Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Mar 12, 2009 12:38:54 GMT -5
Filo wrote:
"But the thing is, these people did not intend to do that and, in fact, did not realize they had done it until it was too late. So, while the outcome is the most horrible thing imaginable, I just can't call the cause of it negligence of the worst order, and I have a hard time calling it criminal negligence, at all." [emphasis added]
Perhaps I misread your post, Filo. I read into it that you were saying that a reasonable person would not intend to leave their kid in a car, but an unreasonably negligent person might---I was trying to draw the connection between the two concepts, because I didn't see it in your post at first. My purpose was to distinguish the difference between knowingly or intentionally acting or failing to act and thereby knowingly or intentionally causing an outcome, versus negligently disregarding a legal duty/standard of care, the act or omission of which results in the outcome. If these parents had intended to disregard their duty to not leave their children in a car, thereby resulting in the death of their children by hyperthermia, it would seem to be worse than negligence by definition. If that was present in your post, then I apolgize for misreading it.
kchoya:
I like where you're headed with that---seeking the answer to "why". It would seem that the purposes of criminal justice may not be or are not present in these kinds of circumstances depending, of course, on the individual facts of the case and the mental state of the parent at the time of the conduct. For instance, if a parent battled a negligence charge all the way to the state supreme court and lost, I could see imposition of jail time.
I would add the restitution question too. What does society gain (or "get back", from one legal theory's point of view) from the parents by punishing them criminally?
"But the thing is, these people did not intend to do that and, in fact, did not realize they had done it until it was too late. So, while the outcome is the most horrible thing imaginable, I just can't call the cause of it negligence of the worst order, and I have a hard time calling it criminal negligence, at all." [emphasis added]
Perhaps I misread your post, Filo. I read into it that you were saying that a reasonable person would not intend to leave their kid in a car, but an unreasonably negligent person might---I was trying to draw the connection between the two concepts, because I didn't see it in your post at first. My purpose was to distinguish the difference between knowingly or intentionally acting or failing to act and thereby knowingly or intentionally causing an outcome, versus negligently disregarding a legal duty/standard of care, the act or omission of which results in the outcome. If these parents had intended to disregard their duty to not leave their children in a car, thereby resulting in the death of their children by hyperthermia, it would seem to be worse than negligence by definition. If that was present in your post, then I apolgize for misreading it.
kchoya:
I like where you're headed with that---seeking the answer to "why". It would seem that the purposes of criminal justice may not be or are not present in these kinds of circumstances depending, of course, on the individual facts of the case and the mental state of the parent at the time of the conduct. For instance, if a parent battled a negligence charge all the way to the state supreme court and lost, I could see imposition of jail time.
I would add the restitution question too. What does society gain (or "get back", from one legal theory's point of view) from the parents by punishing them criminally?