Maybe we need a standard

[jomar]

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?


Well?

In my first post I said that these things are taken on a case by case basis with local laws, sympathies, etc coming into play as they can, and others seem to agree.

However, as to the higher standard, no. I don't think she should be held to any higher standard under law. The law is what it is for all. to hold her to a higher standard legally would be what? Bump it up one or two tougher counts or offenses? We would also have to do the same for each guild. Attorneys breaking the law, accountants cheating on their taxes, etc.

I think that a person should be held accountable under applicable law. Then their professional licensing board or employer or whatever can look at the case and determine if their behavior, convicted or not, is unethical and unacceptable given the professional codes the person operates under. The board or employer will then decided if the person is to be sanctioned, suspended, revoked or dismembered (relatively speaking).

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

In my first post I said that these things are taken on a case by case basis with local laws, sympathies, etc coming into play as they can, and others seem to agree.

However, as to the higher standard, no. I don't think she should be held to any higher standard under law. The law is what it is for all. to hold her to a higher standard legally would be what? Bump it up one or two tougher counts or offenses? We would also have to do the same for each guild. Attorneys breaking the law, accountants cheating on their taxes, etc.

I think that a person should be held accountable under applicable law. Then their professional licensing board or employer or whatever can look at the case and determine if their behavior, convicted or not, is unethical and unacceptable given the professional codes the person operates under. The board or employer will then decided if the person is to be sanctioned, suspended, revoked or dismembered (relatively speaking).

To be held to a high standard wouldn't change the law, Jomar. It would change both the decision to prosicute or not and the penalty.

If you are a policeman and hold up a 711 store you would, under the current standards, already be held to a higher standard. There would be less chance of a plea deal and the punishment would be maximum. Why? Because this cop is supposed to be a deterant to crime, not a criminal.

My point is, if this woman was so stupidly thoughtless with her own child, what about those others under her charge?

 

[b-slave]

Hey John Edwards, go sue all the doctors so when your fat wife gets sick, nobody will touch her.

 

[cloudy]

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.

Yes. Thank you.

 

[cloudy]

It's not always about vengeance, sometimes it's about hedging your bets for the future to protect another child.

You can't convict someone simply because they *might* do something similar in the future. That makes no sense.

 

[Stella_Omega]

She's an assistant principal. She assists a senior administrator in administrative duties. She never, ever, drives her "other charges" anywhere. My thought is, after being so stupidly careless with her own child, she'll be obsessively careful with avery other child she's ever around-- to the point of stifling them.

I wonder if she will be able to stay in that job at all, after this, seeing the faces of gorwing children and knowing that hers won't be among them.

Really, Jenny, I think you are wallowing in self-righteous bloodlust. You want us to levy the harshest possible judgement on this woman, without much knowledge of the circumstances. You'd like to see Old testament wrath poured on her head, it seems. You want to override the prosecutor's decision. Don't you trust him? Do you know more than he does?

And again, you are conflating the premeditated with the accidental-- comparing her to a cop that robs a store.

let's look at it another way-- if a cop accidentally left his or her child in the car, he or she would not be charged with a more heinous version of the same offence. Even though the cop is also supposed to protect.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Hey John Edwards, go sue all the doctors so when your fat wife gets sick, nobody will touch her.

Does anyone else feel a universla Iggy coming on?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

She's an assistant principal. She assists a senior administrator in administrative duties. She never, ever, drives her "other charges" anywhere.

I wonder if she will be able to stay in that job at all, after this, seeing the faces of gorwing children and knowing that hers won't be among them.

Really, Jenny, I think you are wallowing in self-righteous bloodlust. You want us to levy the harshest possible judgement on this woman, without much knowledge of the circumstances. You'd like to see Old testament wrath poured on her head, it seems. You want to override the prosecutor's decision. Don't you trust him? Do you know more than he does?

And again, you are conflating the premeditated with the accidental-- comparing her to a cop that robs a store.

let's look at it another way-- if a cop accidentally left his or her child in the car, he or she would not be charged with a more heinous version of the same offence. Even though the cop is also supposed to protect.

I see the point, Stella, and understand the difference between accidental and intentional. I'm still bothered by the idea that some are prosecuted and others not.

By the way, she is back at her job as of yesterday.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I see the point, Stella, and understand the difference between accidental and intentional. I'm still bothered by the idea that some are prosecuted and others not.

By the way, she is back at her job as of yesterday.

Well, that's the way justice works in a country like this one. If you wanted to say that she got off light because she was white, or something-- that would be a different issue wouldn't it.

Only time will tell if she'll be able to stay at that job.

 

[b-slave]

Does anyone else feel a universla Iggy coming on?

And what's up with his haircut??? $400 to look like a faggot? What's the deal with that?

 

[3113]

By the way, she is back at her job as of yesterday.

Indeed. She has to feed, house, clothe and pay for that other kid, doesn't she? She's going to be damned by you if she works--and damned if she doesn't and ends up not being able to care for her other kid.

 

[jomar]

To be held to a high standard wouldn't change the law, Jomar. It would change both the decision to prosicute or not and the penalty.

If you are a policeman and hold up a 711 store you would, under the current standards, already be held to a higher standard. There would be less chance of a plea deal and the punishment would be maximum. Why? Because this cop is supposed to be a deterant to crime, not a criminal.

My point is, if this woman was so stupidly thoughtless with her own child, what about those others under her charge?

If you hold them to a higher standard and it's a harsher penalty, what would be the standard, Jenny? Would it be standardized or would it be fluid and informal? In your example, I suspect the higher standard is still largely due to the police guild enforcing conduct issues under the operating code. Would an accountant cheating on his taxes get the same higher standard? Though as a practical matter, I'm sure that knowing it's a banker embezzling funds taints prosecuting attorneys minds in a way different than if it was the poor secretary with five children and a good for nothing husband. At any rate, I suspect any higher standard is more of an emotional reaction at present.

As for the woman being thoughtless with her own, it's clearly horrific. We can all imagine how her mind started on her work day after picking up the donuts and she got distracted, though how she did not notice her child in the backseat in this day and age of panoramic mirrors and baby-cams, it's hard to believe.

But her employer, the school district, will look at the incident, her performance record, interview colleagues, etc and decide what will happen to her professionally. I wouldn't be surprised if she resigned.

So unless otherwise persuaded, I think people should be held accountable under applicable law and the guild/employer also weigh in as appropriate.

 

[rgraham666]

And what's up with his haircut??? $400 to look like a faggot? What's the deal with that?

Damn, you're a sick little fuck.

Another person goes on my ignore list.

 

[McKenna]

Involuntary manslaughter/dogslaughter.

 

[BlackShanglan]

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.

Now this, I agree, is a good point. My only hesitation would be over the question of what latitude the judge would have in sentencing. Minimum sentences are often a very good idea, but every once in a while there's a crime that is far enough skewed in motive and consequences to make them a problem.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I see the point, Stella, and understand the difference between accidental and intentional. I'm still bothered by the idea that some are prosecuted and others not.

Well, possibly that's an artifact of how the statistics have been presented to us. Consider the quote:

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.

"Child trapped in a hot car" is not a description of a crime. It's a description of a means of death. We know what killed the child - the heat in the car and the child's inability to escape it - but we don't know anything else about the circumstances of each case. With that amount of information, we don't even know if a crime was committed. The details of how the child came to be in the car, whose care the child was in at the time, why the child wasn't able to leave the car, and what the intention of the carer at the time was are all missing here, and are all likely to be different. In one case we might have the mother who deliberately leaves the kids in the car to go smoke crack; in another we might have the woman who honestly misses the "drop off at the babysitter" step and goes into work with no idea of what she's just done; in another we might have a couple of kids playing in a junk yard who lock themselves in.

I think that there is less unfairness here than we might at first think. The fact that only some of the cases have been prosecuted may well indicate that only some of the cases actually involved crimes.

 

[S-Des]

Now this, I agree, is a good point. My only hesitation would be over the question of what latitude the judge would have in sentencing. Minimum sentences are often a very good idea, but every once in a while there's a crime that is far enough skewed in motive and consequences to make them a problem.

There are no perfect answers (and trust me, I'm not claiming mine are even close). Anything that's offered will be subject to abuse. Recently, a judge let a man off with no jail time on several counts of child molesting because he was, "Too short" . . . evidently feeling that the man had a hard life and jail would be too tough for someone like him. It's an extreme example, but a real one, unfortunately.

As for the claims about lynch mobs, Old Testament wrath, etc... come on folks. If you kill your child through negligence, you should face some minimal level of interaction with the judicial system. None of us here knows if she's done similar things dozens of times and if the other child might be in danger. Kiten has made note of small infractions and contacted the police and DCFS several times over the way her ex treats the kids (never physically abusive, but utterly negligent). Yes, there may never be a problem, but if there is, she'll immediately be able to point to the complaints and show a pattern so she can get her kids to safety as fast as possible. No one I've seen is encouraging the law to "Levy the harshest possible judgement" on her, we're just looking for involvement from the legal system to protect the remaining child. This case appears to be a complete accident, so I'd be all for the authorities making it disappear quickly with a minimum of involvement of the judicial system. However, if she pops up on the news in a year or two and the other one died in some accident when she wasn't paying attention, it'll be too late to say, "Why didn't someone know . . . "

 

[Stella_Omega]

Mckenna has it right-- Involuntary manslaughter.

 

[BlackShanglan]

*nods* With you, S-Des - and good point on domestic violence. That's one of those things that people so often put up with silently until they're ready to snap and just can't take another second - but then to the police, it's the first call. Establishing a record of complaints is a vital part of dealing with any ongoing offense. Too, as you observe, things that can look like an accident when they happen once look very different when they happen repeatedly. I think you've got a good point on using a trial to at least establish publically what happened so that it's on record.

 

[Frank Noir]

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.

Bingo! Well put.

 

[Emperor_Nero]

Reading through all of this, I'm still not sure exactly where I stand ... I can see the point about convicting her for the paper trail, but I can also see the point of her already being punished enough by having to live with the consequences of her actions.

But, as has been brought up in other posts, she still has another child to care for and perhaps the judge realized that a felony conviction, which involuntary manslaughter is (not sure about Ohio law and Culpable Negligence) would pretty much negate her teaching credentials -- putting her definitely out of work and putting her other child in a tenuous position.

Maybe, in the judges mind, punishing her any more (by making a conviction) would end up punishing the other innocent child as much, if not more, than the mother herself.