Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) There are plenty of crimes that don't require intent. E.g., negligent homicide/manslaughter. I don't have a problem with jail time for someone so reckless as to leave their child in a hot car.
2) There is deterrent value in these prosecutions, because it heightens public awareness of the problem while showing that there are repurcusions. It also honors society's obligation to protect its children. Do I think such people are a risk to society? No. Are they a risk to their other children? Possibly. Does either of those mean there should be no prosecution? No, because then any person who killed on the basis solely of a relationship they no longer have could not be put in jail (e.g., what's the risk of letting O.J. go free--just don't let him remarry)
3) The reason, if any, to prosecute non-parents more harshly is because the deterrent of caring is less substantial. With parents, we presume they want their kids to live, so it must be a "horrible mistake" when one of these deaths occurs (which isn't necessarily a reasonable presumption, but I digress). With day-care workers, it's often "just a job" so they don't have the same deterrent. Criminal prosecution can make the deterrent adequate.
|
Does news about prosecution heighten awareness more than news about dead babies? If the avoidance of your child's death insufficient to prevent forgetfulness, why is fear of proseuction enough? If we outlaw paper cuts and stubbed toes, would we stop getting them?
The deterrence is only relevant for intentional crimes. A parent who leaves a child in a car to go shopping should be punished, even if the child is unhurt. That would send a message and theoretically lower the incidence of stupid behavior.
