• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When morons breed...

Now just about every parent of small children knows this. If an accident were to happen and the child was seriously injured because the parent ignored or was unaware of the advice, then in today's society we would rightly expect charges to be levelled at the parents for failing to protect them properly.
 
Architect said:
In actual fact, infants and small children wearing seatbelts can be at particular risk because the straps sit at the wrong positions, leading to increased damage to the vital organs and to the neck. It is a criminal offence to so seat children in the UK.
Click to expand...


It is in the U.S. as well, at least in some areas.

Children under a certain size/age (I have to check again as to what those limits are) have to ride in approved car seats/booster seats, cannot ride in the front seat even if they are in the approved booster/car seat, etc.

Unfortunately, enforcement in the U.S. is notoriously lax.

Still, I remember when I was a kid - my dad had mounted a la-Z-boy chair in the back of our pickup, and I rode around in it - with no seat belts. In fact, when we were kids, nobody thought a thing of a dozen or so teens or preteens piling into the back of a pickup and cruising to the beach.

Now, it's a punishable offense, and you just never see passenger pickup trucks any more.

So I guess some things get enforced after all.
 
kbm99 said:
In short, his attitude and behavior in this thread is absolutely consistent with his prior posting.
Click to expand...


It's a bit like paying yer tax. We may not like it, but you've got to do it. It's a fact of life. And nothing ever is going to change it.

So DD might not like the legal concept of culpable recklessness, but seeing as the legal systems of pretty much the entire West agree on it then he might as well pee into the wind.
 
Z said:
It is in the U.S. as well, at least in some areas.

Children under a certain size/age (I have to check again as to what those limits are) have to ride in approved car seats/booster seats, cannot ride in the front seat even if they are in the approved booster/car seat, etc.

Unfortunately, enforcement in the U.S. is notoriously lax.
Click to expand...
The law recently got tightened up in the UK for child car restraints. They pretty much have to put up with some kind of seat / seatbelt adjustment until they are 12. However, I am not of the impression that enforcement is going to be very strict. There are get-outs in the legislation for things like:

—if a car doesn't have rear seat belts (like, a really old one)
—if you can't squash in enough booster seats
—if you "have to make a short unanticipated journey"
—if you really don't want to*

[*the last one was tongue-in-cheek]

I think that sometimes new laws simply change behaviour without police pulling people over. That is what I'm assuming is hoped for. Sometimes you still see an adult clutching a child on their lap though, in the face of plenty of evidence that that child is headed straight through the windscreen in a crash.
 
acuity said:
I think that sometimes new laws simply change behaviour without police pulling people over. That is what I'm assuming is hoped for. Sometimes you still see an adult clutching a child on their lap though, in the face of plenty of evidence that that child is headed straight through the windscreen in a crash.
Click to expand...
I think there's some interesting psychology there. Before the ordinary seat belt law came in, I didn't usually fasten mine because doing so seemed like a tacit acknowledgement that I might have an accident. Even worse, as a passenger I didn't usually fasten mine because it sort of subliminally felt like an insult to the driver - hey you're not safe so I'm taking precautions.

After the law came in, I just did it. No hidden agendas, no subconscious feelings that I was passing any judgement on anybody's driving. I didn't realise any of this till later, but there you go.

Rolfe.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Makes the idea of a license a bit more appealing.

DR
Click to expand...


Amen, Brother Rotor.

I was thinking about this yesterday, in fact - having some sort of Citizenship Level card, which you would have to test to earn certain rights and priveleges. Like breeding rights, right to live on your own, etc.

I'd never pass that one - I'd be in the state home until I was either married to someone with dependant care rights, or until I was old enough for the euthanasia program.

:)
 
nails3jesus0 said:
They are in jail because their actions KILLED A BABY.

have you seen a baby that small before?

this is a baby that weighs 3 lbs and some change



and your argument doesnt matter anyway, ignorance isnt an excuse (even though I highly doubt they didnt know that babies need to be examined by doctors, especially one that small).

In your world, if I get pulled over for drunk driving I can simply say "officer, i had no idea it was illegal to drive drunk!", and they should let me go.

"I thought my wife needed to be beaten up, I didnt know any better", and no one goes to jail.


it can go on and on and on. Its not an excuse. Wether or not they knew doesnt change the fact that there is a dead baby, and its their fault.
Click to expand...
They were ignorant of how to rear a baby. That is all they were "guilty" of.

By all accounts, they loved each other and they loved their first baby. They were simply ignorant, not knowing that a baby couldn't sustain life drinking vegan milk, as they themselves could.

They did not intend, they did not try, they did not wish their child to die. They were simply too ignorant to keep it from happening.

You say it not an excuse to be ignorant. I say, why not?
 
DD

You already agreed that people could be considered culpable for reckless action.

You already agreed that it was unreasonably reckless for the parents not to have followed the warning on the carton, not to have realised that their child was seriously ill, and not to have sought medical advice in the face of this and the warnings from friends/family.

Nevertheless you appear to think that (a) they were "simply" ignorant and (b) should not have been convinceted of criminal charges.

In addition to this remarkable position, and without recourse to the court transcripts, you appear to believe that they were "simply ignorant, not knowing that a baby couldn't sustain life drinking vegan mil, as they themselves could".

A career in the legal (or indeed any analytical) profession may not be for you. Try gardening.
 
Z said:
DD, Since a jury of their own peers found them guilty of murder, my guess is that your self-righteous and unfounded opinions are, fortunately, minority ones. I'm quite glad that you are not representative of human beings in general. And I bear a sincere hope that any children you elect to care for are fortunate enough to survive your laxidaisical and ignorant life philosophy, and that they take it upon themselves to try to learn something about how the world really works, rather than wander aimlessly through the world as you seem to.

And that's not meant to be insulting, DD - it's a simple observation based on the nature of your posts here.
Click to expand...
I'm sad. Sad that you somehow feel that the decision of "a jury of their peers" is all that is required to make an action justifiable and right.
 
DanishDynamite said:
I'm sad. Sad that you somehow feel that the decision of "a jury of their peers" is all that is required to make an action justifiable and right.
Click to expand...

Well we think you're sad too.

But what worries me more is your failure to grasp even the basic legal position. The test is reasonableness; what the normal man (or woman) in the street would do. That's why we use juries composed of (wait for it) the normal man (or woman) in the street.

If you don't like, or can't understand, that basic proposition then I don't see why the entire western legal system should change just because of you. But I'd love to hear a proper, detailed explanation.
 
Architect said:
DD

You already agreed that people could be considered culpable for reckless action.
Click to expand...
I agreed that that was the current mindset.
You already agreed that it was unreasonably reckless for the parents not to have followed the warning on the carton, not to have realised that their child was seriously ill, and not to have sought medical advice in the face of this and the warnings from friends/family.
Click to expand...
Where did I agree that?
Nevertheless you appear to think that (a) they were "simply" ignorant and (b) should not have been convinceted of criminal charges.
Click to expand...
Correct.
In addition to this remarkable position, and without recourse to the court transcripts, you appear to believe that they were "simply ignorant, not knowing that a baby couldn't sustain life drinking vegan mil, as they themselves could".
Click to expand...
Yes. Would you have evidence otherwise?
A career in the legal (or indeed any analytical) profession may not be for you. Try gardening.
Click to expand...
I'm proud to say that I have never contemplated a career in law.
 
Rolfe said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming it from the press. Would you have evidence contrary to this?
One of the main problems with this discussion is the lack of information, as a court transcript is not available. There are inconsistencies in the judgement which make it dangerous to read too much into the facts we do have available. However, where do we have any evidence that, intheir own minds, the parents did the best they could?

Oh, and have you figured out yet which language "ya eedjit" is?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
No I have not figured out the language. I don't care about the language and what it means.

I care about right and wrong.
 
Architect said:
You know, this is going waaay beyond any excuse you might have about not having English as a first language.
Click to expand...
Uhh? If you have problems with the English language, now would be a good time to let us know. It could help explain a few things.
By the way have you worked out what language "ya eejit" and "tumshie" are yet?
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Uhh? If you have problems with the English language, now would be a good time to let us know. It could help explain a few things.
Click to expand...

DD

You'll find that Rolfe and I are both fluent in English, having been schooled exclusively in it since the age of 5 and using it every day for business. However it would appear that you have difficulties with understanding the proper meaning of concepts such as culpability and recklessness. I have assumed that this is merely a linguistic issue, but if it is a cognitive one then please do accept my apologies.

But back to the matter at hand. You apparently disagree with an important concept in the Western legal systems. Thousands upon thousands of judges, juries, lawyers, and legeslative bodies are wrong. But you - with no legal training - are right.

How peculiar.
 
Architect said:
Well we think you're sad too.
Click to expand...
Who is this "we"? Are you perhaps using the Royal form of address?
But what worries me more is your failure to grasp even the basic legal position. The test is reasonableness; what the normal man (or woman) in the street would do. That's why we use juries composed of (wait for it) the normal man (or woman) in the street.
Click to expand...
The test is what is right and what is wrong. The legal system of laws is simply an amputated attempt at enforcing this idea in Laws.
If you don't like, or can't understand, that basic proposition then I don't see why the entire western legal system should change just because of you. But I'd love to hear a proper, detailed explanation.
Click to expand...
Laws and ways of administering justice change as the culture inventing the laws and the ways of administering justice change.
 
Society sending two parents to jail for life because the parents failed to know enough about child-rearing to keep their first born child from dying, is not only unjust, it is cruel and unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom