When morons breed...

[DanishDynamite]

So one of the cornerstones of western law regarding culpable responsibility is to be set at naught in favour of your personal incredulity?
You believe that recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) in so doing should not be a criminal offence?

Unlike your good self, I believe in justice. Perhaps you have heard of this concept? Perhaps it was mentioned in the early pages of your law books?

Try to go back and remember.

 

[Architect]

No, with respect you're doing what people often do when they haven't thought out the position properly.

Do you, or do you not, accept that recklessly acting without reasonable caution and care whereby you put another person at risk of injury or death should be a criminal offence?

 

[DanishDynamite]

No, with respect you're doing what people often do when they haven't thought out the position properly.

Do you, or do you not, accept that recklessly acting without reasonable caution and care whereby you put another person at risk of injury or death should be a criminal offence?

I accept it fully.

As you well know, this is not the problem here, lawyer.

 

[Katana]

Uh, yes of course it is.
No, my dear. My point was simply that sending a couple to jail for life, just because they were ignorant of the fact that "vegan" milk could not be absorbed by their baby in the same way that other milk can, was a travesty of justice. Try to get you warped mind around this simple concept.
As far as I can see, you are unaware about the point we are discussing.

No. They were ignorant of the fact that their baby was starving before their eyes. When, over a six-week period, a newborn loses so much weight that docs were able to count its ribs when it was brought in dead, the parents missed an obvious problem - a problem that, unless they were severely mentally delayed (and their doesn't seem to be evidence of that), they should reasonably be expected to recognize. They should be held accountable.

Jail for life? Murder? Maybe it doesn't fit those, but there is more than just "ignorance" at play here.

 

[Katana]

Unlike your good self, I believe in justice. Perhaps you have heard of this concept? Perhaps it was mentioned in the early pages of your law books?

Try to go back and remember.

Then you should feel that the baby deserves justice here. Its parents ignored what anyone, unless they had an undetectable IQ, would see as a problem until it was too late.

 

[DanishDynamite]

No. They were ignorant of the fact that their baby was starving before their eyes. When, over a six-week period, a newborn loses so much weight that docs were able to count its ribs when it was brought in dead, the parents missed an obvious problem - a problem that, unless they were severely mentally delayed (and their doesn't seem to be evidence of that), they should reasonably be expected to recognize. They should be held accountable.

Yes. They were ignorant of the fact that their pride and joy was not growing in weight the way it should. And? This means they should spend the rest of their life in jail? Because they didn't catch on to the fact that the "vegan" milk they were feeding the child, wasn't good enough?

Jail for life? Murder? Maybe it doesn't fit those, but there is more than just "ignorance" at play here.

I don't see it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Then you should feel that the baby deserves justice here. Its parents ignored what anyone, unless they had an undetectable IQ, would see as a problem until it was too late.

Willfully? They wanted their baby to die? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Architect]

But if you accept that recklessly acting without reasonable caution and care whereby you put another person at risk of injury or death is a criminal offence then where does that leave us here?

Are you suggesting that the parents did exercise reasonable caution and care in this instance?

 

[DanishDynamite]

But if you accept that recklessly acting without reasonable caution and care whereby you put another person at risk of injury or death is a criminal offence then where does that leave us here?

Are you suggesting that the parents did exercise reasonable caution and care in this instance?

Lawyer, I believe I've stated my case many times already.

But, as you are a newbee, I'll restate it in terms a lawyer might fathom:

I see no recklessness nor any willfullness.

 

[Architect]

Well previously you indicated that malice was required, however let's assume that you're now happy with recklessness too.

So you are suggesting that disregarding the warning on the soya milk carton was not reckless?

You are suggesting that ignoring the baby's ongoing and massive weight loss was not reckless?

You are suggesting that not seeking medical advice was not reckless?

 

[Katana]

Yes. They were ignorant of the fact that their pride and joy was not growing in weight the way it should. And? This means they should spend the rest of their life in jail? Because they didn't catch on to the fact that the "vegan" milk they were feeding the child, wasn't good enough?

No. They were ignorant of the fact that it was shrinking before their eyes. Even premies old enough to survive without medical intervention (which theirs clearly was) have some flesh on them. By reports, this child was skeletal by the time it died.

Willfully? They wanted their baby to die? Is that what you are saying?

What I'm saying is that they were guilty of child neglect, which is a crime and should be punished.

Child neglect:

• Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
  
• An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Source

I have already said that I don't understand how it rises to murder, but I cannot see how you can argue that they shouldn't be punished at all.

 

[Architect]

I have already said that I don't understand how it rises to murder, but I cannot see how you can argue that they shouldn't be punished at all.

Well we have to be careful with the term "murder" because it is slightly differently defined in different legal regimes; in Scotland, for example, we might be more likely to see culpable homicide for a case like this whilst in England there might be an argument for manslaughter.

 

[WildCat]

I think that this is further evidence that JREF posting somehow inhibits one's ability to use a simple google check. Either that, or "skeptics" aren't really interested in finding out things for themselves.

Actually, it's evidence of vegans having no sense of humor.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Well previously you indicated that malice was required, however let's assume that you're now happy with recklessness too.

Attempt at humor.

So you are suggesting that disregarding the warning on the soya milk carton was not reckless?

Yes. They couldn't read.

You are suggesting that ignoring the baby's ongoing and massive weight loss was not reckless?

Yes. Anyone could wait too long.

You are suggesting that not seeking medical advice was not reckless?

That's a no-brainer.

Next question, please.

 

[WildCat]

Willfully? They wanted their baby to die? Is that what you are saying?

Does a drunk driver set out to run over the kid on the sidewalk? Guess they shouldn't face charges either from your POV?

 

[DanishDynamite]

No. They were ignorant of the fact that it was shrinking before their eyes. Even premies old enough to survive without medical intervention (which theirs clearly was) have some flesh on them. By reports, this child was skeletal by the time it died.

And? Babies go up and down in weight.

What I'm saying is that they were guilty of child neglect, which is a crime and should be punished.

Of course they weren't. They loved their child by all accounts. They did all they could to raise the child properly.

Child neglect:

• Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
  
• An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Source

I have already said that I don't understand how it rises to murder, but I cannot see how you can argue that they shouldn't be punished at all.

They shouldn't be punished at all. Simply because of the simple fact that they loved their child and did everything within their limited world to keep her healthy.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Does a drunk driver set out to run over the kid on the sidewalk? Guess they shouldn't face charges either from your POV?

Are such cases equivalent?

 

[Architect]

So Danish, to be quite clear:

1. You agree that individuals are culpable for reckless conduct.

2. You do not believe that disregarding the written warning was reckless.

3. You do not believe that ignoring rapid and continuing weight loss in a baby was reckless.

4. You do not believe that failing to seek medical help, even outwith a hospital environment, was reckless.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually, it's evidence of vegans having no sense of humor.

I'm not a vegan, so no it's not.

My mistake. I thought you were serious about the "evidence?" question. It's asked often enough, sometimes seriously, that I can't tell when it's humor and when it's not.

And? Babies go up and down in weight.

You really are dense, aren't you?

Let's use a grown-up as comparison (can't quickly find any pics of skeletal kids).

Tell me how healthy this man looks: http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/starvation.jpg

If you say, "Oh, he's just going down in weight, it's perfectly natural!", then I will know you need help. That, or Danish common sense is non-existant.

The baby was skeletal. That's skeletal. that means that you can count it's ribs. I have never seen a healthy baby that I could count the ribs on. If you seriously think that being able to count the ribs does not denote a life-threatening condition of malnourishment, you are truly truly truly beyond hope. Seriously.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So Danish, to be quite clear:

1. You agree that individuals are culpable for reckless conduct.

Yes, when it is indeed reckless.

2. You do not believe that disregarding the written warning was reckless.

Not if they didn't or couldn't read it.

3. You do not believe that ignoring rapid and continuing weight loss in a baby was reckless.

Of course not.

4. You do not believe that failing to seek medical help, even outwith a hospital environment, was reckless.

Obviously not.

Is that a fair summary?

Totally fair when my comments are included.