Townfolks divided.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:22 am

I wasn't sure where to put this, so if it needs to be moved you can do it.

I live in a small town, and word spreads quickly and everyone thinks they should have a say in someone else's business. Last Friday, we had a terrible carwreck happen. A mom and her 2 kids were involved in a one vehicle rollover. She was driving a Durango. The kids are 5 and 2 and neither were in carseats. In fact there were no carseats in the vehicle. Both children were thrown from the vehicle and the mom was trapped. The 2 year old suffered only a hemotoma and is basically fine. However the 5 year old had a major head trauma and was removed from life support Monday.

Ok now that I've given the background, here's why folks are divided. Since one child has died as a result of the accident, the mom will have charges filed against her. More than likely they will be vehicular manslaughter. This has several people angry since she's already sufffering from the loss of a daughter. The others are saying it's right, since she didn't have the kids properly restrained in the vehicle.

I'm interested in opinions from you all. Should the mother be prosecuted or is the death of her daughter punishment enough for her actions?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:32 am

Okay here is what I think. Although very irresponsible I don't think lack of car seats is criminal. I understand we try and make laws to save lives but I get tired of trying to legislate every aspect of life. It would not surprise me if they make a law about tire pressures so you don't have a blow out and roll your vehicle. The woman has lost her child, how will it help to financially devastate the family with lawyer bills. And who wins if she goes to jail.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:08 am

A mother's resposibility to protect her children should not be taken lightly. Just because she has suffered the loss of one child does not mean she should not be held responsible for not protecting them both as best she could. Children belong in car seats for a reason. Their protection. What kind of mother would not do everything possible to protect her kids?? I completely agreee that this woman should be punished for breaking the law. What that punishment should be, I cannot say, but there should be some sort of repercussion for not doing everything humanly possible to protect your kids. Shameful....completely shameful.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:18 am

I tried starting a thread on whether or not there are too many laws. No one seemed interested. This is, to me, a good case for the same debate.

As a punishment, the loss of her child is greater than the loss of years sitting in a jail. The punishment has been meted by the offence.

As a protective measure, there is possibility that something needs to be done to ensure the remaining child's safety. Going to jail will not accomplish that. I'd think counseling would better provide the answer as to whether or not the woman will be more responsible and, at the same time, help the family deal with their grief. If she refused to go to counselling then charges of neglect would be appropriate.

As an example to others, news coverage of the event is sufficient warning. Anyone who does not take that example as a reminder to use seatbelts is not likely to change if she is also sent to prison. It happens because people don't think it will happen.

So, in summary, I think court rooms replace of common sense all too often. We're in remote control. Something negative happens we ask judges how to feel and think about it. Common sense says that whole family needs therapy not more punishment.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:18 am

Boy, Sheryl, that is such a moral dilemma.

I can see arguments for both sides of the issue (just like what has already been posted in the Garden).

I don't think that jail time is the solution. Perhaps community service?

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:20 am

It always amazes me when I follow a car when very young kids are STANDING on the back seat completely unrestrained.. It's a reasonable assumption that in this day and age in the UK, that if the driver has a car they will almost certainly have a TV.

If I've seen the TV warnings which simulate a child flying through a windscreen, you can bet your bottom dollar that they've seen it too. It's negligence in the extreme. There are far too many of these brain donors on the road.

If you counted your brain cells at a rate of 1 per second, it would take you 35 million years. These people would do it in a second. Do the math.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:20 am

I agree with BR. There is no reason for a child not to be in a car seat. I'm not so sure prison is the answer, but probation, making her go around talking about the importance of a carseat, etc. might be.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:27 am

OK I'll admit I was outraged when I heard that neither child was in car seats. More than likely she will not get prison time, probably just probation. But I'm still interested in hearing whether or not, charges should be pressed. I think yes, just because she was neglecting her children's safety.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:30 am

Sher, I agree with you that charges should be brought against her. She broke a law and her child paid dearly for it.

But the punishment that should be doled out -- probation with community service feels right to me.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:31 am

I agree with the community service train of thought. She should not be taken away from her remaining child, but there also needs to be a lesson about keeping ones child safe when traveling.

I do not think laws have anything to do with it..just common sense.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:32 am

I recall being driven all the way to Florida from Ontario when I was about seven. I'm not that old now. Most current parents grew up without seatbelt laws. That's something to keep in mind.

BTW, is she a single mom or is there a second parent around?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:33 am

Sheryl wrote: But I'm still interested in hearing whether or not, charges should be pressed. I think yes, just because she was neglecting her children's safety.
Yes, charges should be pressed. Absolutely.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:39 am

Oh hell yes charges should be pressed.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:42 am

koan wrote: I recall being driven all the way to Florida from Ontario when I was about seven. I'm not that old now. Most current parents grew up without seatbelt laws. That's something to keep in mind.

BTW, is she a single mom or is there a second parent around?

She's married.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:42 am

Boy is that a tough one. If a man murdered his wife, I'm positive that people wouldn't say, "Isn't losing his wife punishment enough?" But for a mother to lose one of her children? Yeah...that's pretty brutal.

Most likely no punishment will be equal to the guilt she'll feel herself for her carelessness.

Unfortunately, we enact laws to make sure that there are consequences for reckless and dangerous behavior. For our system of law to be just, it must apply to everyone in every identical case (and to be fair, we should include conditions for cases that are not identical such as retarded people or insane people. )

So yes, very, very sadly...she owes a debt to society for her reckless disregard.

I was just thinking, though... what if it had been a hired nanny that had neglected to strap in the children? There's no question she would have to do time.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:45 am

Think of how we use our court systems.

If a person sells a childrens toy at a garage sale and it no longer meets a safety standard or turns out to be damaged and injures the child it was bought for then the seller (garage sale holder) can be charged by the buyer (garage sale customer).

Jails are meant for people who pose a danger to society and fines do not compensate for loss of life.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:48 am

koan wrote: Jails are meant for people who pose a danger to society and fines do not compensate for loss of life.

I believe her dead child was a "part of society."

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:49 am

Jives wrote:

I was just thinking, though... what if it had been a hired nanny that had neglected to strap in the children? There's no question she would have to do time.

Good point

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:50 am

koan wrote: I recall being driven all the way to Florida from Ontario when I was about seven. I'm not that old now. Most current parents grew up without seatbelt laws. That's something to keep in mind.

Why is that something to keep in mind? That wasn't a law then. It is now.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:56 am

BabyRider wrote: Why is that something to keep in mind? That wasn't a law then. It is now.

Because people often think about how they lived a certain way and nothing happened to them so they don't take stuff seriously.

There are many things that can result in death from carelessness. This woman got caught. I've known people who have left their babies at home alone while they went to the store or who put the baby in a bouncy seat on a counter while working around the house...the list could go on and on. They are all neglectful situations and the only difference is that they didn't result in death. By chance.

Does her husband want her charged?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:00 am

koan wrote: Because people often think about how they lived a certain way and nothing happened to them so they don't take stuff seriously.
Ahh. Ok, that makes sense.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:16 am

koan wrote: Does her husband want her charged?

Good question! My guess would be no, but I'm sure he's got some mixed feelings on the subject.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:26 am

I'd also like to point out that it was an accident, not intentional.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:33 am

koan wrote: I'd also like to point out that it was an accident, not intentional.
But didn't she intentionally NOT put her children in safety seats?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:36 am

BabyRider wrote: But didn't she intentionally NOT put her children in safety seats?

That's an unanswered question. By intentionally I translate that she would have thought about it at the time, considered the risk and decided that her children weren't worth the time. We'd need an account of how they ended up without seats.

Also I wonder where the seats were. Does she own any?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:40 am

koan wrote: That's an unanswered question. By intentionally I translate that she would have thought about it at the time, considered the risk and decided that her children weren't worth the time. We'd need an account of how they ended up without seats.
Good point and question.

koan wrote: Also I wonder where the seats were. Does she own any?
Another question I'd like to know the answer to.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:45 am

Here's a similar crime. One we can all relate to - because all of us who have driven have at some point or another gone over the speed limit.

A person is driving with children in the car and going 20k over the speed limit. Don't know the miles conversion but it's pretty standard speed infraction even on city roads. They get into an accident that might have been avoided if they were not speeding. They would be charged, but countless others have committed the same crime not resulting in death. Why are they not punished? They even still have their children. And the speeding is known (intentional?) at the time of the accident, most gauranteed.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:43 am

Sheryl wrote:

I live in a small town, and word spreads quickly and everyone thinks they should have a say in someone else's business. Last Friday, we had a terrible carwreck happen. A mom and her 2 kids were involved in a one vehicle rollover. She was driving a Durango. The kids are 5 and 2 and neither were in carseats. In fact there were no carseats in the vehicle. Both children were thrown from the vehicle and the mom was trapped. The 2 year old suffered only a hemotoma and is basically fine. However the 5 year old had a major head trauma and was removed from life support Monday.

Ok now that I've given the background, here's why folks are divided. Since one child has died as a result of the accident, the mom will have charges filed against her. More than likely they will be vehicular manslaughter. This has several people angry since she's already sufffering from the loss of a daughter. The others are saying it's right, since she didn't have the kids properly restrained in the vehicle.

I'm interested in opinions from you all. Should the mother be prosecuted or is the death of her daughter punishment enough for her actions?

What was the cause of the rollover? Was the mother driving dangerously, was there a mechanical failure or was she spooked by an external event?

The cause of the crash would have a huge influence on her culpability.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:56 am

BabyRider wrote: I believe her dead child was a "part of society."

There's a big difference between jailing a person who is a continuing danger to society for the protection of that society and jailing someone in retribution for harm done to the society in the past (however recent that past might be).

Should jail be used for retribution or for protection? That's another question but is she a danger to society - no. Is jail a reasonable punishment in this case - I doubt it as the person you would be punishing the most would be her surviving child.

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:56 am

She had probably turned around and was yelling at them to sit down and shut up. Another good reason to have car seats.

If this had been a one time affair it might be different, but apparently she never puts them in car seats or they would have been in the car. . . . somewhere. Do you take yours out everytime you leave the car? Or do you just take the kid out? She should be punished and not let this case set a precedent for every other parent who chooses not to put their kids in seats.

Those of us who grew up without car seat or seat belts in the back seat or even in the front were the lucky ones. We grew up. The reason this law was made was for those who didn't.

I had a classmate who died from falling off the back of a pickup truck loaded with furniture many years ago and there still is not a law passed in my state that says children cannot ride in the back of a pick up truck! DUH! Maybe if they put them in car seats in the back bed. . . . . :-5

But, on the other hand I agree with Koan, there does seem to be too much government in my home. There was actually a city than banned kids from wearing baggy half butt pants. Now, that's too much!

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:00 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: There's a big difference between jailing a person who is a continuing danger to society for the protection of that society and jailing someone in retribution for harm done to the society in the past (however recent that past might be).

Should jail be used for retribution or for protection? That's another question but is she a danger to society - no. Is jail a reasonable punishment in this case - I doubt it as the person you would be punishing the most would be her surviving child.

If she won't put her own child in a car seat, do you think she'll put yours in a car seat if she takes them somewhere?

That, to me, makes her a danger to society and her punishment would be for the protection of society. Suppose her kid flew out the window, landed on your 16 year olds windshield and killed her. Would you want her to go to jail then?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:00 pm

cherandbuster wrote: Good question! My guess would be no, but I'm sure he's got some mixed feelings on the subject.

Like, why didn't he fit seat restraints in the car and insist that they were used?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:05 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: There's a big difference between jailing a person who is a continuing danger to society for the protection of that society and jailing someone in retribution for harm done to the society in the past (however recent that past might be).

Should jail be used for retribution or for protection? That's another question but is she a danger to society - no. Is jail a reasonable punishment in this case - I doubt it as the person you would be punishing the most would be her surviving child.

Bravo.

This does, however, assume that she is otherwise a good mom. If she has a history of abuse and neglect then the child should be placed in other custody. There could be so much to this story that changes the situation. Car seats being missing could be due to the cost of the proper seats or from being in another vehicle at the time. Sometimes they get switched back and forth.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:07 pm

911 wrote: If she won't put her own child in a car seat, do you think she'll put yours in a car seat if she takes them somewhere?

That, to me, makes her a danger to society and her punishment would be for the protection of society. Suppose her kid flew out the window, landed on your 16 year olds windshield and killed her. Would you want her to go to jail then?

And how close to the speed of sound was she traveling at the time?

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:09 pm

koan wrote: Bravo.

This does, however, assume that she is otherwise a good mom. If she has a history of abuse and neglect then the child should be placed in other custody. There could be so much to this story that changes the situation. Car seats being missing could be due to the cost of the proper seats or from being in another vehicle at the time. Sometimes they get switched back and forth.

All good points.

But shouldn't the law be based on what is right and what is wrong; i.e., black and white? If you start to take extenuating circumstances into the situation, then every case could become 'gray'.

Doesn't there have to be a consistency in the application of laws and rules?

(I'm playing the devil's advocate here)

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: And how close to the speed of sound was she traveling at the time?

I beg your pardon, what?

Sorry, *whoosh* right over my head. :-3

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:12 pm

koan wrote: Bravo.

This does, however, assume that she is otherwise a good mom. If she has a history of abuse and neglect then the child should be placed in other custody. There could be so much to this story that changes the situation. Car seats being missing could be due to the cost of the proper seats or from being in another vehicle at the time. Sometimes they get switched back and forth.

I'd still like to know the proximate cause of the accident - you don't just roll a car driving round town with no other car involved. How did it happen?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:14 pm

911 wrote: I beg your pardon, what?

Sorry, *whoosh* right over my head. :-3

Windscreens are toughened glass, babies are soft and light. The possibility of a baby being thrown out of a car, going through another car's windscreen and killing the other car's occupant is remote in the extreme.

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:15 pm

koan wrote: Bravo.

This does, however, assume that she is otherwise a good mom. If she has a history of abuse and neglect then the child should be placed in other custody. There could be so much to this story that changes the situation. Car seats being missing could be due to the cost of the proper seats or from being in another vehicle at the time. Sometimes they get switched back and forth.

Cost of car seat. . . . cost of a childs life. Balancing the scales here. . . nope, no contest.

Car seats in another vehicle? How lazy is she? Buy two more or two hundred more if you have than many cars. Again, what is the cost compared to death? Here, there are certain social services and law enforecement agencies that will not only give them away for free but show you the correct way to install them.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:18 pm

cherandbuster wrote: All good points.

But shouldn't the law be based on what is right and what is wrong; i.e., black and white? If you start to take extenuating circumstances into the situation, then every case could become 'gray'.

Doesn't there have to be a consistency in the application of laws and rules?

(I'm playing the devil's advocate here)

The application of the law is based on the letter of the law (in a perfect world - in reallity it appears to be based on the willingness of the courts to prosecute).

The punisment imposed must take extenuating circumstances into account.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:18 pm

911 wrote: Here, there are certain social services and law enforecement agencies that will not only give them away for free but show you the correct way to install them.

I do believe that your local police department will also show you how to correctly use a child's car seat.

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:19 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Windscreens are toughened glass, babies are soft and light. The possibility of a baby being thrown out of a car, going through another car's windscreen and killing the other car's occupant is remote in the extreme.

The child or person doesn't have to go through the windscreen to scare someone and cause them to turn the wheel the wrong way, run off the road or roll over their vehicle or hit a tree. Many, many people have been killed trying to keep from hitting an animal in the road that they know is an animal and still try to avoid it. Imagine, seeing something coming at your face and try not to throw up your hands or turn the wheel.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:19 pm

If you think outside of courts and laws for a moment, if this woman was my friend I would, upon hearing of the accident, rush to comfort her, suggest she and the other victims (father and child) go into grief counseling, then suggest that she enter into a campaign to increase awareness of the importance of using seatbelts. In that way the best repair is offered and a healing means for her to compensate for her error.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:23 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: The punishment imposed must take extenuating circumstances into account.

Agreed. The punishment is open to a judge's interpretation of the law and the circumstances.

But charges should still be brought against the woman. That part needs to be black and white.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:25 pm

911 wrote: The child or person doesn't have to go through the windscreen to scare someone and cause them to turn the wheel the wrong way, run off the road or roll over their vehicle or hit a tree. Many, many people have been killed trying to keep from hitting an animal in the road that they know is an animal and still try to avoid it. Imagine, seeing something coming at your face and try not to throw up your hands or turn the wheel.

Just having the accident in front of them would have that effect - no need to introduce flying babies.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:28 pm

cherandbuster wrote: Agreed. The punishment is open to a judge's interpretation of the law and the circumstances.

But charges should still be brought against the woman. That part needs to be black and white.

I worry at the number of people saying she must go to jail with so many unanswered questions still hanging around.

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:28 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: The application of the law is based on the letter of the law (in a perfect world - in reallity it appears to be based on the willingness of the courts to prosecute).

The punisment imposed must take extenuating circumstances into account.

Ah, if it were so. Unfortunately, extenuating circumstances has turned into excuses. "I blacked out for a moment", "I was insane at the time but all better now", "He/she started it" , "I was depressed" , "My mother didn't breast feed me". But I don't so much blame the courts as I do the juries.

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:30 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Just having the accident in front of them would have that effect - no need to introduce flying babies.

LOL

Touche!

(Sorry cannot find that little mark for the 'e')

Nevertheless, my point is still valid.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:34 pm

911 wrote: Ah, if it were so. Unfortunately, extenuating circumstances has turned into excuses. "I blacked out for a moment", "I was insane at the time but all better now", "He/she started it" , "I was depressed" , "My mother didn't breast feed me". But I don't so much blame the courts as I do the juries.

Faults in the application don't invalidate the principle.

The juries don't hand down the sentence. I find the more worrying examples are the likes of the rape case where the judge decided the victim was partly responsible "because she'd had a drink".