Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium
She was 13. The concept of time and consequence is not developed.
|
This is the difference between an adult and a child.
Who of you think this woman was a "prankster"? I thought being a prankster meant short-sheeting a bed, or loosening the cap on a salt shaker - not intentionally & willfully causing another harm, especially a child. Causing harm was clearly that woman's intention.
There was a case some years ago where teen "pranksters" dug up a stop sign at a country intersection. Along comes two cars, one fails to stop and gets t-boned. Two people die. Should those "pranksters" be held responsible for causing the crash and deaths of two people? Their intention was not that anyone die.
I think there are similarities to this case. And this case is far worse given that an adult intended to cause harm to a child. So the girl in this case was not well mentally. Therefore, it somehow diminishes the stupid adult's responsibility? I don't understand that.
And as a matter of fact, words alone can cause harm. Isn't it the same thing as psychological warfare...detect a frailty (which this 'woman' knew) and conduct a course of action that alters that frailty. In this child's case, that calculated action was a factor in causing her death.
I'm glad that individual was prosecuted. She bears a great responsibility in the child's death, imo.