Negligence

[Gorth]

True confessions time... (sorry, but y'all brought it up)

<...snip...>

Qt, there is a world of difference between being concerned about your child and trying your hardest to do what is best for it... and then being concerned about whether or not there is enough beer in the fridge, the child be damned.

[Volourn]

Touche.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Volourn, he was drunk. He knowingly and with conscience choice choose to drink alcohol around a child which he was responsible for. He made that choice and because he was irresponsible, that he was gross negligent in his duties to keep a child under his care safe from harm he deserves more than 2 years in prison.

[Volourn]

[qt3.14159]

True confessions time... (sorry, but y'all brought it up)

<...SNIP...>

Qt, there is a world of difference between being concerned about your child and trying your hardest to do what is best for it... and then being concerned about whether or not there is enough beer in the fridge, the child be damned.

 

Oh, I wasn't really comparing myself to him, bu rather explaining that I didn't think two years was all that harsh and trying to give some context so that my rather odd opinion holds some weight. I can't remember much of the two years after my son died. They were the first two years of my daughter's life and I have bits and pieces of her as a baby, but I was in such a fog that nothing is very clear. I wasn't on any drugs or anything, the grief is just that consuming... If the guy just made a huge, stupid mistake and is blaming himself, then two years in prison being told what to do and where to be will almost be a relief to him. If he's guilty of something more than that... two years isn't enough.

[Gorth]

Oh, I wasn't really comparing myself to him, bu rather explaining that I didn't think two years was all that harsh and trying to give some context so that my rather odd opinion holds some weight. I can't remember much of the two years after my son died. They were the first two years of my daughter's life and I have bits and pieces of her as a baby, but I was in such a fog that nothing is very clear. I wasn't on any drugs or anything, the grief is just that consuming...

Yeah, our perceptions are probably coloured by our experiences. I've met parents who lost their babies (still born, not even an accident) that never truly got over it and I've met parents who somehow completely lacked that "bonding" thing between them and their children. They were something used to cash in on welfare benefits (i.e. abusing "the system"). From the available information, it sounds like this was something that happened in the latter category. It wouldn't surprise me if the guy is more concerned about jail time than the fate of the baby he was responsible for.

[Moatilliatta]

Why do you think it is the latter Gorth? Some of the news reports report him as crying and being distressed and while that in itself doesn't mean anything, simply assuming that he is guilty of more because the story doesn't add up seems harsh.

[Gorth]

Why do you think it is the latter Gorth? Some of the news reports report him as crying and being distressed and while that in itself doesn't mean anything, simply assuming that he is guilty of more because the story doesn't add up seems harsh.

As I said, our experiences sometimes colours our perceptions

 

I can only compare the parts of the story that are given with what matches things I've seen.

[Qwerty the Sir]

Some really sad stories here, I kinda wish I didn't read the thread. This is also why I don't drink.

 

I'm hope you guys (awsomeness and qt3.14159) are doing ok, surprised and sad that this kind of thing is very close to more than one person just here.

 

Personally, I feel that things that fall under 'moral luck' shouldn't be punished (and I'm not saying this case of the burned baby is just simple negligence, as pointed out earlier there seems to be more than that here).

 

Say there was a guy who was drinking and driving and went over the curb. Say there was another guy walking on the curb.

 

If this guy was hit, did the drunk driver do something worse than if pedestrian jumped out of the way? If the pedestrian died is the driver more to blame worse than if he was just injured or unscathed? Because I know for a fact (where I live) that the penalties would be drastically different even though the drunk driver didn't mean to kill or injure anyone. I would personally say they should punish him for drinking and driving, and not necessarily for whatever unintended consequences of injury or death.

 

I know my words really have no efficacy whatsoever on law or different peoples' morals, but it's just something I think about a lot. It's just so amazing what different circumstances can do...

[Aristes]

It's human nature to judge. We should be glad. After all, what would we do if we lacked the ability to deliberate and choose between two or more options? Because we have the ability to do so, we make decisions and, because of that same capacity, we question the decisions of others.

 

Enoch was entirely correct. The man was tried before a jury of his peers. That jury found him guilty. Either the jury or the judge decided punishment. That's good enough for me.

 

Buying into our legal system, with all its warts and flaws, is part of accepting the boundaries of our society. We enjoy its fruits because we abide by its demands. Barring some sort of illegal influence, we must take the jury at its word. This doesn't just work for guilty rulings with steep penalties. I felt, and feel, the same way about the famous OJ simpson trial. Did it look to me like he'd done it? Yes. That doesn't matter. He stood trial before a jury of his peers and he was acquitted. I can't lie and say I was happy, but I accepted it as part of my tacit agreement to abide by the laws of my community.

 

So, the man might or might not have gotten what he deserved. However, the question ends in sentencing. If he has room to appeal, then he may yet escape what the jury doled out to him.

[random n00b]

Does anyone else find this statement:

It's human nature to judge. We should be glad. After all, what would we do if we lacked the ability to deliberate and choose between two or more options? Because we have the ability to do so, we make decisions and, because of that same capacity, we question the decisions of others.

at odds with this one:

Enoch was entirely correct. The man was tried before a jury of his peers. That jury found him guilty. Either the jury or the judge decided punishment. That's good enough for me.

?

 

 

Buying into our legal system, with all its warts and flaws, is part of accepting the boundaries of our society. We enjoy its fruits because we abide by its demands. Barring some sort of illegal influence, we must take the jury at its word. This doesn't just work for guilty rulings with steep penalties. I felt, and feel, the same way about the famous OJ simpson trial. Did it look to me like he'd done it? Yes. That doesn't matter. He stood trial before a jury of his peers and he was acquitted. I can't lie and say I was happy, but I accepted it as part of my tacit agreement to abide by the laws of my community.

 

So, the man might or might not have gotten what he deserved. However, the question ends in sentencing. If he has room to appeal, then he may yet escape what the jury doled out to him.

Blind faith in the system and its rules and unconditional acquiescence with regards to its decisions are at the root of injustice and, at a greater scale, tyranny.

 

It is your duty as a citizen to speak up (and if the situation calls for it, fight) when you believe the system isn't working as it was intended or injustices are otherwise being committed. That's the essence of modern civic virtue.

[Walsingham]

You don't have the right to fight democratic justice. Debate it, go through due process. But you can't lynch mob anyone who is found innocent that you don't like.

 

Don't my honourable friends also think it's also rather odd to suggest that an internet forum, armed with a few scraps of evidence can pronounce the degree of guilt better than a jury who sat through the whole trial and listened to defence and prosecution council?

 

Which is not to say that justice is always served. Look at the Haute de la Garenne orphanage case. This is still extant, and I recenlt met with my MP to demand action.

[random n00b]

You don't have the right to fight democratic justice. Debate it, go through due process. But you can't lynch mob anyone who is found innocent that you don't like.

That's why I said "if the situation calls for it". Democracy is a great system for the tyranny of the majority to enact oppression.

 

Further, American colonists didn't have the "right" to fight against the King of England, either. History's full of examples of laws, regimes and systems toppled by people who are simply fed up. I think you are intelligent enough to realize that simply because democracy is the system we have now, it doesn't mean it's the best there can be.

 

 

Don't my honourable friends also think it's also rather odd to suggest that an internet forum, armed with a few scraps of evidence can pronounce the degree of guilt better than a jury who sat through the whole trial and listened to defence and prosecution council?

 

Which is not to say that justice is always served. Look at the Haute de la Garenne orphanage case. This is still extant, and I recenlt met with my MP to demand action.

Yes, of course, informed opinions are of paramount importance. That said, I don't think I can say I have an informed opinion wrt this case.

 

But don't you dare question Internet Justice!

[Walsingham]

I thought it was Ben Franklin who said that men had the right and duty to break the laws of tyranny, but that there could be no possible excuse for men who broke the laws of democracy? If you have had a fair chance to say what laws govern you, then you have to abide by 'em.

 

(I only know this from a graphic novel, so I _may_ be inaccurate)

[Volourn]

"American colonists didn't have the "right" to fight against the King of England, either."

 

Wrong.

[random n00b]

Oops. You are right.

[Nick_i_am]

Don't my honourable friends also think it's also rather odd to suggest that an internet forum, armed with a few scraps of evidence can pronounce the degree of guilt better than a jury who sat through the whole trial and listened to defence and prosecution council?

 

Don't listen to him Judge Hades!

[Aristes]

Does anyone else find this statement:

It's human nature to judge. We should be glad. After all, what would we do if we lacked the ability to deliberate and choose between two or more options? Because we have the ability to do so, we make decisions and, because of that same capacity, we question the decisions of others.

at odds with this one:

Enoch was entirely correct. The man was tried before a jury of his peers. That jury found him guilty. Either the jury or the judge decided punishment. That's good enough for me.

?

 

Perhaps I was unclear. Just because we have the ability to judge, we take it upon ourselves to judge when it is not our place to do so. Walsingham is correct to point out that this is an internet message board. If the story as presented here inspires someone to dig through the facts of the case and they discover some injustice in doing so, then it makes sense that they'd try to do something about it. That does not come despite the system. It is designed into the system.

 

 

...Barring some sort of illegal influence, we must take the jury at its word. ...If he has room to appeal, then he may yet escape what the jury doled out to him.

Blind faith in the system and its rules and unconditional acquiescence with regards to its decisions are at the root of injustice and, at a greater scale, tyranny.

 

This might be a valid argument if the system were inflexible. Do you think the penalty harsh? Change the law. There have been any number of unjust laws, but we have a system that allows for those laws to be changed or removed. Furthermore, we have a system of appeals to deal with situations in which some sort of illegal influence brought about a particular verdict.

 

I did not and do not advocate adherence to an inflexible system, but I do preach support for our current legal system with the understanding that we change specific laws in our system to accomodate the will of society. This also goes for the Constitution.

 

If, based on the four pages or so of member written text, you think you have the case to change the system as it regards this verdict, feel free to make the attempt.