Quote:
Originally posted by lawyer_princess
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?
|
I totally agree. We used to draw a distinction between mere negligence (i.e., performing a commonly-occurring act in a manner not marked with the requisite level of care or attention) and recklessness (i.e., affirmatively engaging in an unusual act where danger is obvious, even if harm is not 100% assured). Hell, Russian roulette wasn't even a crime until some British lord decided that we needed a special doctrine to outlaw it. We could weigh the social utility of the conduct in the context of the willfullness of the act, and drew necessary distinctions between drag racing on the one hand, and inattentive driving on the other.
Now, with the gradual criminalization of negligence law, we weigh recklessness purely by looking at its consequences. We don't seriously punish epileptics who drive cars, unless they kill someone. Then, we charge them with Murder Two.
Criminal law has no business addressing itself to a single, tragic incident of forgetfulness. A prosecutor should not compound a tragedy by charging someone who is completely undone by regret and grief from an accident where it is clear that the "perp" wished everything against the harm. Otherwise, on principle, we should prosecute every auto accident as a battery.
