The Nanny State

[basilio]

You've gone over the top Julia.

Protecting children from their own inquisitiveness, childishness and vulnerability is a, IMO, partially a community responsibility. That is the rationale behind compulsory, proper fencing of pools, school crossing guards, safety house systems etc. We look after each other.

Every parent has experienced their children or a friends getting into mischief. Thats just the nature of being a child. Trying to prevent every "escape" is impractical or so overbearing it creates it's own problem.

We don't know the full story of this incident beyond the death of the child and the allegation that the pool fence was inadequate. The court will consider the degree of negligence of the pool owner. We don't have enough information to make an informed decision. (But then we can always have opinions can't we ?)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

But having said all that there is a case for parents supervising their children while they are swimming. (This is a different case isn't it ?) I did find a refrence to the number of children who drowned in pools in NSW. Between 1996 and 2010 there were 114 drowning deaths of children

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...GDN2rq&sig=AHIEtbQakLVwIHBsPoJnC77RWyc6D9c9MQ

 

[McLovin]

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.

No it doesn't. Manslaughter, and murder, can involve either the commission or omission of an act. This isn't some new law either, it's been around since Federation in Australia and I'm sure it's been around in the UK since pretty much day dot.

 

[wayneL]

No it doesn't. Manslaughter, and murder, can involve either the commission or omission of an act. This isn't some new law either, it's been around since Federation in Australia and I'm sure it's been around in the UK since pretty much day dot.

If that is so, pretty much any death could result in a manslaughter charge as someone somewhere, it could be purported that some omission of some act resulted in the death.

 

[Tink]

Makes you wonder where the pool was, in the front yard?
I dont know the area.
The child could have been killed on the road, same scenario.

They are both at fault.

 

[pixel]

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.

+100%
Spot on, Julia.
That's been my gripe exactly.
Agree with the rest of your comments as well.

 

[Calliope]

God! What next???

Counselling for navy rescue crew traumatised by sinkings

DEFENCE has mustered military chaplains and psychologists to treat navy patrol boat sailors traumatised by the recovery of drowned asylum-seekers and the rescue of boats in distress.

The move comes amid concern that the navy will have to cope with a spate of new rescues in the months ahead as asylum-seeker boats more frequently send out distress signals to engage Australian patrols.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ised-by-sinkings/story-fn9hm1gu-1226418314936

 

[DB008]

+100%
Spot on, Julia.
That's been my gripe exactly.
Agree with the rest of your comments as well.

+2....

 

[prawn_86]

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

Ok what if he was doing the speed limit, but his tyres were bald to the point of being defected? Even if it made no difference to stopping time as the child ran out in front of him

 

[Surly]

Ok what if he was doing the speed limit, but his tyres were bald to the point of being defected? Even if it made no difference to stopping time as the child ran out in front of him

There is a step to this process that seems to be overlooked.

If you are charged with an offence you still have the right to a trial. It is then in the hands of a judge and jury to determine guilt and allocate a sentence.

The circumstances play a part in both. It may be that in your example it is shown that brand new tyres would of made no difference and the outcome would of been the same. It may be that the police still wish to press charges. It may be that the jury find that he is not guilty.

It is unknown just as the outcome of the charges regarding the child drowning are not known.

cheers
Surly

 

[prawn_86]

It is unknown just as the outcome of the charges regarding the child drowning are not known.

Yes i agree and have said as much, but the fact that a manslaughter charge can even be laid shows what a litiguos socitey we live in now.

Essentially you can now be charged for just about anything (corssing the road wrong, not wearing a bike helmet, failure to service your car, not wearing safety equipment etc etc), and have to prove yourself innocent, as opposed to being able to do what you want (that wasn't expressely illegal) and using common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions if things go wrong.

 

[prawn_86]

An 18-month-old boy has died after being found in an irrigation channel in south-west New South Wales.

Police says the boy's family was visiting friends at the rural property in the Murray River town of Barham, on the Victorian border.

The boy had been playing with other children, but at around 3:00pm yesterday the family noticed he was missing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-06/toddler-drowns-in-irrgation-channel/4114464

Just out now, another sad story, but should the farmer be charged? Or maybe the parents this time for letting a child wander around a farm without supervision

 

[CanOz]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-06/toddler-drowns-in-irrgation-channel/4114464

Just out now, another sad story, but should the farmer be charged? Or maybe the parents this time for letting a child wander around a farm without supervision

No one will be charged, if no laws were broken.

You need to break the law to be charged. Otherwise there could be a case for liability

Why can't people get this? If the LAW says the channel must be fenced, and it was not then they will charge the farmer. If the LAW says the parents must have the child on a lease while on the farm the they will charge the parents.

Farm deaths are very tragic and farm safety is is not treated as strictly as safety is in a workplace such as manufacturing.

Very tragic indeed...

CanOz

 

[Calliope]

If the LAW says the parents must have the child on a lease while on the farm the they will charge the parents.

Is it lawful to lease a child?

 

[CanOz]

Is it lawful to lease a child?

Sorry, i meant leash...

My point IS, if it is the LAW to do that and the LAW was broken people will be charged...

CanOz

 

[Julia]

Yes i agree and have said as much, but the fact that a manslaughter charge can even be laid shows what a litiguos socitey we live in now.

Essentially you can now be charged for just about anything (corssing the road wrong, not wearing a bike helmet, failure to service your car, not wearing safety equipment etc etc), and have to prove yourself innocent, as opposed to being able to do what you want (that wasn't expressely illegal) and using common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions if things go wrong.

+1.
And the natural outcome of this growing culture is that individual expectations of taking responsibility are diminished. Instead of a society consisting of thinking, considerate individuals, we produce robots dependent on governments instructing them how to behave.

 

[CanOz]

+1.
And the natural outcome of this growing culture is that individual expectations of taking responsibility are diminished. Instead of a society consisting of thinking, considerate individuals, we produce robots dependent on governments instructing them how to behave.

What an utter pile of rubbish:frown:.

While we are at it, lets remove the guards from machinery, the stop signs at intersections, the stop lights, the seat belts, and just trust that everyone will be responsible. What a complete and utter joke.
The majority of the population is irresponsible and needs laws and regulation. Just look at the mess the banker/wankers got us into because they had zero regulation and no responsibility for their actions.

Good grief... What world do you live in? Have you actually worked with people to learn how they behave on the whole?

CanOz

 

[Julia]

What world do you live in? Have you actually worked with people to learn how they behave on the whole?

CanOz

Yes, worked with and managed people throughout my working life. Invariably found that the greater trust and responsibility I offered those people, the more they fulfilled that expectation.
On the whole, people behave pretty much as you expect them to.

Tell them, as you are, that they are irresponsible, and they will behave accordingly.

Tell them the opposite, and they will also behave accordingly.

And please don't distort what I have said. I have nowhere suggested practical and reasonable safety measures should not exist. I have not, for that matter, said swimming pools should not have to be fenced.

I am simply attempting to broaden the discussion to a more thoughtful level, something you seem to have difficulty grasping.

 

[prawn_86]

While we are at it, lets remove the guards from machinery, the stop signs at intersections, the stop lights, the seat belts, and just trust that everyone will be responsible. What a complete and utter joke.
The majority of the population is irresponsible and needs laws and regulation. Just look at the mess the banker/wankers got us into because they had zero regulation and no responsibility for their actions.

Nothing like a bit of over-dramatisation hey Canoz?

There needs to be basic rules and safety, but there also needs to be responsibility for ones actions. If i get hit by a car when crossing the road, away from a stop light, then that is my fault. Instead they fine people for jaywalking to try and discourage it.

If i chose not to wear a harness when climbing on a roof, providing the harness has been provided and i have been told the benefits, and fall off the roof, then that too is my fault, not my employers.

etc

 

[CanOz]

Nothing like a bit of over-dramatisation hey Canoz?

There needs to be basic rules and safety, but there also needs to be responsibility for ones actions. If i get hit by a car when crossing the road, away from a stop light, then that is my fault. Instead they fine people for jaywalking to try and discourage it.

If i chose not to wear a harness when climbing on a roof, providing the harness has been provided and i have been told the benefits, and fall off the roof, then that too is my fault, not my employers.

etc

Yes Prawn, i embellished a little for effect....

People on the whole, the majority are ignorant, irresponsible, lazy, inconsiderate, self centered and emotionally unintelligent. They will think about a million other things other than their own and others well being in potentially dangerous situations.

As in the example of a workplace, it is the full responsibility of the employer to safe guard the welfare of the employees. If you choose to disregard the rules for safety it is still the fault of the employer for not properly conditioning you to always think about your safety first. I was a factory manager in my past life and i can tell you when we first started to change our behavior and think differently it was strange to me. In practice we had to train our people to think differently and behave responsibly as well as physically eliminating all hazards in as much as practically possible. The employees would still be punished for not obeying the safety rules, but the fault was on us. If you cannot manage safety you have no business managing.

A court would not see your argument about an accident being the employees fault 'because they chose to ignore the obvious benefits', unless it was demonstrated that despite all the training and conditioning they deliberately chose to ignore the safety harness. Even then there have been cases where the employer is at fault.

Education and conditioning work far better than punishment, that i will say. We have laws so that those who take no head of the former suffer the law.

As far as regulation goes, bring it on. Society had demonstrated time and time again that without it, people suffer far more than with it.

Carrot/Stick

That's my last word...enjoy your discussion.

CanOz

 

[Calliope]

As far as regulation goes, bring it on. Society had demonstrated time and time again that without it, people suffer far more than with it.
That's my last word..

I know it was your last word. but please allow me to comment. Your last statement is nonsense. Society has demonstrated time and time again that regulation leads to over regulation, which leads to totalitarian government, which leads to suffering. North Korea is a good example.