The Nanny State

[prawn_86]

I find it deeply concerning that the charge is manslaughter, perhaps negligence causing death (if there is such a statute), but not manslaughter.

Well expressed, my thoughts also.

I can appreciate the prosecutors are trying to send a message, and it's probably not the childrens family pushing charges, but surely its some form of negligence charge (at worst), rather than manslaughter

 

[Surly]

Wayne,

While I hate the nanny state the reason there is a fence is to stop children entering the pool area and drowning.

The reason there is a penalty for not having a proper fence is to convince you you need to have a fence to stop children entering the pool area and drowning.

If you do not have an adequate fence and a child drowns...

Quite a long bow to draw to align this with someone slipping off of a roof.

cheers
Surly

 

[wayneL]

Wayne,

While I hate the nanny state the reason there is a fence is to stop children entering the pool area and drowning.

The reason there is a penalty for not having a proper fence is to convince you you need to have a fence to stop children entering the pool area and drowning.

If you do not have an adequate fence and a child drowns...

Quite a long bow to draw to align this with someone slipping off of a roof.

cheers
Surly

I don't think so at all.

Manslaughter implies an act that inadvertently causes a death, for instance, playfully throwing the child in the pool and he drowns.

I cannot accept that passive negligence is manslaughter.

If I build a dam on my 5 acre property that some kid drowns in, is that manslaughter?

 

[pixel]

I still find it a deplorable sign of Nanny State that forces home owners to fence themselves in simply because parents need a scapegoat for their own shortcomings.
Before the pool fencing laws were introduced, parents were aware -

• of their responsibilities in supervising their kids
• they had to teach kids the difference between their own and other people's properties
• of the need to be especially vigilant around dangerous areas
• that accidents could happen

All of that went out the window, creating complacency and the need to always find somebody else to blame. The latter is of course ably assisted by ambulance-chasing members of the once respected Legal profession.

 

[McLovin]

I find it deeply concerning that the charge is manslaughter, perhaps negligence causing death (if there is such a statute), but not manslaughter.

Negligence causing death is just a variant of manslaughter. Manslaughter, unlike murder, is a pretty wide concept. The defense will argue that the nexus is toward the lower end of the scale (ie the defendant is removed from the event) while the prosecution will argue that his inaction directly caused the death of the child.

 

[prawn_86]

Manslaughter, unlike murder, is a pretty wide concept. The defense will argue that the nexus is toward the lower end of the scale (ie the defendant is removed from the event) while the prosecution will argue that his inaction directly caused the death of the child.

So the scenarios Wayne listed could be considered manslaughter? If so that is quite disturbing

 

[wayneL]

Let's avoid trying to parse a hypothetical. In simple terms, the law requires that a pool be fenced. The pool wasn't fenced (or was inadequately fenced) and as a result of the negligence of the pool owner a child died. I don't see how it can't fit within the definition of manslaughter.



Negligence causing death is just a variant of manslaughter. Manslaughter, unlike murder, is a pretty wide concept. The defense will argue that the nexus is toward the lower end of the scale (ie the defendant is removed from the event) while the prosecution will argue that his inaction directly caused the death of the child.

Perhaps you can address my other hypothetical examples?

 

[McLovin]

Perhaps you can address my other hypothetical examples?

The roof, maybe.

The drunk, maybe.

The city by the beach, no.

The knife in the drawer, no.

Sorry, I'm in a bit of rush.

 

[wayneL]

The roof, maybe.

The drunk, maybe.

The city by the beach, no.

The knife in the drawer, no.

Sorry, I'm in a bit of rush.

If so, the law is dysfunctional IMO.

I'm getting closer and closer to heading for the hills with a sack of heirloom seeds and a Kalashnikov.

 

[CanOz]

If so, the law is dysfunctional IMO.

I'm getting closer and closer to heading for the hills with a sack of heirloom seeds and a Kalashnikov.

LOL! Well you're in the right country for that!

CanOz

 

[wayneL]

LOL! Well you're in the right country for that!

CanOz

I might wait for global warming to kick in... those hills are freakin' freezing!

 

[Surly]

The question to me is 'what constitutes manslaughter?'.



Where do we extend the boundaries to?

Is have a roof that someone fell off and died manslaughter?

How about having a knife in your drawer that your depressed brotheri n law topped himself with?

How about owning a car that the drunken knucklehead step out in front of and got squashed by?

How about building a city next to a beach where people drown at? Who do we charge with manslaughter there?

I find it deeply concerning that the charge is manslaughter, perhaps negligence causing death (if there is such a statute), but not manslaughter.

Reversing your argument Wayne:

if a drunk driver kills someone are they only to be charged with drunk driving?

if a person discharges a firearm in a public place and inadvertently kills someone is it simply discharging a firearm in a public place?

To me the opposite of a nanny state is accepting that while you have the right to pursue an activity or course of action, you also have to bear the consequences of your actions.

cheers
Surly

 

[wayneL]

Reversing your argument Wayne:

if a drunk driver kills someone are they only to be charged with drunk driving?

if a person discharges a firearm in a public place and inadvertently kills someone is it simply discharging a firearm in a public place?

Your two examples are bona fide examples of manslaughter IMO because the deaths directly resulted from an act they were engaged in.

This is intrinsically different from my examples.

 

[village idiot]

Reversing your argument Wayne:

if a drunk driver kills someone are they only to be charged with drunk driving?

It cant be reasonable to charge everybody caught drunk driving who doesnt kill anyone, with manslaughter.
Neither can it be reasonable to charge every drunk driver who does kill someone, only with drunk driving.

What is required is some sort of algorithm to that takes into account the level of both the original offence and the consequences if any. and that by and large is what happens.



**If drunk driving particularly offends replace with "maintains inadequate pool fence" etc

 

[prawn_86]

I have to maintain that i am still with Wayne on this one. If someone is passively involed in someones death then how can they be charged with manslaughter.

Relating it specifically to this pool case, if the person whose child it was, had a friend around, and it was that friend who distracted them by asking them to look at something, is the friend also responsible for manslaughter as they took the parents attention away from the child?

 

[prawn_86]

Or one last hypothetical that the wife just came up with:

What if the child didn't wander next door, but across the road and has hit and killed by a car unable to stop in time, doing the speed limit at the time, should the driver be charged with manslaughter?

 

[wayneL]

Or one last hypothetical that the wife just came up with:

What if the child didn't wander next door, but across the road and has hit and killed by a car unable to stop in time, doing the speed limit at the time, should the driver be charged with manslaughter?

'zackly

...and what if the child broke its neck trying to climb the pool fence?

 

[Surly]

Or one last hypothetical that the wife just came up with:

What if the child didn't wander next door, but across the road and has hit and killed by a car unable to stop in time, doing the speed limit at the time, should the driver be charged with manslaughter?

Unlike failing to comply with the law by properly fencing your pool, there is no apparent negligence in your example.

If this gentleman had complied with the law in every way required and a child had still managed to enter his pool it would be along the lines of your example.

cheers
Surly

 

[wayneL]

Another hypothetical.

Someone has a pool with fencing constructed according to the statutes.
You had a pissup last night and chocked the gate open for easy access to house and back.
You pass out, pissed as a maggot, legless, paralytic, incapable of shutting the gate (but not before the proverbial technicolour yawn).
Meanwhile, a kid crawls through the garden fence, enters the pool area, slips on the vomit and cracks his head open on the concrete and dies.

Manslaughter?

 

[Julia]

If it were my child I'm sure I'd be looking for some punishment. If they had just fenced their pool that child would be alive. How many parents out there can admit losing their kid for 5 minutes while they unpacked the groceries, or answered the phone. Does that make the parent irresponsible?

Yes. The child is the responsibility of the parent. If you can't fulfil that responsibility, don't have the child.

Transfer the situation to the beach. The family is on the beach. The kid wanders out into the sea while the parent's attention is diverted. The kid drowns. Who is responsible? God???

My opinion, i agree the punishment should be severe enough to send a message, nothing will ever get that kid back.
CanOz

The parent should have considered that before failing to supervise the kid around water.

I think your being a bit rough in this case.

Passing a law to force people to properly fence their pools was a response to regular tragedies of children falling into backyard pools and drowning. I havn't got the figures but there would have many, many heartbreaks in the past.

Not only do you not have figures, but you are apparently unaware that in many cases the pools were properly fenced but some ingenious kids dragged chairs et al from some distance away to enable them to either operate the pool fence gate or climb over the fence.
For god's sake, there's only so much pool owners should be expected to do.

Kids are curious, very quick to disappear and love water. Our community decided that we owed them some protection from their own vulnerability.

Oh, all the emotional stuff dragged out again.

The tragedy of the childs death in the pool highlights what happened on a regular basis before mandatory pool fence laws were passed.

And more drownings will happen. How are you going to legislate against all the streams, dams, rivers, and - as above - the sea.
Absolutely nothing will replace the vigilance of a parent.

I'm not against the law fencing pools, but what is the penalty if you dont? Whatever the penalty is, then that is what he should be charged/fined.

Yes he broke the law by not having his pool fenced, but none of his actions had anything to do with the child wandering into his yard.

Entirely correct.

Prawn, he's been charged with manslaughter. He hasn't been convicted yet.

No, but he is undoubtedly anxious and upset about such a charge. I sure as hell would be.
All because a parent wasn't watching the child and the child trespassed where it had no business being.

The question to me is 'what constitutes manslaughter?'.



Where do we extend the boundaries to?

Is have a roof that someone fell off and died manslaughter?

How about having a knife in your drawer that your depressed brotheri n law topped himself with?

How about owning a car that the drunken knucklehead step out in front of and got squashed by?

How about building a city next to a beach where people drown at? Who do we charge with manslaughter there?

I find it deeply concerning that the charge is manslaughter, perhaps negligence causing death (if there is such a statute), but not manslaughter.

Exactly. And all sorts of other scenarios.
We seem to have evolved into a pathetic society where we cater for the most stupid, the most careless, legislating away the rights of all others, in some sort of facile attempt to remove any semblance of danger from existence. I'm utterly sick of it.