Posted on 08/23/2007 6:08:28 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3
I think we are talking about “willfulness”. The drunk driver chooses to drink, the parent who willfully leaves a child in a car chooses to do so.
These parents did not willfully do this. They did not make a decision to leave the child. They were distracted or did not communicate. There was no intent whatsoever to kill this child.
That is the difference. It is illogical and irrational to assume as so many do that they are “selfish”, “negligent”, self centered and so on.
I think a crime requires intent and choice. Surely you don’t see intent or choice here.
Hmmm...that would be news to my three small children. My children mean the absolute world to me. The reason I have such sympathy is because I know, first-hand, how easy it really is to do something like this. It is so very easy to just assume that each such instance involves a reckless parent who prefers a drink at a bar to safety and well being of their child.
In my very personal case my little girl was a little under two years old. My family and I were heading into church with my frail father-in-law. I dropped my wife and her father off at the church door step and went to park the car with my three kids. It had been our custom at the time that my wife took our baby daughter and I took the boys. In this instance my small boys bolted from the car and I feared for their safety in the parking lot. My daughter dozed quietly, and out of view, in the back seat while I dashed to grab the boys. After church service was over I went to the nursery to pick up my daughter. They told me she had not come that morning. It hit me like a load of bricks at my realization and I ran to our van with tears filling my eyes. As I got to the van I opened the door not knowing what to expect but preparing myself. There was my daughter with eyes red from obvious crying with a look on her face that I swear I will never, ever forget to the day I die.
Fortunately for me it was a fall day and about fifty-five degrees outside and my daughter was no worse for the wear, unlike her father at the time. We made a point of never saying anything about it to my daughter because we did not want to reinforce a bad memory. At six and a half years old she has no recollection because we have now asked her if she remembered. We are thankful.
It is easy to hurl bricks simply because it just never happen to you. For me, I see someone kneeling in the sand, writing, and asking for him who is without sin to cast the first stone.
You nailed it. This could happen to anyone.
People here sometimes attach their own particular agenda to something. Thus the cracks about “rich Doctors”, “daycare”, etc.
Seems everyone is looking for someone to condemn. But my guess is these parents are in a place where external condemnation means nothing. I suspect they are in a hell we don’t even have an ability to understand.
So, are you suggesting because they are doctors, they should live “at the level we do”
I have noticed people prefer the day care because they think it is safer,,other people around and so on. They seem to be terrified of individual nannies and such.
But that said, you stay home, think it is important and that is fine. Why do you deem to think your decision is everyone elses unless they are somehow flawed.
Evidently you are unaware of what ADD is.
“intent” applies to certain criminal acts, that is true. Criminally negligent homicide does not necessarily to have to prove “intent”, only that the act was foreseeable, and preventable, and reasonable to assume that death could occur or was a likely result. Our society — many in here that are well-meaning — are hung-up on “intent” and are not willing to apply the law to the “act”.
Obadiah, as a single parent of four myself, I absolutely understand and can relate to the scenario you described. HOWEVER, if your child would have died, you would be criminally and morally and legally responsible for her death. That’s not about emotion, or intent, or the value of your life over hers. It is simply a fact. If it happened to me, it would be no expection. What the sentence (punishment) should be is for the legal system to decide. But to say there should be no jail time — no restitution — no meaningful consequence (beyond probation or community service) is ridiculous. A life was taken. Justice requires there be reasonable, appropriate consequences.
It is not about vengence. That is too easy. I do not believe you can whitewash the definition of “justice” to the simplistic “vengence” or getting even. Our legal system is much MUCH more than that.
A child’s life is worth more as well.
My 1.5 cents..
Well of course the justice system determines what is appropriate. But you follow that statement by declaring that there has to be what you deem reasonable consequences including something beyond probation.
If the justice system decides that reasonable consequences is for the parents to continue on and suffer whatever miseries they will surely suffer without intervention by the state, I would find that reasonable justice tempered by mercy.
Would you? Or would you declare the justice system corrupt and wrong?
You are confusing justice with consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.