Remember the neglagent babysitter?

Trains Magazine General Discussion
21

I agree with those who do not think jail time is the best punishment In cases such as this one where an accident occurs due to negligence rather than any intent to inflict harm. Based on the information provided in the story this young lady was negligent but that’s not the same as being a criminal. I am not sure how society would benefit from putting her in jail. I think there are alternative punishments such as community service that can be just as effective.

As noted she also has a young child. If the jury did send her to jail for a couple of years it would require splitting up yet another family and sending off her child off to either a foster home or to live with relatives. That would make a sad story even worse.

22

"So if I kill someone because I am just plain stupid (neglegent) I should not have to go to jail? Come on, that would probably let 1/2 the current prison population off. Like I said before I think people should be held accountable for there actions. "

If everyone were held responsible for their actions, My PM and your President would be sitting in a court right now… If only real life was like that.

23

LOL, you’ll find your “responsibility” a-floatin’ in Boston 'arbor alongside the King’s tea, mate…[oX)][oX)]

24

“LOL, you’ll find your “responsibility” a-floatin’ in Boston 'arbor alongside the King’s tea, mate…”

I travelled on Train 5 with a friend from NYC. He remarked that I was drinking coffee all the time, " I thought you Brits liked tea ?" I replied, We do Vince, thats why I’m drinking the coffee.
I’ve Never been to Boston…
Best regards old thing.

25

I’m not proposing that stupidity be a ‘get out of jail free’ card, for those who have expressed intentional criminal behavior.

I’m just saying that lack of intelligence is not one in the same with willfull intent.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose you and I were moonshiners, operating a still to make illegal whiskey. 50-50 partners, and we had the still hidden in the basement of a house you own.

While I am operating it one day, I blow it up, and am killed.

Should you be charged with murder because the operation was knowingly on your property, and you knew it was illegal to operate?..just curious for your opinion

26

I never said the charge should be murder. I said the charge should be Neglegent homocide or involentary manslaughter.

That situation with the moonshiners is not quite the same. First of all it includes an already illegal activity. Secondly the victum is responsable for his own actions and would not be my responsability unlike someone that was being baby sat. But if it was in my house then I guess I should be charged as it’s my responsability what goes on on my property.

27

I never meant to imply they were the same. I was just curious where their people’s opinions rest on this.

So you are saying that it should be charged as murder, because the activity was illegal

You aren’t there, I am there that day, I screw up and blow tha place to smitherenes…b and you think you should be charged with murder because the activity that caused it was illegal, and you own the property?

But,if instead we were race car hobbyists, and I was cleaning parts with gasoline, and a spark blew me to kingdom come, and you owned the garage, then you would NOT be guilty of murder? Just curious.

28

You keep saying murder and murder would not apply to any of these situation. I NEVER said anything about murder.

These days property owners are sued all the time for people getting injured all the time (of course that’s usualy just a civil suit). So I would think it’s entirely possable for a property owner to get charged if someone dies on there property. Of course it depends on the circumstances. If I the property owner knew full and well that you were cleanig parts in the solvent tank in an un ventalated area where there was a open flame (or some other ignition source) and allowed you to do so then in that case I sould be responceable for allowing you to do something as dangerous as that on my property. But if I am not home and unaware of your activities then it should be on you. I don’t know how that works in reality though. If you are on my property then I have some responceability for you, other then that you are responceable for your own actions not me. Now if you were under age and I took the responceability of babysitting you and you get killed, then that’s on me because I was watching you.

I think were getting a bit off of the original situation here though. And I’m no lawyer, That’s just how I feel it should be.

29

No it was I who brought up murder as a criteria to the hypothetical scenario I created.

In the case of the moonshiners, should the property owning moonshine partner be prosecuted for murder, over the death of his unlucky partner? I was just curious how people felt about ultimate “responsibility”. And does the fact that illicit activity was the cause make one death a murder, while the other (the gasoline fumes) is not?

To me, if someone says “yes the guy doing illegal stuff should stand up for murder charges, while the other was just an accident”…then that looks to me like the person is just trying to puni***hat which they perceive as evil, rather than trying to prosecute actual guilt.

I’m no lawyer either, but that is the way it looks to me.

Now that you know what I am getting at, how do you feel, one scenario, versus the other?

30

Again you say murder. Murdering someone is when you intentionaly, knowingly (and maliciously I believe) kill someone, and that does not apply to any of these cases.

Yes I can see where you are coming from though if you replace “murder” with “involentary manslaughter” or “neglegent homocide”. But by the way I read your logic all criminal punnishment is “balanceing evil” and not a penalty for a crime commited.

31

But Anti…
She was trespassing, (illegal activity) and she went off and left a toddler alone on the far side of the tracks(stupid illegal activity)…she is responsible for that act, no one forced her to leave the child…the child cant make a rational, intelligent decision, so it was the babysitter’s responsibility to insure the child’s safety.
If she can prove that she had no idea the child could, or was capable of following her back across the tracks, and her attorney can prove diminished capacity, and inexperience in handling children, then she has a usable defense.

Chad,
As for the shiner example, the homeowner was aware of, engaged in, and promoted an illegal activity that he or she knew was dangerous and made no attempt to put a stop to it…at the least, the owner should be charged with negligent homicide, possibly voluntary manslaughter.

32

not say that all criminal punishment. is “balancing evil”…just that the risk is there, we need to be cautiously aware of the possibility,and try to avoid the tendancy.

I think the gal in question is a horrible babysitter, but not a killer.

Just like in my example the moonshiner/homeowner was a moonshiner, not a killer.

The tendancy for us as a people to seek to ‘trump up’ the charges because it feels good is what I’m concerned about.

ohh well. Glad I’m neither a moonshiner nor a baby sitter. [;)]

33

Fully agree Ed.

34

So you want to convict the accused, based upon assumptions?

whatever happened to reasonable doubt?

Trespassing ? I thought the story placed the accident at the blossom hill crossing

No matter even if she was tresspassing, I think the judge made a good call on this one, felony child endangerment is what she is truly guilty of . The death of the child in question is no more than a situational factor

As should be considered the case of the unfortunate moonshiner, in my example.

The men conspired to evade excise taxes, not to blow up the still.The explosion is purely accidental.

More and more cases are being decided towards the extreme you seem to favor, but I see that as more a symptom of an increasingly sadistic society, than any true measure of justice.

And what about the 5 pre teenagers playing in the vacant lot next to the exploding still? “Collateral damge” [}:)]

35

Even if she didn’t get prison time, it will stay with her, on her record, and emotionally. She may have nightmeres about it the rest of her life!

36

I agree.

37

I know she’s guilty. But do most most people even know that just crossing railroad tracks is illegal? or even if they knew that just might be considered something like j walking where you only get carged if your in an accident? Oh and I think it’s amazing who some parents will leave thier kids with![:(]

38

No assumption…she left the child…find me any kid that age that can make rational, intelligent decisions…if they could, they wouldn’t need a babysitter in the first place.
Any child left in my care is mine, and mine only, responsibility.

You mean there are people out there making shine who don’t know stills can blow up?
Change that to a meth lab, with ether all over the place, same scenario…the lab blows, kill the one guy making meth, and the kids next door…accident?
Maybe, but one that was preventable if the home owner had refused to allow the lab to operate in his or her home in the first place.
Better yet, what if it was one of your kids that died?

By condoning or allowing illegal activity and its associated risk, you are also accepting the associated risk as a part of the price to get what you want…be it shine or meth.
In fact, remove the illegal activity part…say you are just cleaning auto parts, and screw up and use gasoline…it blows up and kills you and the kids next door…who is responsible…the kids for being next door, the moron who used gas, or the home owner for allowing the moron to use their garage as a parts cleaning shop with out checking to see if you were qualified to do that kind of work safely?
(hint…by law, both the dead moron and the homeowner share responsibility)

By leaving the child on the other side of the tracks, a child which could and did walk about on its own, she was accepting the risk that the child might walk away, or follow her back, or walk off into traffic, there is no assumption there, a child alone, one that can walk, is in danger near train tracks.
If she had babysat this child for more than a few seconds, she had to know it could walk, but she chose to leave it on the other side, and go get her own stroller bound child…she made a conscience decision to leave the child in a dangerous position.
That takes it out of involuntary status, and also removes the accident angle…she mad

39

Folks,
We must remember that there are only x number of prison cells per state. NOW, I ask you this question:
WOULD YOU RATHER SEE A CELL ASSIGNED TO:

  1. A homicide convict, who also robbed the store at which s/he killed the clerk on duty? Intentional violation of the law.
    2, A man who got a girl pregnant, and doesn’t have a job, in a high-unemployment district, but could be apprehended for non-support? Unintentional violation of the law. He had no intent o impregnating the woman at the time of sex.
  2. A bank robber, who was caught passing stolen money? Intentional violation of the law.
  3. A drug dealer, who sold drugs into the hands of an officer on duty in a Sting operation? Intentional violation of the law.
    or
  4. A babysitter who failed to take all 3 children across the train tracks at one time?
    UNINTENTIONAL violation of the law, but with disastrous results!
    Yer Hillbilly friend in TN…
    There r limits to the amount of inmates that ANY State can support and house! So, looking at the above 5 instances, I would rather see the drug dealer, the bank robber, and the killer/holdup man at the convenience store ANY day than one who failed to take 3 children safely across the railroad tracks!
40

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

[A] No assumption…she left the child…find me any kid that age that can make rational, intelligent decisions…if they could, they wouldn’t need a babysitter in the first place.
Any child left in my care is mine, and mine only, responsibility.

You mean there are people out there making shine who don’t know stills can blow up?
Change that to a meth lab, with ether all over the place, same scenario…the lab blows, kill the one guy making meth, and the kids next door…accident?

[B] Maybe, but one that was preventable if the home owner had refused to allow the lab to operate in his or her home in the first place.

[C] Better yet, what if it was one of your kids that died?

[D] By condoning or allowing illegal activity and its associated risk, you are also accepting the associated risk as a part of the price to get what you want…be it shine or meth.
In fact, remove the illegal activity part…say you are just cleaning auto parts, and screw up and use gasoline…it blows up and kills you and the kids next door…who is responsible…the kids for being next door, the moron who used gas, or the home owner for allowing the moron to use their garage as a parts cleaning shop with out checking to see if you were qualified to do that kind of work safely?
(hint…by law, both the dead moron and the homeowner share responsibility)

[A] By leaving the child on the other side of the tracks, a child which could and did walk about on its own, she was accepting the risk that the child might walk away, or follow her back, or walk off into traffic, there is no assumption there, a child alone, one that can walk, is in danger near train tracks.
If she had babysat this child for more than a few seconds, she had to know it could walk, but she chose to leave it on the other side, and go get her own stroller bound child…she made a conscience decision to leave