Quote:
Originally posted by guthmund
These are the rules of society that are enforced by our justice system.
|
That was my point.
The debt is owed to society, not to the justice system.
Ultimately debts can only be owed to people or persons, though institutions (banks, companies, justice systems) can act as intermediaries.
By saying that we owe the debt to the system/intermediary we can often mistakenly create some extra agent that confuses the picture. The real issue is what would society want. What would serve societies best interests. How would society want the debt being repaid. When we think of it in those terms the debt can be repaid in many ways - we may simply decide (as I think many posters have) that any debt to society should be repaid by showing love to his remaining family and atoning to them as best as possible. But if we think of the debt being owed to the Justice System then of course it can only be repaid with a judicial sentance (prison, fine etc.) because those are the tools of the Judicial System.
I think you are right to keep asking "why should this man be different", if we can't answer that then we should admit we are wrong.
My answer is:
I do not think that the criminal system punishes pure "accidents". Now I know a person might be sued (espcially in America) for a pure accident [I believe the babysitter who shot a child whilst unloading a gun they had found was sued, not taken to criminal court] but that is not a criminal prosecution.
Now some "accidents" *are* criminal prosecution cases. I believe that these cases come under the term "criminal negligence" and the key to them is that a person/company knew of the risks of their actions but did not take them seriously or weigh them correctly.
In the case of this father he did not fail to weigh the risks. He simply didn't know there was any risk. Noone in their daily life gets out of an empty car and thinks "now what is the risk of the cat being in the boot? insignificant. okay, I can lock it up." Similarly this father did not get out of the car and think "now what is the risk that my son is in the car? [looks in back and sees nothing - because seat was backward facing] insignificant. okay, I can lock it up." The idea that his son was in the car completely left his mind - through no deliberate fault or decision to ignore vital information - never to return.
Now the police have come to press charges, but my personal suspicion (and it is just that) is that there has been a public outcry which has prompted this. [part of which meant that this particular case made it onto TFP and probably Fark.com?]
What I would want to know before making any more concrete decisions:
1) Have cases of pure accident (cleaning the gun and innocently shot the wife**) come before a criminal court? What were the charges and the rulings?
2) Were charges brought in the other killer-car-oven cases? What were the charges and the rulings? If no charges, why not?
** I am not even sure that the gun and the car case are the same. In the gun case if the cleaner
knew it was loaded and then failed to take the appropriate safety precautions (i.e. they ignored knowledge) then it is different to if the cleaner did not know that the gun was loaded and as they were taking down off the shelf it just went off in their hands.