“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.