Who's Babysitting YOUR Keets???

[RinglingRingling]

my point is that unless you are inside the other person's head, there is no way you can know for certain that the feeling of loss and/or remorse is greater on one side or the other.

You can say the same about any murderer, child abuser, pedophile, arsonist, bank robber, thief or (put any crime here). And as BB said, who cares about their feelings of remorse. They committed the crime, they are no longer fit to reside in society.

you are entitled to your opinion.

So you are saying that people that do these things should not be punished for their actions?

if that is how you are reading what I have said, there is no reason to try illuminating you any more.

[green1]

my point is that unless you are inside the other person's head, there is no way you can know for certain that the feeling of loss and/or remorse is greater on one side or the other.

You can say the same about any murderer, child abuser, pedophile, arsonist, bank robber, thief or (put any crime here). And as BB said, who cares about their feelings of remorse. They committed the crime, they are no longer fit to reside in society.

you are entitled to your opinion.

So you are saying that people that do these things should not be punished for their actions?

if that is how you are reading what I have said, there is no reason to try illuminating you any more.

I asked a serious question, and you come back with this drivel. Can you not have a conversation without insulting another person? Illuminating? Hardly, obfuscating your thoughts behind "you are entitled to your opinions" is more like it.

[buffettbride]

my point is that unless you are inside the other person's head, there is no way you can know for certain that the feeling of loss and/or remorse is greater on one side or the other.

You can say the same about any murderer, child abuser, pedophile, arsonist, bank robber, thief or (put any crime here). And as BB said, who cares about their feelings of remorse. They committed the crime, they are no longer fit to reside in society.

you are entitled to your opinion.

So you are saying that people that do these things should not be punished for their actions?

if that is how you are reading what I have said, there is no reason to try illuminating you any more.

If we held all of society to the argument you're proposing, R2, then we would have no way to punish criminals since, according to you, there is no way to measure the guilt or remorse a person feels in their own head about ANY crime. We simply would have no criminal justice system at all.


And seriously, if mr. green and I are both agreeing to something, there is likely to be some merit to it.

[flyboy55]

my point is that unless you are inside the other person's head, there is no way you can know for certain that the feeling of loss and/or remorse is greater on one side or the other.

You can say the same about any murderer, child abuser, pedophile, arsonist, bank robber, thief or (put any crime here). And as BB said, who cares about their feelings of remorse. They committed the crime, they are no longer fit to reside in society.

Perjury?

Scooter Libby won't be residing in society for 30 months (less time off for good behavior).

The baby-sitter does have a moral responsibility for what happened, and while the law dictates that she is an adult, I think it was demonstrated in this case that she lacked the maturity to understand her responsibilities.

I have no idea what kind of punishment she should get.

I question the judgment of the mothers of the children. One of the mothers, apparently aware of the baby-sitter's condition, quizzed her on her ability to stay awake. This troubles me. How many of us would leave a small child with a baby-sitter who showed up to work after an all-night party?

If I were to leave my child with a known drug dealer, and that child was subsequently killed in a drug war crossfire (this happened recently), am I guilty of a crime or just stupid or just desperate for childcare options?

On that last note, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, viable childcare options are unavailable in some areas and the parent may be forced to take what's available or face losing their job. Many employers don't make ANY allowances for their employees' childcare issues, and in the case of those who lose their jobs through putting their children first, many jurisdictions don't like to see mothers at home on welfare providing their own childcare by raising their own children.

Very tragic all around - and I don't think the death sentence, for example, would solve anything in this case.

[RinglingRingling]

my point is that unless you are inside the other person's head, there is no way you can know for certain that the feeling of loss and/or remorse is greater on one side or the other.

You can say the same about any murderer, child abuser, pedophile, arsonist, bank robber, thief or (put any crime here). And as BB said, who cares about their feelings of remorse. They committed the crime, they are no longer fit to reside in society.

you are entitled to your opinion.

So you are saying that people that do these things should not be punished for their actions?

if that is how you are reading what I have said, there is no reason to try illuminating you any more.

I asked a serious question, and you come back with this drivel. Can you not have a conversation without insulting another person? Illuminating? Hardly, obfuscating your thoughts behind "you are entitled to your opinions" is more like it.

think what you like. You go with pejoratives, it doesn't encourage discourse. I have obfuscated nothing.

[buffettbride]

You can say the same about any murderer, child abuser, pedophile, arsonist, bank robber, thief or (put any crime here). And as BB said, who cares about their feelings of remorse. They committed the crime, they are no longer fit to reside in society.

you are entitled to your opinion.

So you are saying that people that do these things should not be punished for their actions?

if that is how you are reading what I have said, there is no reason to try illuminating you any more.

I asked a serious question, and you come back with this drivel. Can you not have a conversation without insulting another person? Illuminating? Hardly, obfuscating your thoughts behind "you are entitled to your opinions" is more like it.

think what you like. You go with pejoratives, it doesn't encourage discourse. I have obfuscated nothing.

Using big words here only makes you sound more retarded.

[RinglingRingling]

you are entitled to your opinion.

So you are saying that people that do these things should not be punished for their actions?

if that is how you are reading what I have said, there is no reason to try illuminating you any more.

I asked a serious question, and you come back with this drivel. Can you not have a conversation without insulting another person? Illuminating? Hardly, obfuscating your thoughts behind "you are entitled to your opinions" is more like it.

think what you like. You go with pejoratives, it doesn't encourage discourse. I have obfuscated nothing.

Using big words here only makes you sound more retarded.

thanks.. you're entitled to yours too

[flyboy55]

you are entitled to your opinion.

So you are saying that people that do these things should not be punished for their actions?

if that is how you are reading what I have said, there is no reason to try illuminating you any more.

I asked a serious question, and you come back with this drivel. Can you not have a conversation without insulting another person? Illuminating? Hardly, obfuscating your thoughts behind "you are entitled to your opinions" is more like it.

think what you like. You go with pejoratives, it doesn't encourage discourse. I have obfuscated nothing.

Using big words here only makes you sound more retarded.

I always try to simplify my vocabulary here, and I STILL sound like a DUMBA$$, (according to some).

[bocanuts]

I see Red Xs!!!!!!!!!!

[green1]

And seriously, if mr. green and I are both agreeing to something, there is likely to be some merit to it.

Why thank you BB.

I think.

[flyboy55]

. . .
And seriously, if mr. green and I are both agreeing to something, there is likely to be some merit to it.

Unsupported by the evidence.

[pbans]

Very tragic all around - and I don't think the death sentence, for example, would solve anything in this case.

It's not a death penalty case.....she's charged with involuntary manslaughter, very appropriate in this case. In PA that is a first degree misdemeanor, a person convicted thereof may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of which is not more than five years.

The law already takes in to account levels of culpability. She did not INTENTIONALLY cause the death of the children, she NEGLIGENTLY caused the death of the children. Certainly, it makes them no less dead and the grief of the parents no less real.....but from a purely legal standpoint, there is a difference.
One would hope that somewhere in her sentence there is some sort of treatment for alcohol abuse. I'm not making a judgement as to whether or not she is alcoholic, but clearly....alcohol is causing negative behavior in her life. A five year sentence would give her time to either grow up and accept responsibility or become institutionalized and spend the rest of her life in and out of jail. In my mind, at that point it would be up to her how to respond.
I also agree that there is some culpability on the part of the parents. Not criminally and they will deal with that for the rest of their lives, but no way on God's green earth would I have left my infant daughter in the care of teenager who is impaired. If it meant losing my job, so be it. Her (the mother's) awareness of the impairment is documented.
I don't know, it's easy to armchair quarterback it.....I've been so blessed with childcare options and have never had to spend a minute worrying about the quality of my daughter's care.......
Bottom line, very avoidable tragedy.......bless their little hearts.

[flyboy55]

Very tragic all around - and I don't think the death sentence, for example, would solve anything in this case.

It's not a death penalty case.....she's charged with involuntary manslaughter, very appropriate in this case. In PA that is a first degree misdemeanor, a person convicted thereof may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of which is not more than five years . . .

Just to be clear, I was using the phrase 'death sentence' as a rhetorical flourish (apologies to BB). I only mentioned it because whenever something happens like this some folks' immediate response is to 'lock em up and throw away the key'.

The case makes for an interesting discussion of personal responsibility. I am no stranger to the concept. The nature of my job ensures that WHATEVER happens on one of my flights on any given day will ultimately make its way onto my shoulders, rightly or wrongly. If I screw up badly enough and the ultimate catastrophe happens, my mistakes and final profanities will be recorded for posterity (and the FAA/NTSB) on various recording devices.

However, folks involved in my profession have invested enormous amounts of time and energy in forensic examination of aviation incidents/accidents, NOT to assign blame, but to try to figure out why things go wrong in the first place. Armed with this knowledge, the safety record of commercial aviation has been steadily and dramatically improved.

Not so in some countries, where flight safety has made little progress because accidents are dealt with as criminal acts - the pilots are held personally responsible and, if still alive, dealt with as criminals. Because these nations approach accidents as acts which must be punished, they lose the benefit of learning from mistakes which might have been made, thus dooming passengers in their transportation systems to a higher number of preventable accidents.

I think the principle could be usefully applied to other areas of our society where we struggle to reduce tragedies and criminal activity and increase personal responsibility for actions. That's why, aside from exploring personal responsibility and culpability, I'm also interested in finding out the 'wherefore and the why' so as to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future.

[rednekkPH]

I'm also interested in finding out the 'wherefore and the why' so as to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future.

The "wherefore and why" is easy: The babysitter was plastered, and the child's mother was either too stupid or indifferent to heed the all-too-obvious warning signs.

[green1]

Perjury?

Scooter Libby won't be residing in society for 30 months (less time off for good behavior).

Scooter Libby was found guilty of perjury in court. He should sit in jail until his sentence is served. I may not agree with the case, but that is irrelevant. I do not agree with the pardon parade that occurs on the last day of a presidents term. It is a mockery of the judicial system. Which flawed as it is, is far superior than the althernative.

[sy]

I'm also interested in finding out the 'wherefore and the why' so as to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future.

The "wherefore and why" is easy: The babysitter was plastered, and the child's mother was either too stupid or indifferent to heed the all-too-obvious warning signs.

I haven't the foggiest what the real reason would be. I re-read the original quoted article, and the line "police also focused on Steward's failure to back out of the baby-sitting job, even when Maggie Kovski's mother offered to care for the children herself" clearly exhibits that the mother knew something was wrong, whether it be she was really too tired, or drunk (I'll give her lee-way in that maybe she really couldn't pick up on the girl being drunk). Then she let the girl sleep some more.

It says that the mother needed to go to work, but the fact that she offered to watch them clearly indicates that it was not a dire situation that she absolutely had to leave (from what I can get from the article).

From the recorded actions of the mother, she obviously had concerns about the girl. Just doesn't make complete sense as to why she still left them in her care.

[horseyparrot]

Very tragic all around - and I don't think the death sentence, for example, would solve anything in this case.

It's not a death penalty case.....she's charged with involuntary manslaughter, very appropriate in this case. In PA that is a first degree misdemeanor, a person convicted thereof may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of which is not more than five years . . .

Just to be clear, I was using the phrase 'death sentence' as a rhetorical flourish (apologies to BB). I only mentioned it because whenever something happens like this some folks' immediate response is to 'lock em up and throw away the key'.

The case makes for an interesting discussion of personal responsibility. I am no stranger to the concept. The nature of my job ensures that WHATEVER happens on one of my flights on any given day will ultimately make its way onto my shoulders, rightly or wrongly. If I screw up badly enough and the ultimate catastrophe happens, my mistakes and final profanities will be recorded for posterity (and the FAA/NTSB) on various recording devices.

However, folks involved in my profession have invested enormous amounts of time and energy in forensic examination of aviation incidents/accidents, NOT to assign blame, but to try to figure out why things go wrong in the first place. Armed with this knowledge, the safety record of commercial aviation has been steadily and dramatically improved.

Not so in some countries, where flight safety has made little progress because accidents are dealt with as criminal acts - the pilots are held personally responsible and, if still alive, dealt with as criminals. Because these nations approach accidents as acts which must be punished, they lose the benefit of learning from mistakes which might have been made, thus dooming passengers in their transportation systems to a higher number of preventable accidents.

I think the principle could be usefully applied to other areas of our society where we struggle to reduce tragedies and criminal activity and increase personal responsibility for actions. That's why, aside from exploring personal responsibility and culpability, I'm also interested in finding out the 'wherefore and the why' so as to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future.

Interesting, flyboy. I can see what you're saying. It always seems in cases like this that a combined "comedy of errors" occurs to create the final catastrophe, (i.e.--babysitter made bad choices, mom made wrong judgement call, etc...) rather than just a straight-up, someone blatantly kills another. I don't know which is worse. What I worry about is that it's so hard to determine 'adequate punishment' for someone.

RR's right in some respects (if i'm understanding what he posted); if a normally responsible, decent person with morals and a good sense of right and wrong inadvertantly caused a child's death, the oceans of guilt and hell they'd put themselves through would be worse than anything the legal system could do to them. (people have committed suicide over things like this)

But, how do you account for the differences in people? There are people out there who literally seem (to me) to walk around with a bag over their head in regards to personal responsibility and how their actions affect others. (i even have family members who are oblivious in this regard) (Paris, anyone?) Someone like that needs a 'wake-up call' of sorts to drive home the fact that they were part and parcel to a serious catastrophe. Others are already 'in the know' and living in a personal hell.

I think a lot of times, convicted criminals are 'overly given' the benefit of the doubt and treated as better than they are. (i.e.--no death penalty, even though there's not an ice cube's chance in hell of them ever changing)
Consequently, there have been plenty of cases where people are wrongly accused, not given a fair trial, or 'made an example of' when they shouldn't have been.

Either way you look at it, it's a 'sticky wicket' with no easy solutions. Personally I feel that there are too many people who go around w/ the attitude, 'It was someone elses fault/the devil made me do it.'

[RinglingRingling]

Very tragic all around - and I don't think the death sentence, for example, would solve anything in this case.

It's not a death penalty case.....she's charged with involuntary manslaughter, very appropriate in this case. In PA that is a first degree misdemeanor, a person convicted thereof may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of which is not more than five years . . .

Just to be clear, I was using the phrase 'death sentence' as a rhetorical flourish (apologies to BB). I only mentioned it because whenever something happens like this some folks' immediate response is to 'lock em up and throw away the key'.

The case makes for an interesting discussion of personal responsibility. I am no stranger to the concept. The nature of my job ensures that WHATEVER happens on one of my flights on any given day will ultimately make its way onto my shoulders, rightly or wrongly. If I screw up badly enough and the ultimate catastrophe happens, my mistakes and final profanities will be recorded for posterity (and the FAA/NTSB) on various recording devices.

However, folks involved in my profession have invested enormous amounts of time and energy in forensic examination of aviation incidents/accidents, NOT to assign blame, but to try to figure out why things go wrong in the first place. Armed with this knowledge, the safety record of commercial aviation has been steadily and dramatically improved.

Not so in some countries, where flight safety has made little progress because accidents are dealt with as criminal acts - the pilots are held personally responsible and, if still alive, dealt with as criminals. Because these nations approach accidents as acts which must be punished, they lose the benefit of learning from mistakes which might have been made, thus dooming passengers in their transportation systems to a higher number of preventable accidents.

I think the principle could be usefully applied to other areas of our society where we struggle to reduce tragedies and criminal activity and increase personal responsibility for actions. That's why, aside from exploring personal responsibility and culpability, I'm also interested in finding out the 'wherefore and the why' so as to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future.

Interesting, flyboy. I can see what you're saying. It always seems in cases like this that a combined "comedy of errors" occurs to create the final catastrophe, (i.e.--babysitter made bad choices, mom made wrong judgement call, etc...) rather than just a straight-up, someone blatantly kills another. I don't know which is worse. What I worry about is that it's so hard to determine 'adequate punishment' for someone.

RR's right in some respects (if i'm understanding what he posted); if a normally responsible, decent person with morals and a good sense of right and wrong inadvertantly caused a child's death, the oceans of guilt and hell they'd put themselves through would be worse than anything the legal system could do to them. (people have committed suicide over things like this)

yes. evidently it wasn't entirely drivelly..

But, how do you account for the differences in people? There are people out there who literally seem (to me) to walk around with a bag over their head in regards to personal responsibility and how their actions affect others. (i even have family members who are oblivious in this regard) (Paris, anyone?) Someone like that needs a 'wake-up call' of sorts to drive home the fact that they were part and parcel to a serious catastrophe. Others are already 'in the know' and living in a personal hell.

I can't. I just know how I would feel in this situation.

I think a lot of times, convicted criminals are 'overly given' the benefit of the doubt and treated as better than they are. (i.e.--no death penalty, even though there's not an ice cube's chance in hell of them ever changing)
Consequently, there have been plenty of cases where people are wrongly accused, not given a fair trial, or 'made an example of' when they shouldn't have been.

Either way you look at it, it's a 'sticky wicket' with no easy solutions. Personally I feel that there are too many people who go around w/ the attitude, 'It was someone elses fault/the devil made me do it.'