Children dying in hot cars - mistake or crime?

[hisdiamondgirl]

Date: 3/11/2009 3:04:54 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Tgal - I understand the blanking part. I look at autopilot or auto drive in this case as following a routine route as was given as an example. Blanking out is totally different. I blank out a lot while I''m painting, and yes have done so while I was driving (remember, red light? no particular thoughts going on there). But that person still is allowing their brain to override the current here and now of what they are supposed to be doing.

But I think the point is that there is no difference. I don''t think people allow themselves to go into autopilot, it just happens, and the key to preventing these tragedies is to realize exactly that. Scientifically, according to the article, our brains just do this, we do not choose to do it, or allow our brains to do it, it just happens.

 

[dragonfly411]

hs - I have to disagree here. You can keep yourself from going into autopilot. Think about the flowers you''re passing, notice things around you. auto has to be something you allow yourself to go into, you don''t just magically slip into a state of blankness and again, I can go in auto drive if my coffee spills but I''m still thinking. The blankness and the auto are not one and the same.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/11/2009 2:31:09 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 3/11/2009 1:43:26 PM
Author: vespergirl
So if we''re all on the same page that ''lizard brain'' memory flaws can make people forget things that they would not normally forget if they are outside of the person''s regular daily routine. Some people feel that we should not be criminally liable for honestly forgetting things under such circumstances.

Say, then, that we apply this logic to a less dire situation. Tax day only comes around once a year - one could say, then, that filing your taxes is not part of one''s daily routine. If you honestly forget to file your taxes on April 15 because you were preoccupied with other things, the IRS still nails you with a penalty, since you were still legally responsible to file taxes by that date. Whether you intentionally ignored the dealine or honestly forgot is immaterial - we know that''s the day that taxes have to be filed, and if they are not filed on that day, for whatever reason, we have to pay the consequences. Obviously in the tax situation it''s only a monetary penalty, but it still needs to be paid - the IRS can''t excuse the cases where it was an innocent mistake, or people everywhere could be claiming innocent mistakes.

When you approach it as a logic argument, as applied to our legal system, ''I forgot'' is simply not an excuse, even if it''s the truth. The same laws need to apply to everyone when the law is broken.

I do truly believe that those parents did not intend to leave their children in the cars, or for their children to be harmed. I even do honestly believe that they truly forgot. It still does not change the fact that they broke the law and killed someone. I don''t think that they belong in jail, and I think that some parents were acquited. I still think that they all need to be prosecuted, and let the judge decide.

It seems you are suggesting that the law is an automatic machine that has no choice on how to APPLY the law. That''s simply not true.

The law says what constitutes an infraction and what doesn''t. It''s up to PEOPLE with sound judgment to consider if the INTENT of the law is served by bringing charges. That is up to the prosecutor''s office, and it is their job to apply human judgment and decide which cases should be prosecuted and which shouldn''t.

Don''t kid yourself into thinking that every illegal act is prosecuted - they aren''t. Prosecutors make decisions every day about which cases to pursue and which NOT to pursue, and they do so by applying (hopefully) sound human (and merciful) judgment. Will it serve the interests of the state/people to prosecute this case? Is prosecution necessary to mete out justice, or is there another way? In acts that require intent, is there enough evidence to prove intent?

Your analogy of the IRS falls short for a few reasons. The IRS often recommends AGAINST prosecuting for non-filing! ''A long-standing practice of the IRS has been not to recommend criminal prosecution of individuals for failure to file tax returns, provided they voluntarily file, or make arrangements to file, before being notified they are under criminal investigation.'' (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=122721,00.html)

How many articles have you read about homeless people who didn''t file being prosecuted? Yep, me neither....we don''t hear about them because they typically don''t happen. Did those who failed to file fail on their obligation to file? Of course they did. Is it in the interest of the state or country to prosecute them? Most likely not - you can''t get blood from a stone, and prosecuting would be an enormous waste of time and resources and wouldn''t serve society''s interest.

The law is intended to help apply agreed-upon remedies to behavior that falls beyond that which we want. It''s not intended to be an absolute tenet applied without individual consideration for the circumstances.

I didn''t say that they should be prosecuted for not filing, but that they would incur a monetary penalty that they had to pay.

 

[basil]

Date: 3/11/2009 3:02:27 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Lucy - I do understand autopilot, but normally the autopilot mode is in response to our brain activity focusing elsewhere. For instance, we go into autodrive, relying on our memory of a route, if for instance, we have to grab our coffee which has just spilled into our lap and is burning our skin.

Where are you getting the priority vs. memory? In my forgetting quotes? Let''s say you have three main priorities for a day. work, your child, and washing your car. You''re driving to work, you know those three priorities, and you begin to think of your work schedule, and what you need to get done to make sure that is taken care of. As you bring that priority to the forefront, you forget about the other things, because your brain is working to think of the things that you have to do for work... that''s what I was saying. I almost wonder if it can be looked at as two separate functions, remembering something you have to do right now, vs. past MEMORIES, because when you think about it, tasks, current things to do, and remembering to do them, are different from say '' I remember my grandmother''s scent''.

Tgal - I definitely understand where you are coming from with the Oh Joy I''m in the car part (kind of comical lol). I do understand that parents have a lot to think about, but what I''m saying is that a parent should not allow their minds to wander SO FAR off track that they completely auto drive and forget what they are doing, or whether their child is even there. You can think about things without allowing your mind to wander that far, and yes, it is something you either allow or not allow, whether you consciously think to yourself ''I''m going to allow myself to think only of this'' or not. I guess maybe like mental training?

For instance, a student trains their mind to be able to focus on many tasks for their classes. Or here is a good one.. a horseback rider, when in a class, must think of their hand position, body position, the horse''s position, their heels being down, etc, all the while being mindful of their track in the show (think of a jumping course here, they have to know the pattern of the course and not miss it).

So when you were singing in the car or thinking about the smoke, you had decided to not remember your grandmother''s check? What if you had decided to allow yourself to only think about one thing on your way to work, would you have not noted the smoke or the potholes?

Yes, remembering to do something is totally different than remembering something that happened, remembering a feeling/sight/scent/etc. Different areas of the brain.

As far as the horseback rider analogy, it doesn''t work. Horseback riders practice so that they do not have to think about their hand position, their muscle memory will do it automatically. They practice the course so they don''t have to always be thinking "Ok, the water jump comes after the triple jump, turn right here". Otherwise, sports and playing musical instruments and surgery would be really easy. You could just tell someone "okay, just remember to monitor your hand position, the tightness of your abs, the position of your left foot in relation to your right and in relation to the boundaries of the court, the position of your opponents, and then remember to extend your arm fully as you shoot." You can only think of one of those things at a time. Sure you can think about your hand position then adjust your heels while you autopilot around the course. But if you could really think through all those things, no one would need practice.

Obviously, drivers aren''t thinking about their foot position, whether the brake is on the right or the left, whether their hand is on the steering wheel, etc. as they drive to work. And if they were, they wouldn''t be able to think about their work or their kid. When you were learning to drive, you probably weren''t singing.

If you could really concentrate on more than one thing at once you''d have no need for autopilot. And you wouldn''t have forgotten your grandmother''s check, because you''d have been thinking about it while you were noticing potholes and trucks on the road and singing.

 

[dragonfly411]

Basil
The check was forgotten before I''d even left the house, I can''t write a check whilst driving. The point was to illustrate that I didn''t just go into auto mode and I wasn''t thinking about all the things I have to do today like paint, read, work out, make sure the horses get fed, make sure the stalls are clean, make sure dinner is ready, get all of my work tasks done.

And horse back riders are not able to practice the courses at a show before hand. They are given 15-20 minutes to walk it on foot ONCE and then are unable to see the course again until they ride it, so no they don''t get that practice in for that. Again, the point was that the brain can be taught to multitask without zoning out or forgetting important things.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 3/11/2009 3:44:57 PM
Author: dragonfly411
hs - I have to disagree here. You can keep yourself from going into autopilot. Think about the flowers you''re passing, notice things around you. auto has to be something you allow yourself to go into, you don''t just magically slip into a state of blankness and again, I can go in auto drive if my coffee spills but I''m still thinking. The blankness and the auto are not one and the same.

When you''re thinking about the flowers you''re passing, you ARE on autopilot. If you weren''t on autopilot, you''d be thinking: press foot down on gas petal, turn steering wheel slightly to the right, switch foot to break petal, etc.

Autopilot is something your brain does naturally because we HAVE to. If you couldn''t drive on autopilot, then if a child ran in front of your car, you wouldn''t be able to swerve out of the way in time. You''d be too busy thinking about applying the break and turning your steering wheel.

Autopilot is not the enemy. I am serioulsy confused as to what your issue is here.

 

[basil]

Date: 3/11/2009 3:44:57 PM
Author: dragonfly411
hs - I have to disagree here. You can keep yourself from going into autopilot. Think about the flowers you''re passing, notice things around you. auto has to be something you allow yourself to go into, you don''t just magically slip into a state of blankness and again, I can go in auto drive if my coffee spills but I''m still thinking. The blankness and the auto are not one and the same.

Yes, they are different. It''s a ton harder to keep yourself from "blanking" when you''re sleep deprived, and almost impossible when you''re really really sleep deprived. That''s why driving when you''re sleep deprived is like driving drunk. That''s why people run redlights (yes, I''ve done this too).

Autopilot is when you give over your conscious brain to some other problem while you do some routine and practiced task without thinking of it. So your conscious brain is thinking about flowers or toys, and you drive by your child''s daycare because you did not think "I need to turn here" and take your arms/legs/eyes/head off autopilot to turn the car. That''s why people arrive at work without dropping their kid off at daycare. That''s why you forgot your grandmother''s check.

It''s nearly impossible and pretty boring to be thinking about your kid every second while you are in the car with them. And it means that you can''t think about the flowers or the potholes or the other drivers being pissed.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 3/11/2009 3:57:54 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/11/2009 2:31:09 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 3/11/2009 1:43:26 PM
Author: vespergirl
So if we''re all on the same page that ''lizard brain'' memory flaws can make people forget things that they would not normally forget if they are outside of the person''s regular daily routine. Some people feel that we should not be criminally liable for honestly forgetting things under such circumstances.

Say, then, that we apply this logic to a less dire situation. Tax day only comes around once a year - one could say, then, that filing your taxes is not part of one''s daily routine. If you honestly forget to file your taxes on April 15 because you were preoccupied with other things, the IRS still nails you with a penalty, since you were still legally responsible to file taxes by that date. Whether you intentionally ignored the dealine or honestly forgot is immaterial - we know that''s the day that taxes have to be filed, and if they are not filed on that day, for whatever reason, we have to pay the consequences. Obviously in the tax situation it''s only a monetary penalty, but it still needs to be paid - the IRS can''t excuse the cases where it was an innocent mistake, or people everywhere could be claiming innocent mistakes.

When you approach it as a logic argument, as applied to our legal system, ''I forgot'' is simply not an excuse, even if it''s the truth. The same laws need to apply to everyone when the law is broken.

I do truly believe that those parents did not intend to leave their children in the cars, or for their children to be harmed. I even do honestly believe that they truly forgot. It still does not change the fact that they broke the law and killed someone. I don''t think that they belong in jail, and I think that some parents were acquited. I still think that they all need to be prosecuted, and let the judge decide.

It seems you are suggesting that the law is an automatic machine that has no choice on how to APPLY the law. That''s simply not true.

The law says what constitutes an infraction and what doesn''t. It''s up to PEOPLE with sound judgment to consider if the INTENT of the law is served by bringing charges. That is up to the prosecutor''s office, and it is their job to apply human judgment and decide which cases should be prosecuted and which shouldn''t.

Don''t kid yourself into thinking that every illegal act is prosecuted - they aren''t. Prosecutors make decisions every day about which cases to pursue and which NOT to pursue, and they do so by applying (hopefully) sound human (and merciful) judgment. Will it serve the interests of the state/people to prosecute this case? Is prosecution necessary to mete out justice, or is there another way? In acts that require intent, is there enough evidence to prove intent?

Your analogy of the IRS falls short for a few reasons. The IRS often recommends AGAINST prosecuting for non-filing! ''A long-standing practice of the IRS has been not to recommend criminal prosecution of individuals for failure to file tax returns, provided they voluntarily file, or make arrangements to file, before being notified they are under criminal investigation.'' (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=122721,00.html)

How many articles have you read about homeless people who didn''t file being prosecuted? Yep, me neither....we don''t hear about them because they typically don''t happen. Did those who failed to file fail on their obligation to file? Of course they did. Is it in the interest of the state or country to prosecute them? Most likely not - you can''t get blood from a stone, and prosecuting would be an enormous waste of time and resources and wouldn''t serve society''s interest.

The law is intended to help apply agreed-upon remedies to behavior that falls beyond that which we want. It''s not intended to be an absolute tenet applied without individual consideration for the circumstances.

I didn''t say that they should be prosecuted for not filing, but that they would incur a monetary penalty that they had to pay.

And the monetary penalty is because they had months to file their taxes and didn''t. Not because they forgot to stop at the mailbox on their way to work one day. Completely different.

 

[dragonfly411]

Lucy - I don''t have an issue. It was implied that autodrive/auto pilot is a blank state of mind by some, by others as following a routine. Either way, if you keep yourself aware of your surroundings and what you are doing you are less likely to simply fall into a state of not thinking of what you are doing or where you are going. I''m not saying you should follow a step by step process of driving, but I do think in this case the parents should be aware of WHERE They are driving, and WHAT they are trying to accomplish instead of that thought process turning off, resulting in what happened in these cases.

 

[basil]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:02:13 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Basil

The check was forgotten before I''d even left the house, I can''t write a check whilst driving. The point was to illustrate that I didn''t just go into auto mode and I wasn''t thinking about all the things I have to do today like paint, read, work out, make sure the horses get fed, make sure the stalls are clean, make sure dinner is ready, get all of my work tasks done.


And horse back riders are not able to practice the courses at a show before hand. They are given 15-20 minutes to walk it on foot ONCE and then are unable to see the course again until they ride it, so no they don''t get that practice in for that. Again, the point was that the brain can be taught to multitask without zoning out or forgetting important things.

But the check was forgotten because you were thinking of other things this morning, like brushing your teeth or the weather or whatever! And you went through your usual morning routing of showering and eating breakfast and getting dressed or whatever you do, but picking up the check to drop off was not part of your routine. So your autopilot took over and because your conscious brain didn''t alert you because you were thinking "yum, Lucky charms are tasty", you forgot it!

I don''t know a lot about horseback riding, but the point is that you practice riding the horse beforehand so that you don''t have to think "pull on the right rein to make the horse go that way" or "kick it to make it go faster". I dare you to say that you are really consciously thinking of all those things simultaneously while riding. Sure, you take a microsecond breaks from following the course to say "oh yeah, coach told me to hold my hand here" adjust it, but you''re not really thinking of all those things at once.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 3/11/2009 3:57:54 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/11/2009 2:31:09 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 3/11/2009 1:43:26 PM
Author: vespergirl
So if we''re all on the same page that ''lizard brain'' memory flaws can make people forget things that they would not normally forget if they are outside of the person''s regular daily routine. Some people feel that we should not be criminally liable for honestly forgetting things under such circumstances.

Say, then, that we apply this logic to a less dire situation. Tax day only comes around once a year - one could say, then, that filing your taxes is not part of one''s daily routine. If you honestly forget to file your taxes on April 15 because you were preoccupied with other things, the IRS still nails you with a penalty, since you were still legally responsible to file taxes by that date. Whether you intentionally ignored the dealine or honestly forgot is immaterial - we know that''s the day that taxes have to be filed, and if they are not filed on that day, for whatever reason, we have to pay the consequences. Obviously in the tax situation it''s only a monetary penalty, but it still needs to be paid - the IRS can''t excuse the cases where it was an innocent mistake, or people everywhere could be claiming innocent mistakes.

When you approach it as a logic argument, as applied to our legal system, ''I forgot'' is simply not an excuse, even if it''s the truth. The same laws need to apply to everyone when the law is broken.

I do truly believe that those parents did not intend to leave their children in the cars, or for their children to be harmed. I even do honestly believe that they truly forgot. It still does not change the fact that they broke the law and killed someone. I don''t think that they belong in jail, and I think that some parents were acquited. I still think that they all need to be prosecuted, and let the judge decide.

It seems you are suggesting that the law is an automatic machine that has no choice on how to APPLY the law. That''s simply not true.

The law says what constitutes an infraction and what doesn''t. It''s up to PEOPLE with sound judgment to consider if the INTENT of the law is served by bringing charges. That is up to the prosecutor''s office, and it is their job to apply human judgment and decide which cases should be prosecuted and which shouldn''t.

Don''t kid yourself into thinking that every illegal act is prosecuted - they aren''t. Prosecutors make decisions every day about which cases to pursue and which NOT to pursue, and they do so by applying (hopefully) sound human (and merciful) judgment. Will it serve the interests of the state/people to prosecute this case? Is prosecution necessary to mete out justice, or is there another way? In acts that require intent, is there enough evidence to prove intent?

Your analogy of the IRS falls short for a few reasons. The IRS often recommends AGAINST prosecuting for non-filing! ''A long-standing practice of the IRS has been not to recommend criminal prosecution of individuals for failure to file tax returns, provided they voluntarily file, or make arrangements to file, before being notified they are under criminal investigation.'' (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=122721,00.html)

How many articles have you read about homeless people who didn''t file being prosecuted? Yep, me neither....we don''t hear about them because they typically don''t happen. Did those who failed to file fail on their obligation to file? Of course they did. Is it in the interest of the state or country to prosecute them? Most likely not - you can''t get blood from a stone, and prosecuting would be an enormous waste of time and resources and wouldn''t serve society''s interest.

The law is intended to help apply agreed-upon remedies to behavior that falls beyond that which we want. It''s not intended to be an absolute tenet applied without individual consideration for the circumstances.

I didn''t say that they should be prosecuted for not filing, but that they would incur a monetary penalty that they had to pay.

Oh. So then you''re saying it would be ok not to prosecute a mother for leaving her child in the car as long as she was assessed a monetary penalty?

So then it''s not the prosecution that''s important, but the assessment of penalty? Is that it? That''s most assuredly in conflict with what you said earlier. You said "they all need to be prosecuted."

Thing is, this whole analogy totally sidesteps your earlier argument about how the "mother/child super-bond" is so unique and should transcend every other thing. If that''s so, I''d suggest there is clearly there is no other analogy that can adequately capture the severity of this type of situation, so it''s not especially relevant to compare filing one''s taxes to leaving one''s child in the car. To the extent that there is a monetary consequence, I could likely handle being hit with a $1k penaltiy for failing to file my taxes and still sleep soundly at night. I can''t imagine being able to handle knowing I caused the death of my child (no matter how untentionally); that would alter my life for its duration.

I''m not trying to be argumentative, Vesper. I''m trying to say that looking at a tragedy like this and trying to treat it the same as other non-emotional things isn''t really a fair analogy.

It is against the basic instinct of most parents to put their children in harm''s way or even expose them to harm knowingly. To suggest that parents somehow need to be held to a level of infallibility that isn''t possible in a human being seems unrealistic and unmerciful to me. To suggest that there is any penalty the law can impose thta would trump the penalty of having to live with the event is just wildly outlandish to me.

And to suggest that parents who don''t intentionally cause harm should be pilloried for being *human* seems equally unhuman to me. We are supposed to be the evolved species capable of applying sound judgment. We are the ones who should have compassion. Lack of charity and lack of empathy that knowingly cause others distress is perhaps even more egregious to me than the parent who makes the mistake. At least the parent''s act isn''t intentional.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:08:39 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Lucy - I don't have an issue. It was implied that autodrive/auto pilot is a blank state of mind by some, by others as following a routine. Either way, if you keep yourself aware of your surroundings and what you are doing you are less likely to simply fall into a state of not thinking of what you are doing or where you are going. I'm not saying you should follow a step by step process of driving, but I do think in this case the parents should be aware of WHERE They are driving, and WHAT they are trying to accomplish instead of that thought process turning off, resulting in what happened in these cases.

That's why they call it an accident/ mistake, however tragic. You don't think these parents spend everyday thinking about how they wish they had paid more attention to "where they were driving and what they were trying to accomplish." But sometimes you can't control the way your brain functions. So why not just admit that and take precautions. I guess what I'm asking is why you are so invested in the idea that we can control everything our brain does?

 

[dragonfly411]

Basil - in this case I was knocked off routine by having to come to work early (though I wasn''t consciously thinking about work as I drove in, again this was about the actual drive, not before or after) but again the point is that people do have the ability to get tasks done without allowing thoughts of other things, or blankness to override their current priority.

 

[dragonfly411]

Lucy - I don''t think we can control everything our brain does, but I do think that we as humans are completely capable of making sure something that important stays in our mind so that we don''t forget. If we do forget, it is negligence on the part of the parent towards their child.

 

[Allison D.]

I guess what I'm trying to say: there is a difference between the letter of the law (literal) and the spirit of the law (interpretation/intent).

The law exists so we have some basic guidelines dictating behavior. The legal system (prosecutors/judges/juries, etc.) exists so that thinking, rational, compassionate people can evaluate each instance on its merit and determine how/when to apply that law and to what degree to best serve the interests of society.

I support it staying that way. I don't believe seeking the proverbial 'pound of flesh' in punishment is always the right or best solution.

Some people leave their kids in the car on purpose (I'll just be a minute); some don't (I thought I dropped him off already). I'm delighted that the law isn't on 'autopilot' and applied without consideration for the nuances that make these two scenarios vastly different from each other.

 

[lindsaylove]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:18:57 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Lucy - I don't think we can control everything our brain does, but I do think that we as humans are completely capable of making sure something that important stays in our mind so that we don't forget. If we do forget, it is negligence on the part of the parent towards their child.

But you yourself contradicted this theory with your Grandmother's check story! You "as a human being" were "perfectly capable of making sure something important" (your Grandmother's check) "stayed in your mind so that you didn't forget" it, but somehow, you did. Does that mean you were not aware of how important that check was? No.

 

[basil]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:17:42 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Basil - in this case I was knocked off routine by having to come to work early (though I wasn''t consciously thinking about work as I drove in, again this was about the actual drive, not before or after) but again the point is that people do have the ability to get tasks done without allowing thoughts of other things, or blankness to override their current priority.

I don''t understand how thinking about the flowers or the truck are not "other things". I don''t really see that those thoughts are any different than thinking about work, in terms of that you were not focused on what you needed to do - your task - which was deliver the check and get to work.

Maybe you had to go into work early, but I would guess that your morning routine was more or less the same, just earlier than usual. In any case, you were thinking of something else, not "get the check" as you walked out the door. Whether it was "boy those flowers are pretty" or "boy I have a busy schedule at work today", I don''t think it matters.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:18:57 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Lucy - I don''t think we can control everything our brain does, but I do think that we as humans are completely capable of making sure something that important stays in our mind so that we don''t forget. If we do forget, it is negligence on the part of the parent towards their child.

Basil has pretty much said it all, along wth Cara and Tgal and others. So I think I''m done "beating the dead horse" (I hate that expression). No matter how many times we say that they didn''t just "forget" their child, you don''t really seem to get it.

Even having brought up your own experiences of a break in routine throwing you off, you still seem to think you''re infallable. For your sake and your future children''s sake, I hope that''s true. And if not, I hope you learn that in a less fatal way than these parents did. Myself, I''m going to learn the lesson through their mistakes and do my best to take precautions for when my brain doesn''t work quite right. I am human after all...

 

[dragonfly411]

Lucy - seeing flowers and noting them are different than losing yourself in thoughts of " I need to plant my roses, that means I have to get soil etc etc etc".

Orchid - You''re right, and in pointing out the check I pointed out that I am not perfect, we do forget things, but a check is not a child''s life. You. Don''t. Just. Forget. Your. Child.

Lets look at another situation. A parent leaves a gun out, child gets hold of it and dies. In a normal situation this parent is charged with negligence and child endangerment. But let''s say parent says "well it was an honest mistake, I forgot the gun was there, I got distracted and forgot it was out" ..... is this excusable as a mistake and should be allowed to slide? Or is it still negligence?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:37:49 PM
Author: lucyandroger

Date: 3/11/2009 4:18:57 PM

Author: dragonfly411

Lucy - I don''t think we can control everything our brain does, but I do think that we as humans are completely capable of making sure something that important stays in our mind so that we don''t forget. If we do forget, it is negligence on the part of the parent towards their child.

Basil has pretty much said it all, along wth Cara and Tgal and others. So I think I''m done ''beating the dead horse'' (I hate that expression). No matter how many times we say that they didn''t just ''forget'' their child, you don''t really seem to get it.


Even having brought up your own experiences of a break in routine throwing you off, you still seem to think you''re infallable. For your sake and your future children''s sake, I hope that''s true. And if not, I hope you learn that in a less fatal way than these parents did. Myself, I''m going to learn the lesson through their mistakes and do my best to take precautions for when my brain doesn''t work quite right. I am human after all...

Well said.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:17:42 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Basil - in this case I was knocked off routine by having to come to work early (though I wasn''t consciously thinking about work as I drove in, again this was about the actual drive, not before or after) but again the point is that people do have the ability to get tasks done without allowing thoughts of other things, or blankness to override their current priority.

You were knocked off routine and forgot? You mean, kind of like the parents did in the article??

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:37:49 PM
Author: lucyandroger

Date: 3/11/2009 4:18:57 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Lucy - I don''t think we can control everything our brain does, but I do think that we as humans are completely capable of making sure something that important stays in our mind so that we don''t forget. If we do forget, it is negligence on the part of the parent towards their child.

Basil has pretty much said it all, along wth Cara and Tgal and others. So I think I''m done ''beating the dead horse'' (I hate that expression). No matter how many times we say that they didn''t just ''forget'' their child, you don''t really seem to get it.

Even having brought up your own experiences of a break in routine throwing you off, you still seem to think you''re infallable. For your sake and your future children''s sake, I hope that''s true. And if not, I hope you learn that in a less fatal way than these parents did. Myself, I''m going to learn the lesson through their mistakes and do my best to take precautions for when my brain doesn''t work quite right. I am human after all...

Why is the horse dead? Who forgot to let it out?

 

[lindsaylove]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:39:30 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Lucy - seeing flowers and noting them are different than losing yourself in thoughts of '' I need to plant my roses, that means I have to get soil etc etc etc''.

Orchid - You''re right, and in pointing out the check I pointed out that I am not perfect, we do forget things, but a check is not a child''s life. You. Don''t. Just. Forget. Your. Child.

Lets look at another situation. A parent leaves a gun out, child gets hold of it and dies. In a normal situation this parent is charged with negligence and child endangerment. But let''s say parent says ''well it was an honest mistake, I forgot the gun was there, I got distracted and forgot it was out'' ..... is this excusable as a mistake and should be allowed to slide? Or is it still negligence?

The fact is that apparently people (loving, hard working, intelligent people) DO just. "forget". their. children. as evidenced in this article. So what is your point with that statement? That people shouldn''t "forget"? I agree with that, and without a doubt everyone else posting does as well.

In re. to the gun scenario... thankfully there are safeguards such as cases and locks and safeties for guns to *help* prevent this situation. Sure, they''re not perfect, but they are in place and do a wonderful job. What is in place to prevent children being left to die in hot cars? Pretty much nothing. And why? Because people think they are way too aware of their surroundings to worry about doing such a thing.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:39:30 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Lucy - seeing flowers and noting them are different than losing yourself in thoughts of '' I need to plant my roses, that means I have to get soil etc etc etc''.

Orchid - You''re right, and in pointing out the check I pointed out that I am not perfect, we do forget things, but a check is not a child''s life. You. Don''t. Just. Forget. Your. Child.

Lets look at another situation. A parent leaves a gun out, child gets hold of it and dies. In a normal situation this parent is charged with negligence and child endangerment. But let''s say parent says ''well it was an honest mistake, I forgot the gun was there, I got distracted and forgot it was out'' ..... is this excusable as a mistake and should be allowed to slide? Or is it still negligence?

Yes. You. Do. People. Here. Have. Said. Their. Mothers. Have. Forgotten. Them. At. School.

Honestly, you amaze me. You are actually being arrogant enough to say what people can and cannot forget. That our minds must work like yours. And the mistakes you''ve made in forgetting are no big deal because you simply won''t forget the big things.

You''ve got years to learn, that''s for sure.

 

[dragonfly411]

I never once said I was infallible and have pointed out myself that I am not. But you cannot excuse this as just forgetting. "I just forgot my child was in the car, and now she''s dead" it dose not work that way. Whether the parent was thrown out of routine, whether they went into auto drive, whether they blanked out, they still forgot to take the child, or get the child out of the car, they forgot the child''s presence with them, they forgot to make a turn. THEY FORGOT. Routine or not. I''m not going to keep arguing this, esp if it''s going to turn into everyone telling me what I think I am (I''m perfectly capable and mature enough to think and realize that I am not perfect, no one is). The fact of it is, these children were forgotten, left in the cars to die a horrifying death, probably wondering where their mommies or daddies were, and it is negligence. Whether you agree with me or not is your deal, but I cannot excuse it as a matter of simply "forgetting" or "getting knocked off of routine". Not in the case of a life. Again, a parent forgets their gun is out, that is not excusable. Forgetting your child''s presence in the car, going into auto drive and not remembering to make a turn, is not excusable to me. And everyone I''ve spoken with in person about the matter so far has agreed. So, again, not going to argue about it. I do think we are perfectly capable of remaining conscious enough, in the present enough, mindful enough to make sure our child is not left in a car to die. If other things become that important, or you get that overwhelmed, or you get that thrown off by one little thing that you lose all conscious thought of where you are supposed to be going (and again if you read the article most of these parents were heavily distracted, or simply Were NOT THINKING), then you are neglecting your duty as a parent. It''s as plain as that to me.

 

[dragonfly411]

I''m actually really not arrogant. But ok.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:13:12 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 3/11/2009 3:57:54 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/11/2009 2:31:09 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 3/11/2009 1:43:26 PM
Author: vespergirl
So if we''re all on the same page that ''lizard brain'' memory flaws can make people forget things that they would not normally forget if they are outside of the person''s regular daily routine. Some people feel that we should not be criminally liable for honestly forgetting things under such circumstances.

Say, then, that we apply this logic to a less dire situation. Tax day only comes around once a year - one could say, then, that filing your taxes is not part of one''s daily routine. If you honestly forget to file your taxes on April 15 because you were preoccupied with other things, the IRS still nails you with a penalty, since you were still legally responsible to file taxes by that date. Whether you intentionally ignored the dealine or honestly forgot is immaterial - we know that''s the day that taxes have to be filed, and if they are not filed on that day, for whatever reason, we have to pay the consequences. Obviously in the tax situation it''s only a monetary penalty, but it still needs to be paid - the IRS can''t excuse the cases where it was an innocent mistake, or people everywhere could be claiming innocent mistakes.

When you approach it as a logic argument, as applied to our legal system, ''I forgot'' is simply not an excuse, even if it''s the truth. The same laws need to apply to everyone when the law is broken.

I do truly believe that those parents did not intend to leave their children in the cars, or for their children to be harmed. I even do honestly believe that they truly forgot. It still does not change the fact that they broke the law and killed someone. I don''t think that they belong in jail, and I think that some parents were acquited. I still think that they all need to be prosecuted, and let the judge decide.

It seems you are suggesting that the law is an automatic machine that has no choice on how to APPLY the law. That''s simply not true.

The law says what constitutes an infraction and what doesn''t. It''s up to PEOPLE with sound judgment to consider if the INTENT of the law is served by bringing charges. That is up to the prosecutor''s office, and it is their job to apply human judgment and decide which cases should be prosecuted and which shouldn''t.

Don''t kid yourself into thinking that every illegal act is prosecuted - they aren''t. Prosecutors make decisions every day about which cases to pursue and which NOT to pursue, and they do so by applying (hopefully) sound human (and merciful) judgment. Will it serve the interests of the state/people to prosecute this case? Is prosecution necessary to mete out justice, or is there another way? In acts that require intent, is there enough evidence to prove intent?

Your analogy of the IRS falls short for a few reasons. The IRS often recommends AGAINST prosecuting for non-filing! ''A long-standing practice of the IRS has been not to recommend criminal prosecution of individuals for failure to file tax returns, provided they voluntarily file, or make arrangements to file, before being notified they are under criminal investigation.'' (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=122721,00.html)

How many articles have you read about homeless people who didn''t file being prosecuted? Yep, me neither....we don''t hear about them because they typically don''t happen. Did those who failed to file fail on their obligation to file? Of course they did. Is it in the interest of the state or country to prosecute them? Most likely not - you can''t get blood from a stone, and prosecuting would be an enormous waste of time and resources and wouldn''t serve society''s interest.

The law is intended to help apply agreed-upon remedies to behavior that falls beyond that which we want. It''s not intended to be an absolute tenet applied without individual consideration for the circumstances.

I didn''t say that they should be prosecuted for not filing, but that they would incur a monetary penalty that they had to pay.

Oh. So then you''re saying it would be ok not to prosecute a mother for leaving her child in the car as long as she was assessed a monetary penalty?

So then it''s not the prosecution that''s important, but the assessment of penalty? Is that it? That''s most assuredly in conflict with what you said earlier. You said ''they all need to be prosecuted.''

Thing is, this whole analogy totally sidesteps your earlier argument about how the ''mother/child super-bond'' is so unique and should transcend every other thing. If that''s so, I''d suggest there is clearly there is no other analogy that can adequately capture the severity of this type of situation, so it''s not especially relevant to compare filing one''s taxes to leaving one''s child in the car. To the extent that there is a monetary consequence, I could likely handle being hit with a $1k penaltiy for failing to file my taxes and still sleep soundly at night. I can''t imagine being able to handle knowing I caused the death of my child (no matter how untentionally); that would alter my life for its duration.

I''m not trying to be argumentative, Vesper. I''m trying to say that looking at a tragedy like this and trying to treat it the same as other non-emotional things isn''t really a fair analogy.

It is against the basic instinct of most parents to put their children in harm''s way or even expose them to harm knowingly. To suggest that parents somehow need to be held to a level of infallibility that isn''t possible in a human being seems unrealistic and unmerciful to me. To suggest that there is any penalty the law can impose thta would trump the penalty of having to live with the event is just wildly outlandish to me.

And to suggest that parents who don''t intentionally cause harm should be pilloried for being *human* seems equally unhuman to me. We are supposed to be the evolved species capable of applying sound judgment. We are the ones who should have compassion. Lack of charity and lack of empathy that knowingly cause others distress is perhaps even more egregious to me than the parent who makes the mistake. At least the parent''s act isn''t intentional.

To answer your original question, I was simply clarifying that I said that people who filed late should pay a monetary penalty, not necessarily be criminally prosecuted, as someone has misinterpreted.

To clear up your misinterpretation, I never said anything about parents who kill their children paying monetary fines. You can read my previous 3 posts on how I think judges should penalize those parents if you''re interested in finding out what I think appropriate punishments are.

I still see this as gross negligence, even if it''s totally unintentional. I find the crime even more unconscionable because it''s parents, who''s job as legal guardians is not to forget their children, and if that includes putting safeguards in place, then that should have been done. For myself, I always had one of those mirrors that you mount to the back seat so that I could see my son in the rearview mirror when he was still rear-facing. I also stow my stuff in the back seat, so I would always go to the back seat whenever leaving the car.

I agree with you that most of these cases were tragedies, and I feel sorry for the parents for having to live with themselves. I still feel far sorrier for the children who died an excruciating death.

In the particular case of Brenda Slaby, who had left her child unattended in the car for short periods several times & had been told not to do it again, before the fateful day that she "forgot" her all day due to a schedule change (lizard brain/memory defense), and was never prosecuted because she said she forgot & appeared upset, I think that she should be in prison, and I think that her other child should be removed from the home. Here is a link if you want to read about this case where polive recommended prosecution and the DA ignored it: http://www.wcpo.com/mostpopular/story/Police-Documents-Show-Cecilia-Slaby-Had-Been-Left/cd2uvQ2uKkGdtEatCeIJTw.cspx

The reason that I think that the law needs to recognize these incidents is because I would not feel comfortable with any of these people, say, opening a day-care center, and if a mention of this type of incident on their record prevented that, then I think other children could be protected.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:59:03 PM
Author: dragonfly411
I never once said I was infallible and have pointed out myself that I am not. But you cannot excuse this as just forgetting. ''I just forgot my child was in the car, and now she''s dead'' it dose not work that way. Whether the parent was thrown out of routine, whether they went into auto drive, whether they blanked out, they still forgot to take the child, or get the child out of the car, they forgot the child''s presence with them, they forgot to make a turn. THEY FORGOT. Routine or not. I''m not going to keep arguing this, esp if it''s going to turn into everyone telling me what I think I am (I''m perfectly capable and mature enough to think and realize that I am not perfect, no one is). The fact of it is, these children were forgotten, left in the cars to die a horrifying death, probably wondering where their mommies or daddies were, and it is negligence. Whether you agree with me or not is your deal, but I cannot excuse it as a matter of simply ''forgetting'' or ''getting knocked off of routine''. Not in the case of a life. Again, a parent forgets their gun is out, that is not excusable. Forgetting your child''s presence in the car, going into auto drive and not remembering to make a turn, is not excusable to me. And everyone I''ve spoken with in person about the matter so far has agreed. So, again, not going to argue about it. I do think we are perfectly capable of remaining conscious enough, in the present enough, mindful enough to make sure our child is not left in a car to die. If other things become that important, or you get that overwhelmed, or you get that thrown off by one little thing that you lose all conscious thought of where you are supposed to be going (and again if you read the article most of these parents were heavily distracted, or simply Were NOT THINKING), then you are neglecting your duty as a parent. It''s as plain as that to me.

Call me when you have kids. Because you''re obviously capable of having them.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 3/11/2009 4:39:30 PM
Author: dragonfly411

...we do forget things, but a check is not a child''s life. You. Don''t. Just. Forget. Your. Child.

Yes, Dragon, you do. It happens, and it happens because people are human. They aren''t machines.

They THINK they already dropped them off because that''s what they intended to do. Some even ''recall'' dropping them off....because they''ve done it 600 other times before and it''s etched in their minds they can recall having done it even though *today* they haven''t.

They THINK they dropped them off because they meant to, and then they became *distracted*, either by another thought or an event (swerved to avoid car, etc.). In that moment of distraction (OH CRAP, I forgot that I have to pick up donuts for the 8 a.m. meeting!), they become mentally sidetracked for a moment. When that moment passes, they don''t realize they haven''t yet done something they fully intended to do (drop off kid). The silence in the car suggests they did (because there is always noise in the car when the baby is in the backseat).

It''s really that easy. A momentary distraction can cause a person to think they are at a different spot in their planned activities than they are.

Degree of importance has absolutely nothing to do with the degree of fallibility of the mind.

 

[Lauren8211]

The human memory is so amazingly easily manipulated. It can and does play tricks on you.

Just by mere "suggestion" that someone has dropped their kid off, someone could compose a memory that they had. Your brain can't EVER be trusted 100% on ANYTHING. Even when you swear on your mother's life something happened, there's a significant chance that it hasnt.

False memories occur so often, it'd blow your mind. There are tons of studies on this.

They DID just forget. It happens. ALL THE TIME.