rebelnerd

Not smart enough to know better?



Come on, give me a break! If she was smart enough to drive around for an hour and make up a rape/kidnapping story then I think she was at least smart enough to take proper care of her kids. It's not my job to determine the why's and wherefore's of societies ills and solve them. Nor am I responsible for others actions or the solutions to their problems. I manage to live peaceably with other humans and to take care of my child (he's still alive), I don't consider this any great feat. I doesn't seem to me that this should be too difficult for others to do also.


Filo

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Hello. I am new here.

I am from a very large country called Australia and have no working knowledge of the law that pertains in this case, but would like to comment on some of the thoughts on appropriate punishment that I have seen in this thread.

I quote from an article in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 22, Number 2. APPLIED ETHICS: Science and Freedom
by Thomas W. Clark (author of naturalism.org)

"Naturalism ... undermines the "abuse excuse": true, persons are caused in every respect, but there are still adequate justifications (deterrence, incapacitation, and personal reform) for incarcerating wrongdoers, if not for capital punishment and "hard time" in prison."

Logically, it seems to me that these three justifications for punishment are the only moral ones. If we are not punishing to reform, rehabilitate or incapacitate then what are we punishing for? Because we want to? Because it makes us feel better? Because of god?

This is relevant to a discussion I saw earlier in the thread on whether this woman should be charged for manslaughter or murder. When there is clearly no intent to kill in the case, that is manslaughter (at least over here it is). Why should the far more serious charge of murder be pressed? Isn't that a deliberate attempt to increase the punishment beyond what is recommended by law? What for? Not deterrence, surely? Rehabilitation? Reform? Because we want to? Because it makes us feel better? Because of god?

What about hell? Im sure that at least some theists beleive that this woman is going to hell, but what purpose does eternal punishment serve? Since the punishment is eternal, it cannot be for reform. Since the person must be dead first it can't be incapacitation either. So is Hell entirely for the purpose of deterrance in this life? Does that seem a little excessive to anyone else? Or is god just doing this because he likes it?

rebelnerd

I'm an atheist, I don't believe in god(s).
I'm also not the prosecutor in this case so I can't really make the determination as to whether to charge her with murder or manslaughter. Do I think this person intentionally left her children to die? No I don't, but I also think at the least it was gross negligence on her part. There has been some argument that on the basis of this negligence, murder charges should be brought.

As for the moral basis for punishment in this case as stated in the three justifications you presented, I think any of the three could apply here.

Filo

DRFseven

So, then, you think she intended for the kids to die of heatstroke while she was having her hair done, even though it would have meant that she'd be prosecuted for murder? Doesn't make much sense, does it; especially in light of the fact that she had to drive around concocting a story. Sounds as if she was surprised by their deaths. Believe it or not, people have different reasoning abilities, and just because you can figure something out does not mean everyone can.

There are several possible scenarios. She could have been "under the influence" (as in the case of the woman a few years ago who left her children in a car overnight while she did crack in her boyfriend's apartment). She could have had mental problems so that her thinking was extremely irrational. Most likely is that she is simply an incompetent mother who had, in the past, left her children alone in the car with no (in her perception) ill effects. People constantly endanger their kids all the time and each time everything seems to come out "ok" that pattern is reinforced. To be sure, she was grossly negligent, but whether or not that was HER perception is another story.

rebelnerd

DRFseven,

Please read the post above your last post.


Filo

rebelnerd

Agreed.

Filo

MOJO-JOJO

This is just a typical reflection of the distorted view that theists have of people who choose not to believe in myths and supersticion as reality.

Logically speaking, I always wondered why you "head-in-the-clouds" christians ever concerned yourselves about something like a mother baking her kids in a car? You get to say cute-see little things like, "Well at least they're with Jesus now in heaven" and "They're in a better place now." I mean, honestly, if all you people ever think about is how much better the "afterlife" will be....singing praises 24-7 to a supernatural being for ALL eternity.....why are you so concerned about people dying? Other than perhaps missing them for a little while until you "get up there with them"? You people have no genuine concern about life HERE and NOW, you place no real value on it other than as an opportunity to "witness" to all of us godless heathen about your one-of-many-versions of holiness and salvation. Theists usually seem more concerned about the "salvation" of a mother like this, than they are for the kids, since the kids are floating around in heaven with god anyway.

On the other hand, people who live life with a genuine notion in their hearts that THIS most likely is all there is, and that life is therefore something very precious and to be lived to the fullest....people like this are actually gravely saddened when something as stupid and senseless as this happens. It follows then that life is more precious to those who don't buy in to supersticious beliefs and notions, so why are you suprised? (oh that's right....you blind-faith righteous types actually believe the crap about "those who don't accept christ are working for satan", and therefore are happy about things like this)

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

One of the last sane

Yeah, and don't forget "Never mind mom, you'll be reunited with them some day"... like she deserves to be.

Doubting Didymus

General concensus seems to be that this woman has performed an immoral action. Although I agree with this, I would like to see it further qualified.

To judge an action as being right or wrong, there must be a choice in the equasion. The perpetrator can only be judged immoral based on the degree to which that person could theoretically have chosen a different action in the same circumstance.

For example, imagine a hypothetical driver, hypothetical car and hypothetical kindergarten. If, for example, said driver plows said car deliberately and with premeditation into said kindergarten, any rational mind can see that such an action is wrong to a great extent (squeamish minds may imagine a cat instead of a kidergarten). However, if there is no choice involved, if, say, the driver is a severe sleepwalker and manages to get out of bed and crash into the kindergarten completely without realising it, they can then only be judged immoral in a much more limited way, for how could they have acted differently? We can say things like: 'You knew you had this predisposition, you should have taken precautions' and judge the neccesary punishment based on that.

This is where we hit a very large grey area. Instead of sleepwalking, the person is simply very, very stupid and this is the cause of a tragedy. We can say: 'This did not have to happen. Your incredible negligence makes you responsible'. That would be an appropriate moral judgement to base punishment on.

All this is the qualification for my current opinion. The woman in question deserves punishment based on the degree of her criminal negligence. But I personally believe that a firm thick line should be draw between manslaughter and murder charges. It is a severely immoral thing to deliberately choose to kill your children. Although definitely wrong, I do not believe that stupidly causing an accidental death comes close. The charge should be manslaughter and not murder.

rebelnerd

I think you have a very well thought out position and for the most part I agree with you. I think that after all the shouting is over the charges will probably be manslaughter. What do I think should happen to her? If I were in the jury after a lot of hard thought, I would most likely go for manslaughter. The defining issue for me would be pre-meditation, which I don't think is present in this case. For all the previously mentioned reasons, this issue really enrages people (at least myself) and with such blatant disregard for her children's welfare it is easy to cry "charge her with murder!"


Filo

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>