Ohio Mother Leaves 2-year-old in Vehicle All Day (Updated 9/25)

GuyWithGun

GuyWithGun

CAGiversary!
Ok, not a regular Vs. Mode poster, but wanted thoughts on this story. I just heard about it, but it happened on August 24, 2007.

Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby, Assistant Principal of a Middle School, left her two-year-old daughter in her SUV for approximately 8 hours while she was at work. Temperatures averaged 98 degrees that day, which means it could have gotten up to 140 degrees in the vehicle. By the time someone saw the baby in the vehicle she was already dead. The baby apparently had foamed at the mouth, had discolored arms, and was blistered.

Even though she has a history of leaving her children in her vehicle, the prosecutor is deciding not to press charges saying that there is not basis for criminal charges since she just forgot about her daughter.

She is currently on paid leave, and a board is meeting to decide if she will still have a job.



http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070825/NEWS01/708250376/1056/COL02
[quote name='http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070825/NEWS01/708250376/1056/COL02']
Cecilia had been left strapped in a car seat in the rear of the SUV while her mother attended meetings for faculty in preparation for the opening of school Monday, police said.

After the child was spotted about 3 p.m. Thursday, her mother rushed out of the school and cradled Cecilia in her arms as a teacher frantically tried to revive the child.

"Oh, my God!" a caller said to a 911 emergency dispatcher at 3:14 p.m. "Someone said she's been in the hot car all day. She's not breathing."
With instructions from the 911 operator, a teacher tried cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and a Union Township paramedic took over within 3½ minutes.
It was too late to save Cecilia, who had been left in the silver Mercedes with the windows up.

The temperature averaged 98 degrees that afternoon in that part of Union Township, police said.

It could have topped 140 degrees in the car, according to an expert on heat.
"She's blistered and everything else," a teacher helping perform CPR told the 911 operator after taking the phone from the caller. "Ma'am, I don't feel - I don't feel a heartbeat."

The child had foamed at the mouth, and her arms were discolored, according to another caller to 911 from the school at 4342 Glen Este-Withamsville Road.
[/quote]



http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070904/NEWS01/309040051
[quote name='http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070904/NEWS01/309040051']Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby won’t be charged in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Cecilia Slaby, who was left in a car for eight hours amid searing heat Aug. 23, the Clermont County prosecutor said Tuesday.

Nesselroad-Slaby, 40, forgot she left the sleeping girl strapped in a child seat of a sport utility vehicle at Glen Este Middle School, where she is the assistant principal.

All evidence indicated Nesselroad-Slaby didn’t intend to leave Cecilia in the car, Prosecutor Don White said. It would have been improper to charge the mother because it was an accident.[/quote]



http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/NEWS01/709060386
[quote name='http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/NEWS01/709060386']The day Cecilia Slaby died wasn't the first time her mother left the 2-year-old alone in a car, according to police reports made public Wednesday.

Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby was warned by a former administrator at the preschool attended by Cecilia's 5-year-old sister, Allison, not to leave her toddler in the car by herself.

A parent had complained about seeing Cecilia left in a car last winter.

A teacher at the Compass School in Loveland told police that twice in the two days before Cecilia's death she heard Nesselroad-Slaby describe leaving the child unattended in a car.

Teacher Tara Phillips told police that on Aug. 21 Nesselroad-Slaby arrived at 5:10 p.m. to pick up Allison.

"She told Allison to hurry up because the baby was in the car," Phillips wrote. The same thing happened the next day, Phillips said.

"We were acting out a story when Ms. Slaby came to pick up Allison about 3:05," Phillips wrote. "Allison asked Mom if she would stay to watch her part. Mom stayed, and they both left at 3:15. Mom didn't go to check on the baby."
[/quote]


Anyway, to my point/poll. What do you guys think about the story? Do you think she should be fried? Jailed? Left alone because it was an accident? The prosecutor said that calls from the public were about 50/50 of people saying charge her to leave her be, she lost a child.

According to http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070907/NEWS01/709070420 Ohio does not currently have a specific law against leaving a child in a vehicle. And the law states that the person must act recklessly (which apparently implies knowingly acting recklessly), in order for it to be a crime. And since the mother simply forgot the child, it is not considered knowingly causing harm.



UPDATE: Her job is being discussed in a closed session, and they didn't want public comments on the matter. Hopefully they'll have a decision out in 24-hours. (Thanks for the links Myke)

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070910/NEWS01/309100014
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Dato=20070911&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=709110405&Ref=AR





UPDATE2: Apparenlty the prosecutor's office is starting to draft up a law because of this.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070913/NEWS01/309130040

“I suggested that we add a section to the child endangering law that would penalize people for negligent conduct,” White said.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that current law allows charges only if someone has acted recklessly. That legal standard applies to someone who disregards a known risk, but it doesn’t cover forgetting about a child.
Click to expand...

Oh, and get THIS quote from the, "mother," about the creation of the new law:

“I don’t now how you punish somebody for something that was an accident,” Nesselroad-Slaby said Thursday of White’s proposal. “A law is to prevent something, but you can’t prevent something that’s an accident.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone is starting to feel less and less guilty and more and more not wanting to be punished for her stupidity.

I guess that there's no way to prevent accidents according to her. So everyone, just disregard everything you've ever learned and go do what you want, when you want to and don't worry about the consequences. Because apparently if you didn't mean to do something on purpose, then it's all ok. Go to the bar in the morning, drink all you want, go driving around some schools at the end of the school day and accidentally run over some kids and hit a few parked cars. Hey if you don't mean to do it and it's an accident, it couldn't have been prevented, right? :roll:






UPDATE 3: Superintendent does not expect Slaby to return to her job. A replacement has been made for the rest of the school year. Lawyers are still negotiating so it's not 100% confirmed yet, though.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/NEWS01/709250398
 
Neglect laws are perfectly appropriate.

After seeing the Enquirer help in creating a murderous rage in the public during the Marcus Fiesel situation (google it), and being used to their typical racist treatment of crime in the Cincinnati area, seeing them handle this with kid gloves is very, very strange IMO.
 
Neglect is a civil concept, criminal neglect does exist but is at the higher end of the negligence scale.

I really dont know if she deserves further punishment; losing a child is quite a thing however maybe it doesnt affect this lady the same way as it would somebody who cared a little more for her child.

Seems to me she may not have actually violated the letter of the law (although she probably violated some statute with regard to "acting in reckless disregard for the sanctitity of human life") and there is a large amount of prosecutorial discretion. She certainly should not/can not get the death penalty as it usually requires pre-deliberation.
 
The fact the "fry her" is winning, when 3rd time rape/murders dont get "fried" makes CAG look retarded.

Clearly there is something wrong with her, it's not like she's a drug addict, she's an assistant principal who has of course lost her job, and lost her life, and daughter for that matter. You think her marriage is going to stay together? Do you think her friends will be there for her?

She's going to have to move, and try to start a completely new life, old. Not to mention possibly spend some time in prison.

This wasnt murder people, it's neglect. It's not like it was pre-meditated.

She shouldnt get away with it, but "Fry her" is retarded, and once again proves why you should never ask these types of questions to a bunch of 15 year olds.
 
"Fry Her" Is winning because it sounds funny and also it is the most angry response. However I did vote for that one because this just wasn't negelect, neglect in my mind is not being careful and having a baby crawl off of a counter and hit there head and die. That is neglect, you should have been watching your child but you weren't and they died because of it.

What kind of bitch though leaves her 2 year old in a car for 8 hours. How did that sound like a good idea? Does she never watch the news and see the children that die every year because of this? She also knew it was hot outside and would be even hotter out in the car. Ultimately I say unless she is retarted she should get a life sentence or die. Simple and plain, she knew what she was doing and still did it.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']The fact the "fry her" is winning, when 3rd time rape/murders dont get "fried" makes CAG look retarded.

Clearly there is something wrong with her, it's not like she's a drug addict, she's an assistant principal who has of course lost her job, and lost her life, and daughter for that matter. You think her marriage is going to stay together? Do you think her friends will be there for her?

She's going to have to move, and try to start a completely new life, old. Not to mention possibly spend some time in prison.

This wasnt murder people, it's neglect. It's not like it was pre-meditated.

She shouldnt get away with it, but "Fry her" is retarded, and once again proves why you should never ask these types of questions to a bunch of 15 year olds.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. I think it's an indication of people's generally punitive attitudes towards crime; the public often confuses "justice" and "what I personally would find satisfying." The problem becomes when they think that a "satisfying" punishment would actually work as it is supposed to (premised on criminals getting "just desserts").

I agree with you ("fry her" is too harsh), but do not agree that you only see this result because of the young male makeup of CAG. "Justice" as a concept is a far cry from where it was 30 years ago.
 
Yes notions of justice are just as varied as the people that hold them.

Did anybody stop to think if this was really an "accident"? Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to rule out predeliberation.
 
Forgetting you left your child in your car is fascinating. How in the world can that happen?

The police claim that all evidence suggests it was an accident - that she has a documented history of leaving her children in cars is telling to me.
 
[quote name='darthbudge']"Fry Her" Is winning because it sounds funny and also it is the most angry response. However I did vote for that one because this just wasn't negelect, neglect in my mind is not being careful and having a baby crawl off of a counter and hit there head and die. That is neglect, you should have been watching your child but you weren't and they died because of it. [/QUOTE]

That's not even neglect, that's an accident. Accidents can happen, like the woman who put the baby in her husband's car, because it was supposed to be his day to take the baby to day care - although, I don't know why the baby wasn't put in as the dad was getting in the car. Just don't leave the kids unattended, period.

I'm guilty of running back into the house to grab a pacifier, but the car is two feet from my door, and I don't leave them in a 140 degree car.
 
[quote name='GuyWithGun']
Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby, Assistant Principal of a Middle School, left her two-year-old daughter in her SUV for approximately 8 hours while she was at work.[/QUOTE]
#-o

Charge that bitch with manslaughter. Nao.
 
I suggest adding a "sterilize her" option.

Should she be allowed to have any more kids? Personally I'm against any form of eugenics, but I can understand if someone would feel otherwise after reading this story.

(After all, do we allow ex-cons to carry concealed weapons?)
 
You see why cold weather > hot?
idea.gif
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']You see why cold weather > hot?
idea.gif
[/quote]

Because you can still eat frozen baby meat?

...what?
 
You see the headline and think she may have done this on pupose.

You read a bit more and realize it could have been an accident, even though she went to and from her car at least four times for boxes of doughnuts and juice and to park.

Then it's discovered that she has done this at least 6-12 times before on purpose, well knowing that her child is alone in a vehicle in a parking lot. Once instance being at least for 10 minutes, and two others the days just before the accident.

And it's not like she didn't know it was wrong. She had been warned at least by a teacher and an administrator on separate occasions, not to leave her child in a vehicle unattended. Not to mention that her actions actually prompted the school to send a newsletter home to parents stating that no child should be left in a car unattended.

And we only know of about the half-dozen times that she actually got caught doing it. Who knows how many times she's actually done this and gotten away with it.

Apparently their version of Child Protection Services, the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services, is investigating seeing if the other daughter is at risk, but I doub they'll find anything. Although if the mother is this uncaring is one situation, I guess it could definately leak over into other aspects in life. But the other daughter is in middle school, and whatever they find probably won't be a risk to someone that age.


Like some others here, I think the, "Fry her," option is a bit too harsh. She needs to be living with this pain. Yes it was an accident, but it could have very easily been avoided had she paid attention once in her damn life to what's going on around her. I do hope she gets fired from her job, and think that some sort of charges should be brought against her. I would not be opposed to jail time for her at all. Just because you're stupid and don't pay attention to your baby, it doesn't make the actions right. Stupid is not an excuse and should be punished. Hopefully wake up all of the other idiots out there that have kids and are stupid themselves.

You have children, you can't just fucking surf through your life, consequence-free, as if you have no cares in the world, as you probably have your entire life. I don't care if they are a temporary inconvenience for you to pick up for five minutes as you go inside. Big fucking deal. You are a parent, fucking act like one.
 
For all those claiming this could have been an accident: Do you have kids? Have you ever taken care of kids? This could not possibly be an accident IMHO. This is hardly the same as "I left a book in my car."
 
How in the hell is this woman an assistant principal? Or should I say "was"? I can't imagine she will be allowed back to that position.

For the average parent to leave their kid in a hot car is tragic. To do it more than once is horrific. To be an assistant principal, where your job includes protecting children's welfare on a daily basis, and do this is unforgivable.

And I don't believe the bullshit that the mother has suffered enough. Her child suffered enough by slowly roasting in a hot car. I couldn't live with myself if I did that to my dog much less a child.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Forgetting you left your child in your car is fascinating. How in the world can that happen?

The police claim that all evidence suggests it was an accident - that she has a documented history of leaving her children in cars is telling to me.[/quote]
Two years ago, a father in San Jose left his child in the car. He went to a friends house to watch a football game and he discovered his dead kid afterwards. This was in the local news but it didn't make the national news.

Anyways, the reporter said that there has been a number of incidents (I don't remember the exact statistic but I think it may be 20 a year) like this across the country- most of the time it involves Fathers. It's extremely rare for a Mother to do that.

-----
 
[quote name='Xevious']
Anyways, the reporter said that there has been a number of incidents (I don't remember the exact statistic but I think it may be 20 a year) like this across the country- most of the time it involves Fathers. It's extremely rare for a Mother to do that.

-----[/quote]
Someone was talking about this at work the other day, and saying that when a father does something like this, they are less harsh in punishment. I don't know how true this is. I'll have to go back and read some past cases where the father was involved.

I thought I read somewhere that this woman thought she had already dropped her baby off at daycare or something? And then she had some parent meetings at the school (hence the donuts and stuff), so she was busy with that. But I just can't imagine that in going back and forth to the car, or even the final check of making sure she brought everything in, she did not see her baby in the back seat. Really?

I also overheard a reporter on TV make the comment "out of sight, out of mind" in explaining the mother's actions. When is your child EVER "out of your mind"? I am not yet a parent, but I just can't imagine that you wouldn't be double and triple checking that your child is safely where (s)he is supposed to be. And the fact that she's done this several times and been called out on it, it's just mind-boggling.

Some say she'll have to live with the pain of losing a child and that's punishment enough. I dunno, doesn't seem like she cared enough about the child in the first place that the pain will be punishment.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I cant beleive only 2 people think that the law should be followed.[/QUOTE]

Given the way the choice is worded, I'm not surprised. Nobody here knows what Ohio's law would be in a case like this. Furthermore, that choice also specifies "I have no opinion." And to top it off, the question is what SHOULD be done, injecting the ambiguity of people considering what should ideally be done as opposed to what should legally be done.
 
Like a lot of you on here, I can't believe that a child can be forgotten in the car. Just reading that story made me ill.

Neglect charges are appropriate in that situation.
 
When I first heard about this story, I was thinking that she suffered enough, and they shouldn't press charges. But a lot of times in accidental deaths, the person responsiple is still charged with manslaughter. I agree with niceguyshawne on this one, to charge her with neglect, but I don't think she should get any jail time. Maybe 2 years probation and community service. Get her some counciling and take some kind of seminars on being a good and responsible parent.

The thing is, if they let this go and don't press charges, some people may do this kind of thing on purpose, and say it was an accident to try to get away with murder.
 
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Dato=20070911&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=709110405&Ref=AR

The school board was to have a public vote over whether to allow her to keep her job or not, then decided to have a public hearing followed by a private vote with 24 hours' notice. IMO, the "if she can't keep track of her own children, how can I trust her to do her job with mine?" seems to be the most sensible response.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, given the Marcus Fiesel situation, I'm somewhat (but not entirely) reluctant to say that, in Cincinnati, if you're wealthy and white, you get a pass, whereas if you're poor and black, you're guilty the minute you're born, stories like this seem to reinforce just how different our justice system treats people based on race and class. Why does he get charged with child endangering, and Slaby gets off scot free?
 
Myke, you of all people I would expect to know that justice is blind. Colorblind that is, it only sees GREEN! Race has little to do with it, wealth on the other hand has everything to do with it. Ok well maybe race has ALOT to do with it, but IMO, $ has a lot more.

$ still isnt going to prevent a racist judge/jury from ruling based on thier prejudices, but often enough $ may be able to overcome this through processes such as a motion for summary judgment, a judgment on the pleadings, a jnov or getting a verdict overturned/remanded on appeal.
 
You can't have it both ways, darlin' - but your argument seems to show that you sure are trying to.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to data gathering on a random sample of criminals, of whom a whopping 70% are members of the much-maligned 12% of our population. Your law classes may have led you to believe that, ideally, justice is blind, but "ideal" is a red herring in the real world.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Dato=20070911&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=709110405&Ref=AR

The school board was to have a public vote over whether to allow her to keep her job or not, then decided to have a public hearing followed by a private vote with 24 hours' notice. IMO, the "if she can't keep track of her own children, how can I trust her to do her job with mine?" seems to be the most sensible response.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, given the Marcus Fiesel situation, I'm somewhat (but not entirely) reluctant to say that, in Cincinnati, if you're wealthy and white, you get a pass, whereas if you're poor and black, you're guilty the minute you're born, stories like this seem to reinforce just how different our justice system treats people based on race and class. Why does he get charged with child endangering, and Slaby gets off scot free?[/quote]
According to the Ohio law, they would claim that since he was knowingly enganged in such behavior with his child in the car, that's why it was child endangerment. The other lady, "Didn't knowingly," endanger her child in the car all day.

His behavior was appalling, her behavior was appalling. At least if he crashed, it might have been a quick death instead of slowly baking all day.
 
I can't believe some of you don't want her to pay for her crime. You wouldn't be saying that if you had kids - what she did is completely irresponsible as both a parent and a human and can in no way be classified as a mistake or lapse in judgment - it is wholly unforgivable. She should be held fully accountable for her actions and she should be severely punished in addition to the guilt she will feel for the rest of her life.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I can't believe some of you don't want her to pay for her crime. You wouldn't be saying that if you had kids - what she did is not completely irresponsible as both a parent and a human and can in no way be classified as a mistake or lapse in judgment - it is wholly unforgivable. She should be held fully accountable for her actions and she should be severely punished in addition to the guilt she will feel for the rest of her life.[/QUOTE]

QFT.

Nothing she gets will be too harsh. Nothing. Can you imagine the horror of that little 2 year old? Scared and in pain?

A parent does not "forget" about their child. You may think it harsh to say "fry her", but I'd bet most of you aren't parents.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You can't have it both ways, darlin' - but your argument seems to show that you sure are trying to.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to data gathering on a random sample of criminals, of whom a whopping 70% are members of the much-maligned 12% of our population. Your law classes may have led you to believe that, ideally, justice is blind, but "ideal" is a red herring in the real world.[/QUOTE]

I think maybe you misunderstood me. I was being facetious when i said justice was blind and then said it was colorblind because it can only see green; I then went on to say that race and money have alot to do with it. I dont know after reading that how you could figure I think justice is blind.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You wouldn't be saying that if you had kids [/quote]

Bit OT, but I get really, really, sick of this arguement.

People I know use it all the time to feel big and important about being a responsible parent who knows the mystical inner secrets of life that those without their own kids couldn't possibly hope to fathom.

Why is it so hard to figure out what it would be like for a 2 year old? I'm pretty sure most of the people on this board actually were a two year-old at some point. I think we can also comprehend the concept of pain and suffering ok, so let's just get back to the issue at hand.
 
[quote name='camoor']Bit OT, but I get really, really, sick of this arguement.

People I know use it all the time to feel big and important about being a responsible parent who knows the mystical inner secrets of life that those without their own kids couldn't possibly hope to fathom.

Why is it so hard to figure out what it would be like for a 2 year old? I'm pretty sure most of the people on this board actually were a two year-old at some point. I think we can also comprehend the concept of pain and suffering ok, so let's just get back to the issue at hand.[/quote]

You don't understand because you don't have kids. Also, it has nothing to do with what it's like to be a two-year-old - it has everything to do with being a responsible parent who knows the mystical inner secrets of life that those without their own kids couldn't possibly hope to fathom.

I can honestly say that I thought I knew what having kids meant before it actually happened and that you will love them and take care of them and blah, blah, blah but in reality I didn't understand because I didn't have kids. You just can't explain it.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You don't understand because you don't have kids. Also, it has nothing to do with what it's like to be a two-year-old - it has everything to do with being a responsible parent who knows the mystical inner secrets of life that those without their own kids couldn't possibly hope to fathom.

I can honestly say that I thought I knew what having kids meant before it actually happened and that you will love them and take care of them and blah, blah, blah but in reality I didn't understand because I didn't have kids. You just can't explain it.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't have kids yet, but I think I understand. There are two responses going on here: those who think that the CJ system should do its job, and those who think she should be drawn and quartered on Pay Per View.

That's fine; emotive responses to criminal issues are typical. I found my threshold tested over the Michael Vick affair, where it was hard for me to separate what I would like to see happen to him from what the criminal justice system should do to him.

Justice ain't about making me feel good. It doesn't filter into the equation at all. Nor should it. Occasionally the victim's demands are considered, but even that is rare and up to the discretion of the court. Let me repeat this point: justice doesn't exist so we can all feel satisfied that some person we all agree is a righteous sonofabitch gets what they deserve in our vindictive minds. The goal of justice is to punish/rehabilitate so as to reduce further crime (pitt, don't think this means I've become a member of the church of deterrence, because I'm not - if you want to have that conversation again, be my guest and start a new thread, but let's avoid that here).

Justice, according to ol' grandpa Cesare Beccaria's philosophy (upon which modern criminological thinking is all based, unless you still live in a "she was possessed by a witch, so burn her at the stake!" neighborhoods), justice should be punishment enough to prevent future reoffending by the criminal actor specific and other people generally. Of course, it's not that easy a thing to calculate - but I think that we can agree that she needs to be charged with something, this "let's fry her" mentality is wholly grounded in irrational and emotion-based thinking, and is contrary to the justice system.
 
[quote name='javeryh']You don't understand because you don't have kids. Also, it has nothing to do with what it's like to be a two-year-old - it has everything to do with being a responsible parent who knows the mystical inner secrets of life that those without their own kids couldn't possibly hope to fathom.

I can honestly say that I thought I knew what having kids meant before it actually happened and that you will love them and take care of them and blah, blah, blah but in reality I didn't understand because I didn't have kids. You just can't explain it.[/quote]
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Best...lawyer...ever.


http://www.explosm.net/comics/828/
 
[quote name='javeryh']You don't understand because you don't have kids. Also, it has nothing to do with what it's like to be a two-year-old - it has everything to do with being a responsible parent who knows the mystical inner secrets of life that those without their own kids couldn't possibly hope to fathom.

I can honestly say that I thought I knew what having kids meant before it actually happened and that you will love them and take care of them and blah, blah, blah but in reality I didn't understand because I didn't have kids. You just can't explain it.[/quote]

OK. Well taking this logic further, your comments aren't valid on when you aren't

And if you don't own a dog - how could you hope to understand the Vick case!

Your position is ridiculous on it's face, but how could you see this as a parent who is overwhelmed with emotions that are in fact just a neat trick of your genetic code's method of replication - ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I don't have kids yet, but I think I understand. There are two responses going on here: those who think that the CJ system should do its job, and those who think she should be drawn and quartered on Pay Per View.

That's fine; emotive responses to criminal issues are typical. I found my threshold tested over the Michael Vick affair, where it was hard for me to separate what I would like to see happen to him from what the criminal justice system should do to him.

Justice ain't about making me feel good. It doesn't filter into the equation at all. Nor should it. Occasionally the victim's demands are considered, but even that is rare and up to the discretion of the court. Let me repeat this point: justice doesn't exist so we can all feel satisfied that some person we all agree is a righteous sonofabitch gets what they deserve in our vindictive minds. The goal of justice is to punish/rehabilitate so as to reduce further crime (pitt, don't think this means I've become a member of the church of deterrence, because I'm not - if you want to have that conversation again, be my guest and start a new thread, but let's avoid that here).

Justice, according to ol' grandpa Cesare Beccaria's philosophy (upon which modern criminological thinking is all based, unless you still live in a "she was possessed by a witch, so burn her at the stake!" neighborhoods), justice should be punishment enough to prevent future reoffending by the criminal actor specific and other people generally. Of course, it's not that easy a thing to calculate - but I think that we can agree that she needs to be charged with something, this "let's fry her" mentality is wholly grounded in irrational and emotion-based thinking, and is contrary to the justice system.[/quote]
You also have to consider the school of thought that punishment should be equal to the crime. Eye for an eye, and all that jazz. Therefore the, "Fry her," is comparable to the crime. Either that or kill her other daughter...but we won't get into that.

In addition to a sense of, "fairness," the idea is to make the criminal understand what the victim went through, and thus hopefully preventing them from reoffending because they can empathize. Of course, that doesn't always work, but it's not a completely irrational thought.
 
[quote name='camoor']OK. Well taking this logic further, your comments aren't valid on when you aren't

And if you don't own a dog - how could you hope to understand the Vick case!

Your position is ridiculous on it's face, but how could you see this as a parent who is overwhelmed with emotions that are in fact just a neat trick of your genetic code's method of replication - ;)[/quote]

Woah... I didn't say your comments aren't valid or anything like that - of course they are. It's just when that genetic code kicks in it makes your comments more valid. ;)
 
[quote name='GuyWithGun']You also have to consider the school of thought that punishment should be equal to the crime. Eye for an eye, and all that jazz. Therefore the, "Fry her," is comparable to the crime. Either that or kill her other daughter...but we won't get into that.

In addition to a sense of, "fairness," the idea is to make the criminal understand what the victim went through, and thus hopefully preventing them from reoffending because they can empathize. Of course, that doesn't always work, but it's not a completely irrational thought.[/quote]
Hammurabi.Large.jpg
, is that you?
 
[quote name='camoor']
Hammurabi.Large.jpg
, is that you?[/quote]
No, I actually shaved...and stopped being metal.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of:


dreddssht3.jpg





j/k :)

ANYWAY. I didn't say I subscribed to that line of thought, I was just bringing it up as a discussiong piece.
 
Evanft you're great at chiming in with "Myke wins." Thats great man, is he adding money to your paypal acct or anything. Why dont you change your pic to a cheerleader or something. I kid, I kid.

Back OT, as to the Hammurabi topic, we seem to mimic it (at least loosely) in some situaitons, one of which is "a life for a life" in capital punishment situations. Or in some civil situations, I once heard of a case where someones house collapsed because the construction contractors fucked up. The plaintiff go to go and take a wrecking ball to all of the contractor's homes. Har har har har.

Generally speaking we do not follow the Code of Hammurabi, we follow what we have created and it seems like myke knows it came from Beccacia or whatever his name is. Maybe its safe to say that some people think (although not necessarily the majority) that deterrence MAY be another function/purpose for the CJ system.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Evanft you're great at chiming in with "Myke wins." Thats great man, is he adding money to your paypal acct or anything. Why dont you change your pic to a cheerleader or something. I kid, I kid.[/quote]

:lol:
 
UPDATE2: Apparenlty the prosecutor's office is starting to draft up a law because of this.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070913/NEWS01/309130040

“I suggested that we add a section to the child endangering law that would penalize people for negligent conduct,” White said.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that current law allows charges only if someone has acted recklessly. That legal standard applies to someone who disregards a known risk, but it doesn’t cover forgetting about a child.
Click to expand...

Oh, and get THIS quote from the, "mother," about the creation of the new law:

“I don’t now how you punish somebody for something that was an accident,” Nesselroad-Slaby said Thursday of White’s proposal. “A law is to prevent something, but you can’t prevent something that’s an accident.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone is starting to feel less and less guilty and more and more not wanting to be punished for her stupidity.

I guess that there's no way to prevent accidents according to her. So everyone, just disregard everything you've ever learned and go do what you want, when you want to and don't worry about the consequences. Because apparently if you didn't mean to do something on purpose, then it's all ok. Go to the bar in the morning, drink all you want, go driving around some schools at the end of the school day and accidentally run over some kids and hit a few parked cars. Hey if you don't mean to do it and it's an accident, it couldn't have been prevented, right? :roll:
 
So, she said this in reference to those calling for her to be fired, and those telling the schools that they'll pull their children if she is not fired.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070915/NEWS01/70915019

“I wish they knew me,” Nesselroad-Slaby says of the critics. “I’m an incredibly loving mother and a hard-working professional – and I could never have done something like this on purpose.”
Click to expand...

Does she not realize that it doesn't matter that she wouldn't do this on purpose? The point is that if she can be this idiotic with her own child, then how can they expect her to remember someone else's child?


Damn, the more I hear about this woman the more and more I dislike her.
 
It seems to me that a good faith argument can be made that recklessness is a viable charge becasue an infant roasting to death in a hot car is a "known risk." This may just be the lawyer in me but surely overheating in hot car in an area with a hot climate is a known risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top