'mistake'.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 09:10 PM   #202
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,343
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I can't believe that people are willing to let this woman off because it might have been a one time thing. Well that's ok then. It was a one time lapse of judgement when I panicked and shot that man. Guess I shouldn't be prosecuted despite clearly committing a crime!

ETA Disclaimer: I've never shot a man. I've never even held a real gun.
No one is 'letting her off' as you put it. The question is simply, was this a stupid mistake or a criminal act. At this point with only a small bit of unreliable news to go on, I think it looks like a stupid mistake for which this woman will pay dearly for with the pain of her loss for the rest of her life. Everyone who makes a stupid mistake is not a criminal.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th November 2012 at 09:11 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 09:15 PM   #203
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,343
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
Deliberately bypassing safety features does not meet the definition of 'mistake'.
It can, it depends on a lot of factors. Not everyone recognizes the 'safety features' the way said features are intended to be perceived.

I've seen some seriously injured kids, in the hospital. Parents make mistakes, sometimes horrendous mistakes.

I've seen some seriously injured kids, in the hospital that were injured by callous indifference or active abuse. Parents commit criminal acts against their children.

There is a difference.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 09:20 PM   #204
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,343
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I love the logic here. We excuse stupidity because "everyone does it" and so then we just suck it up and there are no consequences.
If you think this is my argument, you are arguing straw. 'People are human, humans make mistakes' is not the equivalent of saying "because everyone does it". It's saying people are fallible.

Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Men can be very aggressive and accidentally hit a woman in the heat of an argument and severely injure the woman. It happens every day and it's called domestic violence.
false analogy


Originally Posted by truethat View Post
But the "poor mother" who killed a person is a victim. Don't get me started on this double standard.
I don't know anyone in the thread calling this woman a victim. Again, you add so much to what people post that they never said it's hard to have a discussion with you. You read things in posts that aren't there.

Having pain is not the definition of being a victim. The child was the victim. The mother will suffer for her mistake. In English, that is not saying she is the victim.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 10:34 PM   #205
Soapy Sam
NLH
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 27,810
Humans do make mistakes, sometimes lethal ones. In this case, they clearly underestimated the idiocy of other humans and will presumably add another couple of feet to the fence.
There was a case in Scotland a couple of years ago, equally tragic. A mother visited the office building where she had worked , accompanied by her toddler. The child somehow got under a balcony handrail on a stair landing , fell and was killed. It was an office building, the architects had never expected toddlers to be there and had left a gap between the stair handrail and the stairs. They were thinking in terms of adequate safety for adult workers who generally don't crawl under handrails. Easy to say the mother should have, or should have had the kid on reins, or should never have taken her eye off him, but people get distracted.

In both cases, a "safety" feature was inadequate , once because it was not designed with kids in mind, once because it was not designed with thoughtless adults in mind.

How safe must we make public places? Totally foolproof? Costly.
Soapy Sam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:35 AM   #206
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
 
Halfcentaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 6,644
What is going to come of punishing this person? I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. Part of me wants to hurt her myself, but I dismiss that as primitive and irrational. I like my sense of justice and the institution of this justice to be above the primitive and irrational urges I am prone to craving.

Should a person be made to suffer for something they never intended to happen?

That kind of punishment serves the purpose of making other people feel good about someone paying for something that shouldn't have happened. In that sense it seems an indulgence to me, but in so many ways morality as a system of value is built on indulgence and satisfaction in the first place, even when the principal is altruism and wellbeing.

I'm really not sure how I feel about negligence being punishable, it seems to always come down to the context of the actual specific issue to me usually. But the idea that suffering makes something right bothers me. The idea that something must pay for me to feel things are made better bothers me. It bothers me when people act as if I'm feeling pity for being bothered about vengeance and retribution. It's not a matter of excusing a person for what they did, and I find that often a straw man which I am accused of when I venture to debate the subject of retribution via revenge.

There are good reasons for punishment, but in a case like this it just seems like self indulgence for we who are disturbed and angered by such an atrocious incident. I don't feel like institutionalizing this person is going to accomplish anything valuable.

It is times like this when I wish we weren't allowed to breed however without a license, which could be revoked.

Last edited by Halfcentaur; 7th November 2012 at 01:41 AM.
Halfcentaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:56 AM   #207
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 7,987
Originally Posted by Halfcentaur View Post
What is going to come of punishing this person? I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. Part of me wants to hurt her myself, but I dismiss that as primitive and irrational. I like my sense of justice and the institution of this justice to be above the primitive and irrational urges I am prone to craving.

Should a person be made to suffer for something they never intended to happen?

That kind of punishment serves the purpose of making other people feel good about someone paying for something that shouldn't have happened. In that sense it seems an indulgence to me, but in so many ways morality as a system of value is built on indulgence and satisfaction in the first place, even when the principal is altruism and wellbeing.

I'm really not sure how I feel about negligence being punishable, it seems to always come down to the context of the actual specific issue to me usually. But the idea that suffering makes something right bothers me. The idea that something must pay for me to feel things are made better bothers me. It bothers me when people act as if I'm feeling pity for being bothered about vengeance and retribution. It's not a matter of excusing a person for what they did, and I find that often a straw man which I am accused of when I venture to debate the subject of retribution via revenge.

There are good reasons for punishment, but in a case like this it just seems like self indulgence for we who are disturbed and angered by such an atrocious incident. I don't feel like institutionalizing this person is going to accomplish anything valuable.

It is times like this when I wish we weren't allowed to breed however without a license, which could be revoked.
It would not be hard to find examples of negligence that you would agree should be punishable. Think of a coal mine that routinely neglects basic safety procedures in pursuit of profit, or merchant shipping lines sending seamen through the Suez canal with no protection (such as a safe room) against Somali pirates. Ignoring known or knowable, serious risk is often such as to take outside the civil sphere, where negligence mostly plays out, especially where lives are lost, not least because the compensation for death is often nugatory compared to that for serious but non-fatal injury (in England anyway).
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:27 AM   #208
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
Skeptic Ginger since my reply was to bookworm it should have dawned on you that I was replying to their post.


Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Not holding a four year olds hand near a train is still negligent. If you're going to take the harsh stance you have to do it across the board. Would it have changed your view if the kid had fallen on the tracks and been run over? I can then hear everyone saying "why was a four year old running free near a subway train?"
I wasn't "near a train" wth? Reading comprehension. I was lugging a stroller down the stairs in the subway. Do you understand what this entails? It entails holding the stroller with two hands. How in the world could I hold his hand and carry a stroller down a flight of stairs? It was a fluke. ( I alsp have to wonder why no one helped me or stopped him but I caught him.)

Hello?


That is not the same as deliberately forgoing a safety feature or putting my child in harms way.

Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
Deliberately bypassing safety features does not meet the definition of 'mistake'.
This has been said several times in this thread and yet people keep pretending it was an "accident." She deliberately put the child on the ledge, she didn't "turn away" and he got up there.

What's that word again "cognitive dissonance."

Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It would not be hard to find examples of negligence that you would agree should be punishable. Think of a coal mine that routinely neglects basic safety procedures in pursuit of profit, or merchant shipping lines sending seamen through the Suez canal with no protection (such as a safe room) against Somali pirates. Ignoring known or knowable, serious risk is often such as to take outside the civil sphere, where negligence mostly plays out, especially where lives are lost, not least because the compensation for death is often nugatory compared to that for serious but non-fatal injury (in England anyway).

Anything a man would do to put a child in harms way he'd be prosecuted for doing. It's only that she's a woman that excuses are being made that she's "suffered enough."

As if the child's life is mostly valued in how he mattered to the mother. He's her pet or accessory or favorite thing. And so his loss of life is only countable in how it effects the mother. In and of himself he has no value to the people saying "she's suffered enough." It's all about the mother.

So when a man drinks and drives and kills a family and wakes up devastated at the cause of his actions, he's suffered enough too? And people texting and driving who kill people walking, they've suffered enough too.

I would feel horrible if I killed a person by accident. Anyone would. But they are still prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter.

I also do think it would be cathartic for the mother to be prosecuted. Going through the court system would give her a place to work through the guilt and remorse.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by truethat; 7th November 2012 at 02:40 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:35 AM   #209
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No one is 'letting her off' as you put it. The question is simply, was this a stupid mistake or a criminal act. At this point with only a small bit of unreliable news to go on, I think it looks like a stupid mistake for which this woman will pay dearly for with the pain of her loss for the rest of her life. Everyone who makes a stupid mistake is not a criminal.
Someone is dead. Do you get that? She didn't drop her iphone into the pen. She killed someone??????
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:41 AM   #210
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It can, it depends on a lot of factors. Not everyone recognizes the 'safety features' the way said features are intended to be perceived.

I've seen some seriously injured kids, in the hospital. Parents make mistakes, sometimes horrendous mistakes.

I've seen some seriously injured kids, in the hospital that were injured by callous indifference or active abuse. Parents commit criminal acts against their children.

There is a difference.
Wait this is great. You criticize parents who don't want to vaccinate their kids as "putting their life in danger" but make excuses for parents who horribly injure and maim or kill their children by "accident."

__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by truethat; 7th November 2012 at 03:39 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:12 AM   #211
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,863
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Do you have kids? Have you ever made a mistake that put them in danger whether the mistake had serious consequences or not?

Parents are human. Humans make mistakes.
And sometimes those mistakes are criminal. Driving drunk with the kid in the car, shaking the baby because it's crying, standing a 2 year old on top of a barrier separating people from vicious animals.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:18 AM   #212
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
The vicious animals isn't even the point to me. It's that if she lost her grip he would have fallen 11 feet. That's like holding your kid at the second story window and letting them lean out to reach for a bird.

Just that is negligent.

found this online

Quote:
Here's a picture and diagram.

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/image...ted_dog778.png
http://www.dailymail.com/News/Nation...d/201211050103

The sides have wire mesh on top but the front doesn't so visitors can have an unimpeded view. However, there was absolutely no reason to place the child on the ledge. The bottom of the fence was plexiglass so if the boy was close enough to be on the ledge he was close enough to look through the glass.
I would have thought it obvious to not place anything on that ledge. But common sense isn't that common.

Please tell me she didn't put the boy on that ledge OUTSIDE the hut thingie???
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by truethat; 7th November 2012 at 05:52 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:47 AM   #213
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
This has been said several times in this thread and yet people keep pretending it was an "accident." She deliberately put the child on the ledge, she didn't "turn away" and he got up there.

What's that word again "cognitive dissonance."
My kneejerk reaction is to punish her because I am angry. It is an emotional response because of the horrific and entirely preventable way in which her child died. Once I step away from the emotion, my reluctance to punish has nothing to do with poor mother, it is; what exactly are we punishing her for? I see the fuzzy connection between her decision and gross negligence but my understanding of the law is the offender has to be aware and choose to remain ignorant of the imminent threat. If the threat was as imminent as necessary to prosecute, I have to wonder why the other witnesses to the event were not screaming in outrage at the imminent danger she was placing her child in, before the event; the threat has to be clear and present. Her mistake was acting under the assumption that she had control of the situation. The people around her, who didn't demand she take her child off the barrier (though in no way responsible for the child's death) were operating under the same assumption, that she had control of the situation.

In a way, I don't see it as that much different than your train analogy. I am assuming that when you made the decision to let go of your child's hand, you were operating under the assumption that you still had control of the situation, by vocal demand. I don't think you would make the conscious decision to let go of your child's hand if you honestly thought your child would make a B-line for the rails. That mother, likely, did not make the conscious decision to put her child on the wall, if she thought the child would slip from her hands, which is what makes it not gross negligence. Punishing her as an example to others, as a deterant, well, historically, that does not work because people rarely see themselves as the one who failed. The only thing I see left is punishing her because someone needs to pay for this. That's just not the justice system I want to live under.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:52 AM   #214
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 13,457
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
My kneejerk reaction is to punish her because I am angry. It is an emotional response because of the horrific and entirely preventable way in which her child died. Once I step away from the emotion, my reluctance to punish has nothing to do with poor mother, it is; what exactly are we punishing her for?
Exactly. For all truethat's attempts to paint those who disagree with her as "irrational", "emotional woo", "poor mother" sympathisers, the people who are showing the most emotional reactions are those who are frothing like rabid African painting dogs in a daycare centre and demanding their pound of flesh.

Of course, their yapping is much worse than their bite. I doubt the mother will be prosecuted for the reason that there's no real point in doing so.
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:54 AM   #215
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,863
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
My kneejerk reaction is to punish her because I am angry. It is an emotional response because of the horrific and entirely preventable way in which her child died. Once I step away from the emotion, my reluctance to punish has nothing to do with poor mother, it is; what exactly are we punishing her for? I see the fuzzy connection between her decision and gross negligence but my understanding of the law is the offender has to be aware and choose to remain ignorant of the imminent threat. If the threat was as imminent as necessary to prosecute, I have to wonder why the other witnesses to the event were not screaming in outrage at the imminent danger she was placing her child in, before the event; the threat has to be clear and present. Her mistake was acting under the assumption that she had control of the situation. The people around her, who didn't demand she take her child off the barrier (though in no way responsible for the child's death) were operating under the same assumption, that she had control of the situation.

In a way, I don't see it as that much different than your train analogy. I am assuming that when you made the decision to let go of your child's hand, you were operating under the assumption that you still had control of the situation, by vocal demand. I don't think you would make the conscious decision to let go of your child's hand if you honestly thought your child would make a B-line for the rails. That mother, likely, did not make the conscious decision to put her child on the wall, if she thought the child would slip from her hands, which is what makes it not gross negligence. Punishing her as an example to others, as a deterant, well, historically, that does not work because people rarely see themselves as the one who failed. The only thing I see left is punishing her because someone needs to pay for this. That's just not the justice system I want to live under.
What on earth makes you think there has to be an imminent threat to support a charge of reckless endangerment?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:57 AM   #216
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,863
I can't believe this woman is being charged with a crime. I'm sure she feels bad, what's the point of charging her?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:58 AM   #217
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
First I want to say Thank You sgtbaker. You’ve said what I would have liked to say.

Second, truethat: let me tell you that I in no way fault you for the subway incident. Yes, I know what lugging a stroller and a 4 year old around entails.

That being out of the way, what I am saying is that if we’re going to start judging exactly what is negligent and deserving of prosecution who is going to decide what moves from the gray area into the black or white? A real argument could be made by some that you were STILL negligent to not be holding your child’s hand in a potentially dangerous situation. As soon as he ran ahead, you recognized DANGER and ran after him, right? So you knew it was dangerous. Would you have been deserving of prosecution if he had been hit by the ……….

What are those thingies that carry the people from one destination to another in subways called? If not trains.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 06:00 AM   #218
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,863
And here is another grieving mother charged with her kid's death. Oh, the injustice of it all! Doesn't she feel bad enough?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 06:12 AM   #219
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
What interest will punishing her serve? I feel that the only way punishment will serve as a deterrent for negligence is if it's prosecuted always, regardless of the consequence or non-consequence of the actions. And that's where I find a problem because it's right back to how are we going to judge all the millions of ways people can be negligent?
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 06:15 AM   #220
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
What on earth makes you think there has to be an imminent threat to support a charge of reckless endangerment?
Editing, you asked for imminent and I answered for reckless.

That was poor wording on my part. The law requires the outcome to be reasonably foreseeable for it to be reckless.

Last edited by sgtbaker; 7th November 2012 at 06:29 AM.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 06:34 AM   #221
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And here is another grieving mother charged with her kid's death. Oh, the injustice of it all! Doesn't she feel bad enough?
Wildcat, with all due respect, those are completely different circumstances, in both of your links. In the other news story, the woman knew something was wrong and failed to address it. In this one, she was sleeping while her baby was in the bath. That's not acting under the assumption that she had control; that is completely relinquishing control.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 06:42 AM   #222
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 13,457
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
Wildcat, with all due respect, those are completely different circumstances, in both of your links. In the other news story, the woman knew something was wrong and failed to address it. In this one, she was sleeping while her baby was in the bath. That's not acting under the assumption that she had control; that is completely relinquishing control.
On top of that, the woman in the first was running an unlicensed daycare so presumably that complicates things when you are supposed to be looking after another person's child.

The woman in the second was clearly unfit to look after her children given that she was a drug addict who had put her baby in the bath and then taken a sleeping pill and dozed off.

Both have clearly got lifestyle problems that would make them a continuing danger to any other children they may have and others.

But do please clutch some more straws. If I could make a request could you please find the one Mark Corrigan mentioned earlier of a woman who sent her child into a battlefield...without a flak jacket!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 06:42 AM   #223
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,436
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
Wildcat, with all due respect, those are completely different circumstances, in both of your links. In the other news story, the woman knew something was wrong and failed to address it. In this one, she was sleeping while her baby was in the bath. That's not acting under the assumption that she had control; that is completely relinquishing control.

Yes, but hasn't she suffered enough?

The two standards are not compatible. One doesn't add or subtract from the other, does it?
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 06:53 AM   #224
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 7,987
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And here is another grieving mother charged with her kid's death. Oh, the injustice of it all! Doesn't she feel bad enough?
You gotta compare like with like. She was an addict who went to bed to sleep something off leaving her child to drown. That does not compare with the momentary lapse of judgment at the zoo.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 06:55 AM   #225
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
My kneejerk reaction is to punish her because I am angry. It is an emotional response because of the horrific and entirely preventable way in which her child died. Once I step away from the emotion, my reluctance to punish has nothing to do with poor mother, it is; what exactly are we punishing her for? I see the fuzzy connection between her decision and gross negligence but my understanding of the law is the offender has to be aware and choose to remain ignorant of the imminent threat. If the threat was as imminent as necessary to prosecute, I have to wonder why the other witnesses to the event were not screaming in outrage at the imminent danger she was placing her child in, before the event; the threat has to be clear and present. Her mistake was acting under the assumption that she had control of the situation. The people around her, who didn't demand she take her child off the barrier (though in no way responsible for the child's death) were operating under the same assumption, that she had control of the situation.

In a way, I don't see it as that much different than your train analogy. I am assuming that when you made the decision to let go of your child's hand, you were operating under the assumption that you still had control of the situation, by vocal demand. I don't think you would make the conscious decision to let go of your child's hand if you honestly thought your child would make a B-line for the rails. That mother, likely, did not make the conscious decision to put her child on the wall, if she thought the child would slip from her hands, which is what makes it not gross negligence. Punishing her as an example to others, as a deterant, well, historically, that does not work because people rarely see themselves as the one who failed. The only thing I see left is punishing her because someone needs to pay for this. That's just not the justice system I want to live under.

No one is saying punishing here. GD I get so sick of reading issues on this site.

Prosecute does not mean the same thing as PUNISH.

She should be prosecuted. That doesn't mean punished.

Guilty of endangering the welfare of her child leading to his death. Why? Because then other mothers in the future will think twice about doing stupid things like this.

Ex. If people who take their kids walking across railroad tracks knew they would get arrested if caught, they wouldn't do it. Right? Or at least it will occur to them not to do it.

Please look at the picture of the ledge and tell me how in the name of Odin you don't see gross negligence there?

Btw the bottom of the viewing window was all plexiglass. He could see through it. She put him OUT over the pit. This isn't her putting him on her shoulders and him falling off.

Maybe the reason there was no screaming and outrage is that she was the only one there when she did it or she snuck him over and people didn't realize until it was too late.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by truethat; 7th November 2012 at 06:56 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:04 AM   #226
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 8,021
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Not holding a four year olds hand near a train is still negligent. If you're going to take the harsh stance you have to do it across the board. Would it have changed your view if the kid had fallen on the tracks and been run over? I can then hear everyone saying "why was a four year old running free near a subway train?"

Yet she didn't put him on the tracks. How is this hard for people? Had the kid climbed the fence and fallen in, she would have made a mistake and not been criminally negligent. Afterall, the child HIMSELF bypassed the safety feature, and even if she could and should have held on to him, she didn't put him there. In this case however, she put him on the fence herself and in doing so was the one who put him in serious danger. There's a difference between "child gets away and does something dangerous leading to death" and "mother places her child in mortal danger". What kind of simple minded moron thinks that's a good idea? She didn't "make a mistake" she deliberately placed her child beyond the boundries of the enclosure. TT, who I confess I rarely agree with did not DELIBERATELY let her child run free in a subway. This woman DELIBERATELY placed her child beyond the thing that was keeping him from being eaten alive by wild dogs. How on Earth can you people not understand the difference?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 7th November 2012 at 07:07 AM.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:11 AM   #227
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
.....
Guilty of endangering the welfare of her child leading to his death. Why? Because then other mothers in the future will think twice about doing stupid things like this..
Only if they know about it. Which brings me to......

Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Ex. If people who take their kids walking across railroad tracks knew they would get arrested if caught, they wouldn't do it. Right? Or at least it will occur to them not to do it
This is what I meant when I said it will only serve as a deterrent if people are prosecuted, always, just for doing it, regardless of the consequences or lack of.

Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Please look at the picture of the ledge and tell me how in the name of Odin you don't see gross negligence there?
That front ledge, yes. But I believe she was holding him on the railing, not the ledge.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:11 AM   #228
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 8,021
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
That mother, likely, did not make the conscious decision to put her child on the wall, if she thought the child would slip from her hands, which is what makes it not gross negligence.
Nonsense, of course it's gross negligence.

Would you consider it gross negligence to let your child play in the road?

How about not putting a seatbelt on them in the car?

This woman removed the safety features put in place by the zoo. She didn't lose sight of him in a dangerous place, she put him in danger.

If some of you can see yourself putting your children in danger as a simple mistake then I have no idea what to say to that because it's so ridiculous I don't think there is a rational answer.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:15 AM   #229
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Yet she didn't put him on the tracks. How is this hard for people? Had the kid climbed the fence and fallen in, she would have made a mistake and not been criminally negligent. Afterall, the child HIMSELF bypassed the safety feature, and even if she could and should have held on to him, she didn't put him there. In this case however, she put him on the fence herself and in doing so was the one who put him in serious danger. There's a difference between "child gets away and does something dangerous leading to death" and "mother places her child in mortal danger". What kind of simple minded moron thinks that's a good idea? She didn't "make a mistake" she deliberately placed her child beyond the boundries of the enclosure. TT, who I confess I rarely agree with did not DELIBERATELY let her child run free in a subway. This woman DELIBERATELY placed her child beyond the thing that was keeping him from being eaten alive by wild dogs. How on Earth can you people not understand the difference?
I do understand the difference.

A mother who takes her child to the subway, puts him there. The mother at the zoo, from what I understand, didn't place her child "beyond the boundaries of the enclosure" LOL. She was still in the enclosure and she held him "ON the railing".

I see people doing that ALL THE TIME. The only way everyone will be deterred from doing that is if they are all, ALWAYS prosecuted. IMO. And if we're not prosecuting her as a deterrent, then why?
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:17 AM   #230
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
In other news, how about blaming the animals?

People go to the zoo to see WILD animals and now they're complaining that the animals are wild. :/
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:26 AM   #231
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 8,021
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I do understand the difference.

A mother who takes her child to the subway, puts him there. The mother at the zoo, from what I understand, didn't place her child "beyond the boundaries of the enclosure" LOL. She was still in the enclosure and she held him "ON the railing".
How is that not beyond the bounds of the enclosure? It's past the safety fence, or rather in a plpace where the safety fence no longer works as a safety fence.
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I see people doing that ALL THE TIME. The only way everyone will be deterred from doing that is if they are all, ALWAYS prosecuted. IMO. And if we're not prosecuting her as a deterrent, then why?
Prosecute them then. Anyone who is willing to put their child in a position like that is breaking the law. This isn't a law that isn't that serious so it doesn't matter if people ignore it. This is the protection of children from parents too stupid to be able to look after their children properly. At the very least they should be kicked out of the Zoo.

If you can't follow zoo safety rules and decide that hey, your child can be placed in danger to get a good look at the dogs that would eat him alive then you shouldn't be allowed in the zoo. It isn't a simple mistake, it's child endangerment and I wouldn't trust these morons to look after an egg, let alone a child. I certainly wouldn't trust them with someone else's child given that they are apparently so reckless that they do crap like this.

What's wrong with putting the child on your shoulders? Then they are raised, get a better view, and are not bypassing a bloody safety fence.

You never really adequately responded to my hypothetical of placing your child on the ledge of a 31st floor balcony. Let's say this woman had held him up on the balcony ledge and let go/he squirmed away and fell. Would you prosecute her for that? I certainly would.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 7th November 2012 at 07:27 AM.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:29 AM   #232
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 8,021
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
On top of that, the woman in the first was running an unlicensed daycare so presumably that complicates things when you are supposed to be looking after another person's child.

The woman in the second was clearly unfit to look after her children given that she was a drug addict who had put her baby in the bath and then taken a sleeping pill and dozed off.

Both have clearly got lifestyle problems that would make them a continuing danger to any other children they may have and others.

But do please clutch some more straws. If I could make a request could you please find the one Mark Corrigan mentioned earlier of a woman who sent her child into a battlefield...without a flak jacket!
You think the flak jacket example was meant to be about a child and not just a generic "put deliberately in danger" hypothetical?

You must be kidding me. You're not that stupid, are you?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:38 AM   #233
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
How is that not beyond the bounds of the enclosure? It's past the safety fence, or rather in a plpace where the safety fence no longer works as a safety fence.
Shades of gray. Depends on your perspective. On the fence, beyond the fence.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Prosecute them then. Anyone who is willing to put their child in a position like that is breaking the law. This isn't a law that isn't that serious so it doesn't matter if people ignore it. This is the protection of children from parents too stupid to be able to look after their children properly. At the very least they should be kicked out of the Zoo.
I agree. I'm only saying that we shouldn't ONLY prosecute when there is a bad result, indiscriminately, without looking at the whole picture. Because then it's a punishment, not a deterrent. Some of these situations warrant a punishment and some do not. Prosecution should happen to prevent these things from happening again and that won't happen unless any person who puts their child on that railing is prosecuted. Period.

Think about that, though. The lawyers would like it. Think about how many court cases we'd have!



Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
You never really adequately responded to my hypothetical of placing your child on the ledge of a 31st floor balcony. Let's say this woman had held him up on the balcony ledge and let go/he squirmed away and fell. Would you prosecute her for that? I certainly would.
I did respond. I said I thought it was an EQUALLY stupid lapse in judgment.
Since you'd prosecute her for holding him on the balcony ledge if he squirmed and fell, shouldn't MJ also have been prosecuted JUST FOR DOING IT?
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:47 AM   #234
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 8,021
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Shades of gray. Depends on your perspective. On the fence, beyond the fence.
Nope, doesn't cut it. If the child is no longer protected by the fence he is beyond the fence for all reasonable interpretations. If the fence is no longer protecting you, you are at a point where you might as well be beyond it for all it matters to your safety.


Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I agree. I'm only saying that we shouldn't ONLY prosecute when there is a bad result, indiscriminately, without looking at the whole picture. Because then it's a punishment, not a deterrent.
Oh I quite agree. I don't want to punish this woman just because it ended badly for her. Indeed I have absolutely no idea what she must be going through. That doesn't change the fact she broke the law and put her child in mortal danger.


Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Some of these situations warrant a punishment and some do not. Prosecution should happen to prevent these things from happening again and that won't happen unless any person who puts their child on that railing is prosecuted. Period.

Think about that, though. The lawyers would like it. Think about how many court cases we'd have!
Think about how many people who put their children in danger would be prosecuted! Personally I have no problem with this whatsoever but let's assume that we don't prosecute them for a moment. At the least everyone who does this in the zoo must be kicked out of the zoo and it must be applied equally across every zoo.

Even without the threat of prosecution, being barred from entering zoos might goad the parents into thinking "huh, maybe I'm doing something wrong here..."

WITH the prosecutions, it might just stop.



Originally Posted by bookworm View Post

I did respond. I said I thought it was an EQUALLY stupid lapse in judgment.

My apologies! I think I confused you with someone else, sorry.


Originally Posted by bookworm View Post

Since you'd prosecute her for holding him on the balcony ledge if he squirmed and fell, shouldn't MJ also have been prosecuted JUST FOR DOING IT?
Yes. I was horrified when he wasn't arrested immediately.

ETA: I think there's something being missed in what I'm saying. I don't think this woman should be prosecuted because her child died, I think she should have been prosecuted even if the kid hadn't died.

Child endangerment isn't some silly PC-Gone-Mad 'Elf and safety lunacy that we can ignore when we feel like it because it's ridiculous. It's there to keep children safe from moronic parents who put them directly in danger of death. A great many parents are lucky, their child does not die. That isn't an excuse to allow them to keep doing the stupid crap they do in the first place.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 7th November 2012 at 07:51 AM.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 07:56 AM   #235
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 32,796
I would think prosecution would depend on history- did this woman have a documented history of child neglect? How many other children did she have that were eaten by animals? If it happens more than three times in the same family, and they don't live on a nature reserve or something, then I think perhaps it might be a red flag of suspicion. But just one incident, that could happen to anyone.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 08:04 AM   #236
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,204
To me it really is a case by case basis as to when a mother (or anybody) should be charged in cases like this.

As much has been made of it..... what she did was really not that dangerous. What she did probably happens millions upon millions of times each year.... There might not be a pack of wild dogs on the bottom, but people do the Micheal Jackson thing all the time. I would argue you have a greater chance killing your kid by putting them in a car and driving them to the grocery store then what this woman did.

But regardless it was stupid. The reason I would not bother charging her is that it really doesn't accomplish anything. She probably wants to kill herself already. The amount of money that is spent on justice is not infinite, I'd rather see it spent on other areas of justice.

But it really is case by case for me... The guy that shot the girl thinking she was a skunk. I think he should be charged.... but I don't think he should be put away for very long. Tonnes of community service?


There was this case in Canada last year. A 15 year old boy killed a police officer after he was stopped joyriding and speeding. The kid tried to drive off, the officer tried to grab the keys, dragging the officer some 300 feet before going off the road. The accident killed the officer and left the boy paralyzed from the neck down. This is another case where I believe putting the boy on trail is a complete waste of time and money. The kids life is over, he is a quadriplegic. There will be hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars spent putting on a trial to find him guilty of what everyone knows he is guilty of anyway. This should be able to be hashed out in a room in about 20 minutes...............anyway I'm rambling.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 08:05 AM   #237
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post

ETA: I think there's something being missed in what I'm saying. I don't think this woman should be prosecuted because her child died, I think she should have been prosecuted even if the kid hadn't died.

Child endangerment isn't some silly PC-Gone-Mad 'Elf and safety lunacy that we can ignore when we feel like it because it's ridiculous. It's there to keep children safe from moronic parents who put them directly in danger of death. A great many parents are lucky, their child does not die. That isn't an excuse to allow them to keep doing the stupid crap they do in the first place.
I know what you're saying. I guess what I am saying is that since we don't prosecute everyone who endangers their child, what good will picking THIS mother accomplish? I think it will be a miracle if she survives the guilt of this. I seriously think I would imagine it over and over and it would drive me insane and I would kill myself.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 08:06 AM   #238
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I would think prosecution would depend on history- did this woman have a documented history of child neglect? How many other children did she have that were eaten by animals? If it happens more than three times in the same family, and they don't live on a nature reserve or something, then I think perhaps it might be a red flag of suspicion. But just one incident, that could happen to anyone.
Thanks. That made me laugh out loud.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 08:30 AM   #239
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Shades of gray. Depends on your perspective. On the fence, beyond the fence.



I agree. I'm only saying that we shouldn't ONLY prosecute when there is a bad result, indiscriminately, without looking at the whole picture. Because then it's a punishment, not a deterrent. Some of these situations warrant a punishment and some do not. Prosecution should happen to prevent these things from happening again and that won't happen unless any person who puts their child on that railing is prosecuted. Period.

Think about that, though. The lawyers would like it. Think about how many court cases we'd have!





I did respond. I said I thought it was an EQUALLY stupid lapse in judgment.
Since you'd prosecute her for holding him on the balcony ledge if he squirmed and fell, shouldn't MJ also have been prosecuted JUST FOR DOING IT?
So your logic is either we clog our court system with cases or we just let everyone get away with it scot free?

How about this one "If you put your kid in a dangerous situation and he gets hurt, you can be arrested."
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 08:34 AM   #240
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 18,700
Originally Posted by manofthesea View Post
It's simple economics. How much more protection can the zoo afford?

Plus zoos nowadays provide petting zones with sheep, piglets, chicks, and other docile animals for small children.

Is there no personal responsibility now?
.
Loosen the friggen nets! They don't have to be rigid! A one-time no-cost fix.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.