Pack of African painted dogs kill 3 year old at Pittsburgh Zoo.

[elipse]

Originally Posted by Caper

Yes. I would fully support charging her if she was caught. If her child died from it... I'm not sure if I would... Damage is already done.

Yes. The damage TO ANOTHER PERSON. Society has a responsibility to recognize that the right to life OF ANOTHER PERSON was violated.

I don't understand why I should be able to get away with actions that directly result in the death of another person if my bond with that person crosses an arbitrary level of intimacy or my subsequent grief crosses some arbitrary level of pain.

[elipse]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In your analogies you leave out the familiar vs the unfamiliar, public campaigns vs assuming people know better.

With seatbelts there are now laws, but parents who lost an unbuckled child in an accident were not prosecuted before mandatory car-seat/seatbelt laws. What's the difference? Shouldn't the parent have known better, law or not?

As for playing in the road, in a small town on a dead end street, kids play in the road. Near a busy boulevard, a parent would be familiar with the risk. What happens is a parent misjudges the speed a child moves when they turn their back. That would be a mistake. Good parents make such mistakes.

...but... there IS a public campaign about the railings, I'll bet my life on it. I will bet you that somewhere on that railing, and on every railing in that freaking zoo, there is a sign that says "Do not allow children to stand on railing." Possibly with a little picture of a child standing on the railing with a line through it.

People know what the fences are there for, and they know they are violating zoo policy by putting their kids up there. Sure, it was a mistake: a prosecutable mistake. A grossly negligent mistake. She should be tried, and, if convicted, would then be officially responsible for the death of another person. I do not want her to be punished by jail time. I want the laws of the land to apply to her as they would to me, or you, or anyone else who lifted her kid up on to that railing.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Caper

Also, I'm not making an argument that this is how we always do it... I'm saying dangling your kid on a railing is not that dangerous... hence why it is done so many times and results in so few causalities. I'll argue that it is not much more dangerous that putting your kid in the car and simply driving across the city. You have just as much chance of killing your kid via car accident then you do accidentally dropping them when holding them over a railing. Mind you... I don't go near a railing with my own kid.... needless risk.

Dangling a kid on a railing above 11 feet is very dangerous. (btw I do think this was a stupid accident.) This was a toddler not a "Kid" so keep that in mind.

If the kid was 6 or 7 the chance of him falling out the railing would be much smaller because of the size of the child.

The point is there were signs everywhere and the child is now dead. It's not the first time it happened and it won't be the last. This is why I think prosecuting her would be helpful.

Not punishing her. And it would also change the way lawsuits happen. I'd bet anything she's going to sue the Zoo.

Children are injured every day by parents doing things like this and if parents knew they'd be held accountable I think it would be a better deterrent.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by elipse

Yes. The damage TO ANOTHER PERSON. Society has a responsibility to recognize that the right to life OF ANOTHER PERSON was violated.

I don't understand why I should be able to get away with actions that directly result in the death of another person if my bond with that person crosses an arbitrary level of intimacy or my subsequent grief crosses some arbitrary level of pain.

Exactly. This is the part that I don't understand. This was a person who had their whole life in front of them who is now dead and died in a horrific manner.

There is no respect being given to this person. It's as if, well he's dead anyway why cry over spilled milk. I'm sure she feels bad enough.

Consider Jacqueline Saburido. She was horribly disfigured and burned all over her body because a young man drove drunk. It was a one time incident and he did not mean at all to do it. The man is destroyed, several others in the car were killed as well.

Stupid mistake. You see the guy is utterly devastated by what he did with true remorse for what he has done which he will have to live with for the rest of his life.

He's in jail. He was prosecuted. He was 18 when it happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Saburido

Quote:

t the same time, Reginald Stephey, an 18-year-old high school student, was on his way home after drinking beers with his friends at a party. On the outskirts of Austin, Stephey's 1996 GMC Yukon veered into Chpytchak-Bennett's 1990 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency.

We could look at Mr. Stephey and say he made a stupid mistake at 18 years old that has destroyed his life. When you see interviews with him you understand completely that he is overwhelmed with remorse. And he was drinking as a teen so it's obvious that he wasn't thinking clearly and that he made a huge mistake.

IMO I could understand some lenience towards him. But he broke the law and was prosecuted. The debt to society has been filled.

The zoo is still closed, which means the zoo is losing major money because of this woman's actions. She put many things in jeopardy with her decision.

How people say she should just get to go home and sob into her pillow is beyond me.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Caper

You can't. I think we just assume very few parents would intentionally leave a child in a hot car on purpose. It almost always happens the same way. If someone intentionally killed their child by boiling them in a car I think it's safe to say most people would want that parent put away in jail for life...... I'm not going to ask for the same thing for an accident... just because I can't prove it was not an accident.

It seems the "innocent until proven guilty" rule is being thrown in the trashcan more and more often.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by elipse

"...I guess what I am saying is that since we don't prosecute everyone who speeds through a school zone, what good will prosecuting this guy who hit and killed a child accomplish?"

a. Just because it is not reasonable to prosecute a violation of a law in all cases does not make it invalid to prosecute any violations of that law.
b. her actions DIRECTLY RESULTED in the death of another human being.

Should she go to jail? Not necessarily. But she should be prosecuted. Society should make her officially responsible for her actions. We, as a society, need to say to her "Your actions were grossly negligent and unacceptable. You are responsible, and no one else."

Otherwise what the **** are laws FOR?

First of all, we DO prosecute everyone who speeds through a school zone, if they are caught, whether they hit anyone or not....

Second, there is no law that I'm aware of that says you can't set your child on a railing and hold him there. So I don't see what law she actually broke.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by elipse

I do not want her to be punished by jail time. I want the laws of the land to apply to her as they would to me, or you, or anyone else who lifted her kid up on to that railing.

But this is just the issue....NOTHING happens to people who lift their kid up on that railing.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Caper

It's funny thinking about my own childhood. There is a picture of me and my older brother in the local paper, him 11 me 6... jogging one of our racehorses down the street.... I can remember Dad loading 10 or so kids in the neighborhood in the back of the truck and taking us up the mountain fishing... all the while we are reaching out and grabbing leaves of trees as were driving... it certainly was a different time.

This is an interesting thought. According to the standards we see here, I bet most of us have really terrible parents who made seriously neglectful decisions. They should have never had kids. I wonder how many here agree that their parents really sucked.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by bookworm

First of all, we DO prosecute everyone who speeds through a school zone, if they are caught, whether they hit anyone or not....

Second, there is no law that I'm aware of that says you can't set your child on a railing and hold him there. So I don't see what law she actually broke.

Yes there is, if it amounts to gross negligence and harm results. There is no law against leaving your child in the bath while you answer the phone, nor a law against letting your child wander next door to play in the neighbour's pond. Nor is there a law against shooting someone in the head, actually. If we had to pass a law for every particular set of facts we wanted to criminalise we would never get anywhere, but it doesn't work that way. We criminalise concepts, like 'theft' or 'robbery' (theft with violence or the threat of it) or 'burglary' (theft or other offences committed after unlawful entry into a building) or 'homicide by gross negligence' and if a set of facts comes by that fits one of them, then we can prosecute.

ETA correction: burglary can be committed (in England) without stealing anything. Just unlawfully entering a building with intent to steal, rape or cause criminal damage is burglary even though nothing or no one is stolen, raped or damaged.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by bookworm

It seems the "innocent until proven guilty" rule is being thrown in the trashcan more and more often.

There's an "innocent until proven guilty" rule for voicing an opinion?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by bookworm

First of all, we DO prosecute everyone who speeds through a school zone, if they are caught, whether they hit anyone or not....

Second, there is no law that I'm aware of that says you can't set your child on a railing and hold him there. So I don't see what law she actually broke.

There were signs all over the location saying not to do that. So this is exactly the point that I am making. If the signs are there as a 'suggestion" she ignored it and thought she would be fine.

If she had been aware that she could be prosecuted for putting her kid up on the railing and ignoring the safety precautions then she probably wouldn't have done it.

How do we set a precedent? By prosecuting people for endangering the welfare of her child.

What you seem to be ignoring is that because it was her own child she's getting a pass. If she had picked up someone else's child and put them on the railing and this happened she'd be getting prosecuted right now.

[bookworm]

You know, I don't think any of us can deny that some people have a more heightened awareness of danger than others. My own family is constantly telling me that I'm a paranoid nutcase when it comes to danger to children. From the time my kids were old enough to go to a friend's house alone until they were about 13-14 years old, I would stand on the porch and watch them walk down the street to a friend's house. And if it was around the corner, I'd walk to the corner with them and watch the rest of the way. When they reached the point where they convinced me that I really couldn't keep doing this, I made them call me when they got there and before they left to come home. Lots of other parents told me at the time that I needed to let up a little.

Now, I'm the same way with my grandchildren. It makes me a nervous wreck some of the things I see....and people are always telling me to "chill."

[truethat]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Yes there is, if it amounts to gross negligence and harm results. There is no law against leaving your child in the bath while you answer the phone, nor a law against letting your child wander next door to play in the neighbour's pond. Nor is there a law against shooting someone in the head, actually. If we had to pass a law for every particular set of facts we wanted to criminalise we would never get anywhere, but it doesn't work that way. We criminalise concepts, like 'theft' or 'robbery' (theft with violence or the threat of it) or 'burglary' (theft or other offences committed after unlawful entry into a building) or 'homicide by gross negligence' and if a set of facts comes by that fits one of them, then we can prosecute.

ETA correction: burglary can be committed (in England) without stealing anything. Just unlawfully entering a building with intent to steal, rape or cause criminal damage is burglary even though nothing or no one is stolen, raped or damaged.

Exactly. There's no law that says you can't leave a stash of percocet lying out on the table when you have toddlers in the house. But there shouldn't need to be a law that says that. The same way there shouldn't need to be a law that says "don't dangle your child over an 11 foot drop above a pack of wild dogs"

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Yes there is, if it amounts to gross negligence and harm results. There is no law against leaving your child in the bath while you answer the phone, nor a law against letting your child wander next door to play in the neighbour's pond. Nor is there a law against shooting someone in the head, actually. If we had to pass a law for every particular set of facts we wanted to criminalise we would never get anywhere, but it doesn't work that way. We criminalise concepts, like 'theft' or 'robbery' (theft with violence or the threat of it) or 'burglary' (theft or other offences committed after unlawful entry into a building) or 'homicide by gross negligence' and if a set of facts comes by that fits one of them, then we can prosecute.

ETA correction: burglary can be committed (in England) without stealing anything. Just unlawfully entering a building with intent to steal, rape or cause criminal damage is burglary even though nothing or no one is stolen, raped or damaged.

True and I do understand the argument for prosecuting her. I just think in these circumstances the whole picture needs to be looked at. I believe in a gray area and that nothing is just black and white.

[truethat]

I think you are full of beans when you say you think "the whole picture needs to be looked at." You haven't looked at anything when you decided she felt bad enough.

I've asked you several times and you've ignored it. "How do you know the woman didn't do it on purpose?"

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Caper

Originally Posted by quadraginta

They are the easily predicable consequence of doing something stupid. The frequency of tragic results is not a useful metric to judge the danger of the action.

Absolutely it is.

Not within the context of one individual's personal history, which is what I was talking about in reference to the quote, "That's the way we always do it.".

Of course, I'm sure you knew that.

It is a mindset which is distressingly common, sort of a subset of the "it can't happen here" outlook, and the point that compared to the metric you are referring to, that statistics in a larger arena are significant by comparison, is exactly the one which safety training tries to instill.

It's one of the hardest hurdles to cross.

Nobody argues that being buried by a collapsing ditch isn't dangerous. They argue that they don't need to do it the way OSHA says because they've been doing it their way for years and haven't buried anyone yet.

It's the "yet" part they have problems getting a handle on.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

What sex issue was introduced? It was the mother, so the mother is referred to. It wasn't the father, so the father wasn't referred to, just as the sister or the uncle of the grandmother or the neighbour were not referred to

That post was a little more tame than her post on page four or five, "women as victims... if a man had... blah blah blah."I got the impression that her issue is sympathy because she's a women. She's more than welcome to explain the connection between a woman thinking she has a grip on her child and a man accidentally hitting a woman in a fight.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by truethat

There were signs all over the location saying not to do that. So this is exactly the point that I am making. If the signs are there as a 'suggestion" she ignored it and thought she would be fine.

If she had been aware that she could be prosecuted for putting her kid up on the railing and ignoring the safety precautions then she probably wouldn't have done it.

How do we set a precedent? By prosecuting people for endangering the welfare of her child.

What you seem to be ignoring is that because it was her own child she's getting a pass. If she had picked up someone else's child and put them on the railing and this happened she'd be getting prosecuted right now.

When I posted, I was responding to elipse saying "what are laws for". The signs posted do not indicate a "law." That's the zoo "rules." Hence, no "law" against sitting your child on a railing.

But I do agree with you about the precedent.

I don't see any reason why people could not start designing signs to say "do not endanger the welfare of your child by .......... it is a punishable offense." Maybe that's a step in the right direction towards educating people who are not as aware of danger as others. If they're already taking the time and expense to post signs why not be explicit?

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by truethat

I think you are full of beans when you say you think "the whole picture needs to be looked at." You haven't looked at anything when you decided she felt bad enough.

I've asked you several times and you've ignored it. "How do you know the woman didn't do it on purpose?"

I haven't see you ask me that. That's not the legal standard for our society. We don't know she didn't do it on purpose but there's NO INDICATION that she did. We don't go around arresting and prosecuting people just because we don't know what their intentions were.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Caper

Also, I'm not making an argument that this is how we always do it... I'm saying dangling your kid on a railing is not that dangerous... hence why it is done so many times and results in so few causalities. I'll argue that it is not much more dangerous that putting your kid in the car and simply driving across the city. You have just as much chance of killing your kid via car accident then you do accidentally dropping them when holding them over a railing. Mind you... I don't go near a railing with my own kid.... needless risk.

Humans aren't very good at gauging relative risk. The chances of being hit by lightning are much higher than those of being bitten by a shark, but people are still less worried about going out in a storm than they are swimming in the ocean.

Sometimes it is just because the risk is exceedingly small in both cases. Sometimes it's because they have no choice but to go out in the storm, sometimes it's because they really, really want to go swimming.

The woman who let her child fall into a pit full of wild dogs must have really, really wanted him to get a better view.

The fact that they had put up fences and signs might have given her some clues that the relative risk was more substantial in this particular case but, you know, people do it all the time. Never had a problem ... yet.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by bookworm

When I posted, I was responding to elipse saying "what are laws for". The signs posted do not indicate a "law." That's the zoo "rules." Hence, no "law" against sitting your child on a railing.

But I do agree with you about the precedent.

I don't see any reason why people could not start designing signs to say "do not endanger the welfare of your child by .......... it is a punishable offense." Maybe that's a step in the right direction towards educating people who are not as aware of danger as others. If they're already taking the time and expense to post signs why not be explicit?

"No Littering. $200 Fine."

[truethat]

Originally Posted by bookworm

That's not the legal standard for our society. We don't know she didn't do it on purpose but there's NO INDICATION that she did. We don't go around arresting and prosecuting people just because we don't know what their intentions were.

Really? There's NO indication?

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by truethat

Really? There's NO indication?

Do you know something we don't?

[truethat]

Personally I don't think she did it on purpose. But my point is that she could do it on purpose and most people would feel sorry for her and let her get away with it.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by truethat

Really? There's NO indication?

Do tell.

[JoeMorgue]

This is all B.S. posturing. If a school bus driver got drunk and killed someone's precious spawn not one single person would be making excuses for them and that act would be less intentional (in the doing the action sense, not the trying to cause harm sense) then this.

She's getting a pass because she "a grieving mother." And that's tripe.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by bookworm

I haven't see you ask me that. That's not the legal standard for our society. We don't know she didn't do it on purpose but there's NO INDICATION that she did. We don't go around arresting and prosecuting people just because we don't know what their intentions were.

In the civil law of negligence (in England) there is a doctrine of liability expressed in the latin phrase res ipsa loquitor ('the thing speaks for itself'). If you are walking past a building site and something drops off the roof and prangs you on the head, you don't need to prove what happened because such things don't happen without negligence. The effect is to reverse the burden of proof (which can be discharged - maybe a freak and unprecedented gust of wind blew something off).

While the burden would always remain on the prosecution in a criminal case against our mother, I am not sure it would be necessary to prove exactly what happened. We know the child cannot have climbed the barrier and flung itself to the ground. We know the initial conditions and the end conditions and we can reasonably infer what must have happened in between. The thing speaks for itself.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by bookworm

Do tell.

I posted it already but you completely ignored it.

Quote:

MaiasMommy619 on Nov 5, 2012 at 7:43 AM
They also mentioned that the mother was doing this through our the day with other exhibits and even by waterfalls.. So it wasn't a one time thing.. She did it all day...

A friend of someone who was at the zoo that day who had seen the mother. Hearsay of course, and I do believe that she was being careless. However if it turned out that she had tried to "put her kid in harms way" as a way of mounting a law suit against the zoo, it would be different no?

What evidence do YOU have that it was totally and completely an accident. None. You are just going by your emotional reaction.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by truethat

I posted it already but you completely ignored it.



A friend of someone who was at the zoo that day who had seen the mother. Hearsay of course, and I do believe that she was being careless. However if it turned out that she had tried to "put her kid in harms way" as a way of mounting a law suit against the zoo, it would be different no?

What evidence do YOU have that it was totally and completely and accident. None. You are just going by your emotional reaction.

I didn't ignore it. So you think some random person on the internet making this comment is an indication she intended to murder her child? LOL. OK. I think this person may be full of crap in the first place because the first reports about this said it happened around 11:30 AM so she wasn't even there all day. Therefore, she couldn't have been doing this "all day".

I'm operating on the "innocent until proven guilty" theory. Accidents like this do happen and I haven't seen or heard any evidence pointing to her doing it deliberately. Nothing to do with emotions.

[JoeMorgue]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a discussion one.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

In the civil law of negligence (in England) there is a doctrine of liability expressed in the latin phrase res ipsa loquitor ('the thing speaks for itself'). If you are walking past a building site and something drops off the roof and prangs you on the head, you don't need to prove what happened because such things don't happen without negligence. The effect is to reverse the burden of proof (which can be discharged - maybe a freak and unprecedented gust of wind blew something off).

While the burden would always remain on the prosecution in a criminal case against our mother, I am not sure it would be necessary to prove exactly what happened. We know the child cannot have climbed the barrier and flung itself to the ground. We know the initial conditions and the end conditions and we can reasonably infer what must have happened in between. The thing speaks for itself.

I see what you're saying in regards to culpability for an accident. But I was under the impression we were talking about proof that this woman deliberately set out to harm her child. I was saying that we don't arrest people for murder simply because we don't know that they didn't intend to kill someone.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a discussion one.

True, but I still see no indication that she intended to kill her child. Since accidents like this do happen, I see no reason to think it wasn't one. Just discussing it.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

That post was a little more tame than her post on page four or five, "women as victims... if a man had... blah blah blah."I got the impression that her issue is sympathy because she's a women. She's more than welcome to explain the connection between a woman thinking she has a grip on her child and a man accidentally hitting a woman in a fight.

It speaks to a double standard towards men and women which is constantly shown but brushed off as nothing on this site and elsewhere.

The reality is, that the reason this woman is getting a pass is because she is a mother. The stereotype is that "she's been punished enough"

The mindset is that mothers love their children and would be completely devastated if something happened to their child.

It startles me how this cognitive dissonance is still at play in society. Why in the world do we have child protective services? Why are case managers in this field so overwhelmed if the standard is that mothers care for their children and would never deliberately put their kids in harms way?

As children grow up in abusive and neglectful homes they tend to adapt to the situation and learn to take care of themselves. We also have mandatory schooling in this country which gives children an outlet and a safety zone in which to survive.

Why do so many schools have breakfast and lunch? Free lunch for kids?

Why are there so many absent fathers who abandon their kids and not pay child support but father children by different women.

Because many parents (both men and women) do not give a flying flap about their kids. Pregnancy can be a result of an "accident" and doesn't mean the parent actually wants the child or that they take care of them appropriately.

I have seen many situations in my life of women who have numerous kids and don't take care of them. Many.

So why is this pervasive attitude that the "mother has suffered enough" there? Based on what?

What is this based on? It's based on emotion, cognitive dissonance and stereotypes.

[MarkCorrigan]

Pointing to her doing WHAT deliberately?

Killing her child? Of course not.

Putting her child in danger? She may not have thought of it as dangerous, but that just means she was an unfit mother.

[truethat]

Exactly. I don't think she intentionally killed her child, but she intentionally put her child in harms way. We're only hearing about it because the child died in a very news worthy manner. Plenty of kids die every day that we don't hear about.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by truethat

Exactly. I don't think she intentionally killed her child, but she intentionally put her child in harms way. We're only hearing about it because the child died in a very news worthy manner. Plenty of kids die every day that we don't hear about.

Right, you're clarifying this now but earlier you were implying she should be prosecuted because we don't know that she didn't do this deliberately.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Pointing to her doing WHAT deliberately?

Killing her child? Of course not.

Yes, I was responding to the posts implying that she may have killed her child deliberately.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Putting her child in danger? She may not have thought of it as dangerous, but that just means she was an unfit mother.

By that standard there are alot of unfit parents out there. Probably most of the posters here had unfit parents.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by bookworm

True, but I still see no indication that she intended to kill her child. Since accidents like this do happen, I see no reason to think it wasn't one. Just discussing it.

Why? This is exactly what the problem is. You are not being honest. From what I can gauge in your replies you yourself have had incidents in the past where you luckily avoided catastrophe with your kids. All parents have. I've shared mine. And so you are thinking about your reaction there. And basing your opinion on that.

I personally have witnessed people abuse their kids horribly or neglect them etc.

Ex One time I went to help a mother move into a new home. She had four children and when I went into the room to see the kids sleeping and turned on the light, there were rats running across the length of the bunkbeds and roaches going up and down the railings.

The room was filled with left over take out food that was rotting. The mother thought the room was "messy." She was hanging out in the other room with her boyfriend (number 7) and had spent her years frantic over finding a new man.

Another mother had driven her daughter all the way up to NYC for me to take on because she was too overwhelmed. When she stumbled into my apartment her daughter reeked of cigarette smoke. Her clothing bag reeked as well. I had to throw out the clothing and get her new clothes.

The mother has smoked cigarettes the entire way up for hours in the car with the child right behind her. It was winter so she didn't open the window.

When I watched the child I took her to a speech pathologist who told me the kid was borderline feral. She was 4 years old and didn't know how to say her own name. She had not been spoken to and had been left in her crib most of the time and no one spoke to her which is why she didn't know how to say her name. No one had called her by it on a regular basis.


I've helped a mother who told me she was desperate and needed clothing for her kids. I took her and her baby down to the Goodwill store at which I was a manager. I told her to take whatever she needed for the kids and go on and get some things for herself. She proceeded to the pocketbooks and took 8 pocketbooks and shoes for herself and didn't get anything for her children. I was there holding her baby who was less than a year old. She didn't care.. When she dumped out her old pocketbook to put things into her new pocketbook a crack vial fell out.


So when I hear about child neglect that kills a child, I wonder "who is this mother" before I make a decision. In any of the cases above I don't think they would have cared if their children died. But I do think they would play the victim and pretend they were devastated and use it as a way of avoiding responsibility in their lives.


These are just a few examples. There are many more. So where is this sentiment that "mothers who accidentally kill their children have been punished enough?"


I don't want them to be "punished." I want to protect children in the future.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by bookworm

Right, you're clarifying this now but earlier you were implying she should be prosecuted because we don't know that she didn't do this deliberately.

She SHOULD. I'm not saying anything different. She should be prosecuted to make sure she didn't do it on purpose and to set a precedent for other parents.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by truethat

Why? This is exactly what the problem is. You are not being honest. From what I can gauge in your replies you yourself have had incidents in the past where you luckily avoided catastrophe with your kids. All parents have. I've shared mine. And so you are thinking about your reaction there. And basing your opinion on that.

I personally have witnessed people abuse their kids horribly or neglect them etc.

Ex One time I went to help a mother move into a new home. She had four children and when I went into the room to see the kids sleeping and turned on the light, there were rats running across the length of the bunkbeds and roaches going up and down the railings.

The room was filled with left over take out food that was rotting. The mother thought the room was "messy." She was hanging out in the other room with her boyfriend (number 7) and had spent her years frantic over finding a new man.

Another mother had driven her daughter all the way up to NYC for me to take on because she was too overwhelmed. When she stumbled into my apartment her daughter reeked of cigarette smoke. Her clothing bag reeked as well. I had to throw out the clothing and get her new clothes.

The mother has smoked cigarettes the entire way up for hours in the car with the child right behind her. It was winter so she didn't open the window.

When I watched the child I took her to a speech pathologist who told me the kid was borderline feral. She was 4 years old and didn't know how to say her own name. She had not been spoken to and had been left in her crib most of the time and no one spoke to her which is why she didn't know how to say her name. No one had called her by it on a regular basis.


I've helped a mother who told me she was desperate and needed clothing for her kids. I took her and her baby down to the Goodwill store at which I was a manager. I told her to take whatever she needed for the kids and go on and get some things for herself. She proceeded to the pocketbooks and took 8 pocketbooks and shoes for herself and didn't get anything for her children. I was there holding her baby who was less than a year old. She didn't care.. When she dumped out her old pocketbook to put things into her new pocketbook a crack vial fell out.


So when I hear about child neglect that kills a child, I wonder "who is this mother" before I make a decision. In any of the cases above I don't think they would have cared if their children died. But I do think they would play the victim and pretend they were devastated and use it as a way of avoiding responsibility in their lives.


These are just a few examples. There are many more. So where is this sentiment that "mothers who accidentally kill their children have been punished enough?"


I don't want them to be "punished." I want to protect children in the future.

These are horror stories and I'm thankful I haven't seen such atrocities. I'm not sure what you're asking of me in this post, though. I suppose I assume she wasn't any of those things because those are aberrations rather than the norm. I haven't heard any indication she was any of those things and I believe we would have by now.