Three year old dropped by mother to death at Zoo (Pittsburgh: cars, rating)

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

The fine would be nominal; the real punishment would be undergoing a trial and enduring additional social sanction (and therein lies the deterrence).

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

I just think this is an opportunity--not to shame this woman--but to bring greater awareness to child safety issues.

You don't want to shame this woman, just to punish her by some type of social sanction that is somehow completely different from shame?

[Clint.]

I usually engage in serious reflection of criminal justice system consequences before committing crimes; 10 years in prison is not enough of a deterrent so I commit those crimes pretty casually...I can't do anything more than 10 years, though, so crimes punished more severely than that are a big no-no in my code of criminal conduct.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

You don't want to shame this woman, just to punish her by some type of social sanction that is somehow completely different from shame?

Shaming someone for the mere sake of shaming them (retributism) =/= shaming someone with a utilitarian purpose in mind (consequentialism), and even then I wouldn't advocate going hard--just hard enough.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Clint.

I usually engage in serious reflection of criminal justice system consequences before committing crimes; 10 years in prison is not enough of a deterrent so I commit those crimes pretty casually...I can't do anything more than 10 years, though, so crimes punished more severely than that are a big no-no in my code of criminal conduct.

I wasn't suggesting that's how it works. It all combines to form a more subtle, subconscious effect that incorporates with our sense of right and wrong.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

The fine would be nominal; the real punishment would be undergoing a trial and enduring additional social sanction (and therein lies the deterrence).

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

I just think this is an opportunity--not to shame this woman--but to bring greater awareness to child safety issues.

That's demented. A trial would only torture the parent unnecessarily. The tragedy alone has promoted awareness of child safety. The death of a child is a bigger deterrent than any legal consequences. Based on what we know, this was an accident, not child abuse. As a result, your target audience is parents who love their children.. I'm amazed you would think that legal consequences matter to the them more than the lives of their children.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Hopes

I'm well aware. There is no way they would pursue it against an entity in this scenario. No way. No how. It being possible is irrelevant because it just won't happen. That's what I took issue with in your previous post. The police are not investigating the zoo for negligence. Their focus is on the mother. Any action taken against the zoo will be civil. You can cite laws all you want, but I'm talking about what will actually happen..

I never said action would be taken against the zoo; I was talking about the mother.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Hopes

That's demented. A trial would only torture the parent unnecessarily. The tragedy alone has promoted awareness of child safety. The death of a child is a bigger deterrent than any legal consequences. Based on what we know, this was an accident, not child abuse. As a result, your target audience is parents who love their children.. I'm amazed you would think that legal consequences matter to the them more than the lives of their children.

Demented? LOL I expect better from you than to moral grandstand and call names. You're more than welcome to disagree with me, but take it easy with the insults.

[aw_now_what]

"HeavenWood
The fine would be nominal; the real punishment would be undergoing a trial and enduring additional social sanction (and therein lies the deterrence)."


What? This is incredible. The deterrence to any parent is the very idea that harm might befall one's child, not the abstract concept of a trial for the child's accidental death. I don't even have kids and I understand that.

She will not be charged, nor should she be.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Shaming someone for the mere sake of shaming them (retributism) =/= shaming someone with a utilitarian purpose in mind (consequentialism), and even then I wouldn't advocate going hard--just hard enough.

As long as you can spell consequentialism correctly, you must be thinking only of the greater good.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

As long as you can spell consequentialism correctly, you must be thinking only of the greater good.

Just one man's opinion. My criminal law professor taught some interesting theoretical perspectives but based on his own extensive practical experience. We once discussed a scenario very similar to the case at hand, and I guess he rubbed off on me in that regard.