Maybe we need a standard

[Jenny_Jackson]

First, this from the TODAY show blog. There is also a video story on this. The woman was not charged and went back to work at the school where she is Assistant-Principal.

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/07/348604.aspx

Yesterday we brought you the tragic story of a 2-year-old girl who died after her mother left her in a locked car for eight hours as the temperature approached 100 degrees outside -- and came close to 150 degrees inside.

The mother, Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby, had changed her daily routine that morning before going to work as an assistant principal at a middle school in Ohio. Instead of dropping off her daughter with the babysitter, she went to buy donuts for her fellow teachers, then went to work -- forgetting that her daughter was still asleep in the back seat.

Police brought Nesselroad-Slaby in for questioning after the incident, and her pain and guilt are apparent, as this video shows (it's tough to watch). WATCH VIDEO

Although police questioned Nesselroad-Slaby, Clermont County prosecutor Don White decided not to seek an indictment, because Ohio law stipulates that "reckless conduct" must be present. Mr. White said that although leaving the child was "a substantial lapse of due care," it did not meet the definition of "reckless conduct."

A lot of people have had a strong reaction to this story. Some believe that she should be tried, that this was criminal negligence. Others say that having to deal with the accidental death of her daughter is punishment enough. (You can vote on todayshow.com.)

I'm certainly no expert on Ohio law, but it seems like common sense that this woman -- while maybe not acting "recklessly" -- acted so negligently that it led to the death of her child. And while we can certainly feel sorry for her over the loss of her child, she was responsible for endangering the life of a child.

In the past 10 years, there have been about 340 heat-related deaths of children trapped in cars. Charges were filed in about half of those deaths. Of the cases that have gone to trial, 81 percent resulted in convictions or guilty pleas, half of which brought jail sentences.

Second, this -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20622619/

Officer accused of leaving police dog in hot car
Report: Cop ran errands, napped as canine died on 109-degree day

Updated: 7:34 a.m. PT Sept 6, 2007
PHOENIX - A suburban police officer is accused of leaving a police dog in a patrol car for more than 12 hours on a 109-degree day, killing the animal.

Chandler police Sgt. Tom Lovejoy was booked into the Maricopa County jail on a misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty after a two-week investigation into the death of a 5-year-old Belgian Malinois named Bandit. He was released later Wednesday, said Capt. Paul Chagolla, a spokesman for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

The sheriff’s investigation showed Bandit was in Lovejoy’s patrol car from about 9 a.m. to shortly after 10 p.m. Aug. 11. During that time, the investigation found, the officer ran errands, napped and ate out with his wife. Lovejoy later found the dog dead in the car.

So the cop was "booked" for killing his dog by leaving it in a car in the hot sun, but Brenda Slaby walks away for doing the same thing to her kid? Something is wrong here.

Brenda Slaby is public employee charged with looking after YOUR children but kills her own child because she, "...stopped for donuts and forgot her daughter was in the back seat."

The cop was arrested and charged with a misdomenor for doing the same thing to his dog. My tongue-in-cheek nature would ask, "Does this mean dogs are worth more than children?f" I don't think that is the real problem.

In the past few years 340 children have died being left in cars in the hot sun. Some of those parents have been charged and inprisoned, others not. The Slaby case isn't any different with one exception - Slaby is a child professional who is charged with the welfare of your children.

Shouldn't she be held to a higher standard?

As far as the dog goes, there are a number of things I could say about that, but I leave it here only as a comparison.

Well?

 

[MagicaPractica]

I really have trouble with the whole move towards letting people off because they didn't intend the consequences of their actions. If it was at all possible to forsee the consequences of your actions, you are responsible. I'm sorry for her too.

 

[3113]

It's not about letting the person off, it's about letting the person punish themselves for whatever this terrible error was. If the person had no conscience, that'd be one thing. But if they have a conscience, then you can't do worse to them than they're doing to themselves. Their life is shattered, over, destroyed.

What, after all, is punishment, of any kind, suppose to do? Avenge the victim? The victim is avenged; that child will be haunting her mother forever; every day, with an extra flogging on birthdays, at times when mom wakes and thinks of what she might be doing with her daughter now. If the woman is married, that marriage is destroyed. It's unlikely she'll ever have another child, and her realtionship with other people, her relatives and friends is ruined as well. This is what she'll be known for, this mistake. Forever.

So, what else might sending her to jail do? Punish the criminal? They're punishing themselves, all day every day, and the condemnation of the world, of their friends and neighbors punishes them as well...put them in jail and you still won't punish them for as long as they and the world will punish them. Teach the criminal a lesson? They've learned it the hard way and jail isn't going to teach them anything they don't already know.

No one is being "let off" here from the consequences of their actions. In fact, isn't this *exactly* the way it should be in the best of all possible worlds: their actions give them the EXACT consequences we would want. Society doesn't need to avenge, punish or teach; the person does all that for society. We only need to avenge, punish or teach when people have no remorse, no conscience, no guilt, no realization that they did something horrible. When they try to escape the consequences, rather than inflict the consequences on themselves.

Which means all you're saying when you want this woman to be punished for her crime is that YOU, as a member of outraged society, want public revenge on her. You want an outlet for your outrage and anger over this stupidity. I understand this, but one hopes that lynchings would be a thing of the past. So I can't condemn the judgement, nor feel that the mother has been "let off" from anything.

 

[ghost_girl]

It is a sad story. Both of them.

recently, here in SC, a woman who had to work, to take care of her kids, left them in her car and they both died. I have 2 kids. I can not IMAGINE forgetting my kids and remembering the donuts. She makes me ill. I saw her on Today. She seemed more concerned with herself than with her dead child.

I agree, there should be a standard, they should all get jail. all of them.

remember the fucking donuts, forget the kid? nah, 15 years for negligent homicide sounds about right to me.

how can you forget your kid? I just cannot comprehend. I don't want to comprehend. and there is really no way to know just how much, if any, remorse she feels at all...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

3, my point here is why are some punished in court and some not?

In the past 10 years, there have been about 340 heat-related deaths of children trapped in cars. Charges were filed in about half of those deaths. Of the cases that have gone to trial, 81 percent resulted in convictions or guilty pleas, half of which brought jail sentences

Why were 160 parents prosecuted and 160 let off. Shouldn't it be one way or the other? I can feel sad for the parents, but the law is supposed to be blind. Here and Ohil you get a $500 fine for not having your kid securely locked in a child car seat. But kill the kid and get off? The law is supposed to be blind to personal feelings. Suppose it is the neighbor's kid and not yours. Should the parent still have get off? Is one child more important in the eyes of the law than another?

In the Slaby case, this woman is a child professional and, out of total stupidity, kills her daughter. Shouldn't she be held to a higher standard since she is charged with the care and protection of the children of others?

That is certainly the legal thinking in cases where municipalities, judges, police and politicians are involved.

 

[jomar]

This relates to the "accident, not my fault" thread. These things are taken on a case by case basis with local laws, sympathies, etc coming into play as they can. The outcome will be different for the woman racing the train to cross the track and who got two of her children killed - I bet she will be charged.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JENNY JACKSON

There is no justice within the justice system. I speak from many years of experience with cases like the one you cite.

I was a state detective.

Criminal and civil action begins with the detective. Then your supervisor gets a whack at the case. If your supervisor agrees with you the case goes to the state attorney or assistant attorney general for review. The lawyers examine the evidence and factor in the court's bias.

That is, if momma & daddy work at QUICKIE MART the case will likely go to court. Because small-fry are easy. If momma & daddy are doctors it wont. MDs can afford expensive legal help. And even if you can convince the attorney to file, the court will likely submit the case for mediation rather than trial. Judges do not like to fuck with professionals and other influential citizens. It hurts their careers and social standing.

Leaving your kid in the car is Culpable Negligence. That is, you put the kid in the car and you knew what was likely to happen if the child stayed in the car in the heat. Forgetting makes it Culpable Negligence rather than Manslaughter. But she was clearly negligent because the kid died. And the logical links are incontestable.

But the judge is thinking...well, she lost her child and that is punishment enough. The lawyers know what the judge is thinking. Let it go and fight another day.

 

[Stella_Omega]

$500 fines for the babyseat, booking a man for killing a dog-- these are meant to be deterrents. "Your kid could have died! and; "That dog could have been a kid!"

There can be no deterrent stronger than knowing that a child really has died. I'm sure that mother would gladly go to prison for ten years, if it could bring back her daughter to her.

Justice is tempered with mercy, or are we forgetting that?

As for why half of them were charged and convicted of something-- each case is considered individually. That's part of justice as well. Not every state has the same laws, not every judge has the same mixture of sternness and kindness, and-- I'll bet you-- more than one parent has asked for punishment.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There are two lines in these stories that caught my attention:

The mother, Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby, had changed her daily routine that morning before going to work as an assistant principal at a middle school in Ohio. Instead of dropping off her daughter with the babysitter, she went to buy donuts for her fellow teachers, then went to work -- forgetting that her daughter was still asleep in the back seat.

The sheriff’s investigation showed Bandit was in Lovejoy’s patrol car from about 9 a.m. to shortly after 10 p.m. Aug. 11. During that time, the investigation found, the officer ran errands, napped and ate out with his wife. Lovejoy later found the dog dead in the car.

I haven't seen anything more on either case than is on this thread, so I daresay that there is much that I don't know. However, what I can see seems to suggest that in the child's case, the occupant of the car was asleep and silent, and that the mother in fact forgot that she hadn't dropped her off at the babysitter's home. The consequences of this were terrible, but the action itself - forgetting that one had not already performed an errand that one performed every morning, in the absence of a visual or auditory reminder that it had not been performed - does not strike me as impossible or as the act of a callously disinterested person. It sounds to me like the sort of thing that busy people do every day; there's just usually not a child's life riding on it.

In the officer's case, it's harder to see how he could have missed the fact that the dog was in the car. It's not clear how he ran his errands, but even if he didn't use the car, one would assume that he had to walk past it or see it. K-9 officers typically live with their handlers, and it's hard to see how he could have gone for such a long period of time without realizing that a dog of that size was missing from the house. If he intended to leave the dog in the car for that period of time, then he does deserve to be prosecuted, as his actions were intentional.

The question of consequences also comes into play when weighing punishments. Some people might hesitate to charge the mother, not in spite of the fact that she killed a child and not a dog, but because of it, given that it was her own child. Her actions had much heavier consequences to everyone involved. The officer lost his dog; she lost her child. If her actions were wholly unintentional and she has any sense of conscience, she's going to suffer for the rest of her life for a moment's lapse of concentration. Some might think that a cruel enough fate already.

 

[b-slave]

I'm about to KO a nigga.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

As for why half of them were charged and convicted of something-- each case is considered individually. That's part of justice as well. Not every state has the same laws, not every judge has the same mixture of sternness and kindness, and-- I'll bet you-- more than one parent has asked for punishment.

I'm sure that's true, Stella. More than anything else, I think I'm venting frustration based on the inequities under the law than anything else.

I believe in the law. I believe it should be universal and applied equally to everyone. This doesn't seem to be the case here. If the loss of a child through unintentional neglegence is punishment enough, then why are 160 in prison? If a crime was comitted, then why are 160 punished with inprisoment and not 340?

 

[BlackShanglan]

As for why half of them were charged and convicted of something-- each case is considered individually. That's part of justice as well. Not every state has the same laws, not every judge has the same mixture of sternness and kindness, and-- I'll bet you-- more than one parent has asked for punishment.

What the dashing pirate said. There's a great deal of difference between one God-awful lapse of memory or concentration that led to catastrophic results and a deliberate decision to, say, strap one's toddlers into their car seats and leave them in a parking lot for hours while one attends a crack party in a motel room. The latter happened in a state I used to live in, and I think was rightfully prosecuted as a deliberate and callous decision to sacrifice the welfare of the children (who died). It was handled very differently to the example in this thread because, so far as I can see from when I know of the cases, it was indeed very different.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm sure that's true, Stella. More than anything else, I think I'm venting frustration based on the inequities under the law than anything else.

I believe in the law. I believe it should be universal and applied equally to everyone. This doesn't seem to be the case here. If the loss of a child through unintentional neglegence is punishment enough, then why are 160 in prison? If a crime was comitted, then why are 160 punished with inprisoment and not 340?

Will your universal law take into account any extenuating circumstances at all? Or will it be a hand chopped off for stealing-- be it the king's crown or a loaf of bread?
Universal law doesn't work, Jenny. Universal anything does not work-- you're dealing with human beings here. We're kind of fuzzy.

 

[b-slave]

Get a rope..

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Oh! My!

Spend some time at court and observe what goes on.

In all the years I worked for the state I lost one trial, and this is a summary of the trial I lost.

The mother was paranoid schizophrenic. Crazy as a shithouse rat. Bizarre most of the time.

I knew the trial was lost when the judge left the bench and gave the woman a hug. But we presented all of our evidence, and the judge dismissed the case. What followed was bizarre.

As soon as the judge dismissed the case she immediately ordered the state to place the child in protective supervision. I looked at my attorney, and both of us looked at the defense attorney. He said, "The state needs to file new charges." The judge said, "But this child cant be with the mother." The defense attorney said, "You dismissed the case, the state needs to file new charges."

So the judge ordered me to send a new file over to the attorney general. And I said "And what do I file? You just threw out the best case we had. We have nothing else, and she has done nothing in the last few minutes to warrant new charges."

 

[b-slave]

John Edwards should be executed.

 

[MarshAlien]

When I was in college (long ago and far away), I recall learning that the purposes of punishment were something like retribution (revenge), restitution (to the victim), rehabilitation (of the offender), removal (of the offender from society, to prevent him or her from doing the act again), and deterrence.

You can make an argument that throwing everyone in jail for the same act will function as deterrence, but I think it's a very crude sort of deterrence, of the same sort as the "zero tolerance" policies and the "three strikes and you're out" laws. And if you are believe, as I do, that a certain amount of proportionality has to be reflected in punishments, I think you can make an argument in this case that punishing the woman will not really meet any of these goals, except satisfying society's "need" to see someone jailed for the consequences. I don't know all of the facts, and haven't seen the tape, so I don't know if it's the right answer or not here. But neither am I willing to say that it's not, and that the result is an outrage against humanity.

 

[S-Des]

I'm a really forgetful person and have 7 years of nightmares about this exact thing (literally . . . it's the nightmare I have most often). I have sympathy for her, but she should have been charged (that doesn't mean she has to go to jail). She has another child . . . if she is acused of negligence in the future, there should be a legal trail to help determine her situation. I know people who take callous risks with their children every day, and I'm sure they'd feel bad if something happened to their kids. A sobbing police video shouldn't relieve them from responsibility.

 

[RedHairedandFriendly]

How can one forget their child.... That's a question you can't answer unless you've done it. Fortunately for me I haven't forgotten my kids, but my mother has.

At the time, my mom had two daughters, my oldest sister and my second oldest. Mom was in a hurry, the second daughter at the time was a baby. Mom got everything together, and was running late from her usual routine. (That's the thing here... usual routine). She got into the car, and took off... later my oldest sister says "Mom... where's the baby?"

Mom realizes what she's done, turns the car around and speeds home. She'd already been gone a good 45 min. or so. When she got home my sister was still asleep. . .but mom never forgot what she did and she made sure we all knew what she did. I've learned from that mistake of hers.

I am a mom. I fear "forgetting" my kids, because of a routine I get into. Thank god, I haven't done it. I think it is because 1. God won't let me. 2. Mom drilled it into our heads about her experience.

So... my mom's not a bad person because she forgot my sister. My mom's human. She screwed up. She knew it and knows it. Thankfully there were no horrible things that occurred during that time.

I am sorry this happened to this mom; I'm sorry it happens to any mom, dad, grandparent... but if they know it was a mistake and not intentional, then living with that pain for the rest of their lives is their punishment. We are all human. We all make mistakes and sadly we get into a routine and we loose focus when something breaks that routine, yes... even if it involves our children.

 

[R. Richard]

If an adult is not held responsible for his/her actions, then please tell me": "What is an adult?"

 

[3113]

However, what I can see seems to suggest that in the child's case, the occupant of the car was asleep and silent, and that the mother in fact forgot that she hadn't dropped her off at the babysitter's home. The consequences of this were terrible, but the action itself - forgetting that one had not already performed an errand that one performed every morning, in the absence of a visual or auditory reminder that it had not been performed - does not strike me as impossible or as the act of a callously disinterested person. It sounds to me like the sort of thing that busy people do every day; there's just usually not a child's life riding on it.

Exactly what I was thinking.

The question of consequences also comes into play when weighing punishments. Some people might hesitate to charge the mother, not in spite of the fact that she killed a child and not a dog, but because of it, given that it was her own child. Her actions had much heavier consequences to everyone involved.

Exactly. Nicely put. This is why, as Stella points out, you can't have a "universal" law. Our actions aren't like groceries in a supermarket, each with a fixed price: this much punishment for killing a dog, that much for killing a child. There's a whole person involved, their intent, past actions, and why what happened happened. All of these matter when it comes to deciding the price they should pay for their actions. (Not to mention, one crime happened in Ohio, the other in Phoenix. If both had happened in one of those states, and were judged by the same judge, then you might be right in comparing them. As it is, it's apples and oranges).

If this woman with the child was continuously dashing out of the car to run errands, leaving the child behind, if this was just one of many times she'd done this, blithely believing that there was no harm, then that would be another story. But as Shang pointed out, this wasn't the case.

Look. Shit happens. Sometimes really, really terrible shit. And sometimes, that really, really terrible shit is just that. Terrible shit. It's not an action that requires divine wrath and a stint in hell. We may be frustrated that it happened, angry, woeful, horrified...but we can't give into that mob mentality that demands someone pay for it and pay for it and pay for it. That's NOT justice, that's vindictiveness.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If an adult is not held responsible for his/her actions, then please tell me": "What is an adult?"

A creature capable of independent thought and reasoning, yet whose every action will not necessarily spring from them. People do silly things without thinking about it, either out of habit or out of confusion or out of carelessness.

I think that the real question is, "what does holding someone responsible for his or her actions mean?" I have difficulty with defining it to mean "considering only the physical consequences of the person's actions, regardless of intent, difficulty of actions, or foreseeability of consequences." If we go with that definition, a doctor attempting a risky procedure to prolong a patient's life is a murderer if he fails and the patient dies on the table.

 

[3113]

If an adult is not held responsible for his/her actions, then please tell me": "What is an adult?"

But that's the point. She IS being held responsible. No one is saying, "She's not responsible" just that she doesn't deserve to go to jail for it. There's a difference.

I don't know all the facts and I haven't heard this woman talking about what she did--so I don't know if *SHE* herself holds herself responsible. All I know is that the judge holds her responsible, but not deserving of any MORE punishment than that brought about by her own actions.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If an adult is not held responsible for his/her actions, then please tell me": "What is an adult?"

I'm afraid you want adults to be omnipotent, godlike beings. They aren't.

And besides, that is not the question. this woman holds herself responsible for her actions, and she will do so for the rest of her life. What you are really asking here is; "If we can't punish her, how can we know that justice has been done?"

Perhaps it isn't your brand of justice-- but it has been done.

 

[S-Des]

But that's the point. She IS being held responsible. No one is saying, "She's not responsible" just that she doesn't deserve to go to jail for it. There's a difference.

No, people are saying she shouldn't even be charged with a crime. You can be charged, convicted, and still serve no time. But if she is accused of being irresponsible with her other child in the future, it gives the authorities the ability to bring up this incident. If she isn't even charged with anything, then it's as if this never even happened. It's not always about vengeance, sometimes it's about hedging your bets for the future to protect another child.