Posted on 12/07/2009 10:15:22 AM PST by sevinufnine
Mary Parks was charged in the death of her son back in September of 2007. Parks' nearly two-year-old son died of heat stroke after being left in his mother's car.
Authorities say Parks went to pick her child up from daycare, but its staff told her the child was not there. That's when she found the toddler unresponsive in the back seat of the car.
(Excerpt) Read more at wdbj7.com ...
not according to a few folks in here. Funny you mentioned that because we just had a young man accidentally kill a Ferrum College student. At least he did come to their aid instead of RUN as he could have. This guy has a 3 month old newborn and is being charged with manslaughter. I find it ironic if he had “no intent” that according to some of these nuts in here...he should be allowed to go free based on how terrible he feels. (which he does by the way....)
If alcohol is involved, you go down. You intended to neglect. If you throw your child in the pool, that is murder.
In the crack example, the mother purposefully left the kids in the car. It wasn’t an accident.
The young man’s intent was to shoot whatever was moving in the field which happened to be a student. He did exactly that. That’s why it is a crime.
What are you talking about? Am I getting those I reply to messed up?
Did you intend to take that nap, or did you just fall asleep?
Were you tired because you are taking medication or because you stayed up all night partying?
Intent to do one thing doesn't prove or have anything to do with the intent to do something else.
His intent was to shoot a deer (DUH~!!!!!!!) I am an avid hunter as is my husband. We are dilligent to make sure everyone at hunting camp knows who is out and where. I was like 20 ft from what I’m sure was a deer in thick brush, but no shootie-shootie as I could not see it and I was on MY OWN LAND and still (believe it or not) bright enough to know better. This guy DID take a shot at movement, but not intending to shoot the girl, so again...WTF does this have to do with the issue? He’s going to pay a heavy price, as will his new child who will have to grow up without a father around.
“What on earth does that have to do with anything?”
Out of sight, out of mind. I have a sneaking suspicion that almost if not all of these cases were of a child asleep in the back seat where the driver/parent couldn’t see them. Think there might be a correlation ?
Unless you’re saying the parent did it on purpose.
Amazing.
That poor rationale could be used for ANY crime.
Of course it’s up to the prosecutor’s discretion. That doesn’t make it right. It just means that the prosecutor made a series of judgments that, in this case, weight against a trial and imprisonment. Other prosecutors have come to completely different conclusions.
I have no idea why you mention “vigilantes”. Perhaps an effort to hid a piss-poor argument?
Yes.
Sending her to prison acts as a deterrant to others.
Sure, some people look at the death of a child and think, “No way that’s gonna happen to me”. A prison sentence is icing on the cake, especially for people who make the willful decision to leave a child unattended, which is much more common.
Saying, “She’s suffered enough.” is a joke and demonstrates a specific failure to understand the true nature and objectives of PUNISHMENT. That kind of logic is why these incidents continue.
Some valid points, but your last argument is a complete red herring.
I’m not making an “if/then” or “this/that” argument and certainly not even close to mentioning pedophiles and rapists.
A trial would determine guilt or innocence. The facts.
Sentencing is where compassion and judgment come in.
Dropping the charges altogether is a joke. Especially under the guise of insufficent evidence. Certainly there’s evidence of neglect, if lacking in criminal intent.
That being said, I think the punishment should fit the crime.
She shouldn’t get a life sentence, but she certainly should do time. It’s a tragedy for all involved, but I can’t seem to muster up that much sympathy for the mom.
D E T E R R E N C E
It’s not just for the offender.
The rest of us got it.
Good post.
Actually, I think you may be wrong in your understanding of “willful neglect” which requires an element of “knowing and willful” behavior, i.e. some type of intent or knowing disregard of possible outcomes.
This is probably why they dropped the case for lack of evidence. They have a problem showing she “knowingly” left the child in the car. She didn’t “know” because she forgot. How do you prove somewone “knowinglgy” forgot unless you have further evidence and history of other types of neglect and poor parenting.
This is completely different from parents that willfully and intentionally left a child in the car while they shopped, gambled, did drugs or partied, basically using the car as a playpen in leiu of finding and paying for appropriate child care.
Criminalizing stupid is not going to help or protect society. Although it will certainly become a new cause celebre and bureaucratic growth industry.
He meant to shoot whatever was in that field. It was not an accident. He purposefully neglected to verify his target. He was not shooting at a deer. There was no deer in that movement. He intended to shoot at whatever was moving and was hoping it was a deer.
He did exactly what he intended to do. He was just hoping for a better outcome.
I actually know a woman that killed her own child.
The kid ran behind her car while she was backing out of the driveway. There was no finding of negligence. That’s the difference. Here, they’re covering it up.
And quit with the rapist, murder, drug, (pedophile, Nazi, et al) argument. This has NOTHING to do with that and you know it.
” Here, they’re covering it up.”
So you really wish to punish this woman for something the prosecutor is doing.
“And quit with the rapist, murder, drug, (pedophile, Nazi, et al) argument. This has NOTHING to do with that and you know it.”
godwins law you lose
It most certainly has something to do with it since prisons are at capacity in most places. In order to add a prisoner they have to release one in most places.
Do you honestly think a mother is more deterred by prison than the death of their child?
And, you even mis-understand Godwin’s Law.
You have to CALL a person a Nazi, not use the world.
More FAIL.
Where did I say I wanted her punished for the prosecutor’s actions? You need much, much more practice in twisting my words.
There is, most certainly, enough evidence of NEGLIGENCE to warrant a trial. But there’ll be no trial and no finding of fact, let alone a sentence and justice.
If you think they’re going to release a murderer for a woman who negligently kills her kid, you’re just demonstrating an even greater misunderstanding of the situation and criminal justince, in general.
take a deep breath and think before you hit reply.
good day
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.