Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

[Big RR]

Sue--while consistency in the application of laws is important, I also believe that prosecutorial discretion is likewise important. Prosecutors are not automatons who must act in the same way each time, they are people who should have the ability to exercise discretion in the application of the law based on the situation. Much as the chief exectuve has the discretion to pardon crimes when the circumstances suggest it, the prosecutor should also have discretion as to whether to prosecute or not. Clearly not all crimes can or should be prosecuted, and deciding which to prosecute (or not) aand how to use the limited resources of the state should reside with the prosecutor.

Now you do point out the specific points which should be considered in a case such as this, I just don 't think it is an open and shut case that the law was broken and prosecution is warranted. That's why we hire people to prosecute crimes, not computers.

[Sue U]

I don't think it's open-and-shut either, but I had looked at it as simply a division in functions between the role of the prosecutor in charging and the role of the court in sentencing. But BSG rightly points out that prosecutorial discretion doesn't only mean declining to charge; there is also the option of negotiating a plea deal with a sentencing recommendation, or a "pre-trial intervention" alternative, that offers the opportunity both for the state to assert its interests and for the defendant to be redeemed. And quite frankly, I think there is some real personal value for the defendant as well in entering a formal admission of guilt, doing his service and subsequently having the charge dropped or the conviction expunged. It is not a useless proceeding.

[Big RR]

There may be value in some cases, less (or none) in others, and i'm not so sure here. After losing a child due to one's own stupdity/thoughtlessness/negligience/recklessness, any slap on the wrist or allocution (or worse punishment) is likely to be of little value in many cases. Of course, we don't know all the facts, so I can't really say with much certainty what the case is here. Many of us make pretty stupid mistakes in life (I recall driving my kids around on a riding mower while mowing the lawn, e.g.), but I can't think of any worse punishment than realizing I severely hurt/killed my child (or any child) due to that stupidity, and piling additional penalties on would serve little purpose.

[Andrew D]

What if? What if? What if?

As I set forth explicitly, my comment was directed to this:

We have another where man drives drunk, wrecks and is paralyzed. Some folks say he shouldn't be prosecuted because his paralysis is punishment enough.

In that case -- brought up by someone else, not by me -- no child was involved. No other person was involved. Only the now-paralyzed driver was involved.

As I set forth explicitly, the issue which I raised is:

What purpose would be served by prosecuting someone whose allegedly "criminal act" injured only him?

(Emphasis added.)

Sure, what he did "could just as easily" have resulted in harm to someone else. But it did not.

Results matter. There is a real and meaningful difference between my stabbing a cutting board while thinking of someone whom I hate and my stabbing the person whom I hate.

And we should not look at this in the navel-gazing abstract. If we are going to imprison this guy, then we will have to pay for his imprisonment. Speaking only for myself, I do not find myself willing to shell out my hard-earned dollars for the upkeep of someone who has injured no one but himself.

[Lord Jim]

As I pointed out in an earlier discussion, the law does not (nor should it) punish equally those actions that could have resulted in a tragedy, and those that actually do result in a tragedy....

This is why the punishment for DUI isn't as severe as the punishment for vehicular manslaughter....

[oldr_n_wsr]

(I recall driving my kids around on a riding mower while mowing the lawn

I've done that. Actually it's safer for the kids on the lawn mower than anywhere else in the vicinity, as rocks/sticks can (and do) shoot out from under the mower and could cause injury. Can't get hit by those objects riding the mower.

ETA
I even taught both my kids how to drive the mower. A local K-Mart was having an obsticle coarse "race" on their own lawn tractors and I had my kids out in the yard practicing. Son won for 10 year olds, but the daughter "crashed" into one of the barriers during the "race". She cried.

[Big RR]

oldr--yes they can't be hurt by objects shot out from the lawnmower, but if a kid fell off the mowe and gut hurt by the blade, I guarantee that some would be yelling you/I should be prosecuted for recklessness. Likewise for a kid driving the mower him/herself.