Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
here's where the hypocrisy kicks in: if the mother died during delivery, under the logic we're seing, shouldn't the baby be convicted of manslaughter?
|
Actually, no. There are two types of manslaughter under the law, neither of which apply here:
1. Voluntary manslaughter. The defendant had the intent to kill, but due to circumstances surrounding the crime, the higher offense of murder is not appropriate. Usually this means that the defendant acted in the "heat of passion," i.e., husband walked in on his wife getting it on with another guy and freaks out and shoots them both.
Here, there's no way we can conceive of a newborn having the intent to kill the mother. Regardless, usually young children are not viewed as capable of forming criminal intent anyway. (Example: a 2 year old picks up a gun that someone carelessly left within reach and somehow fires it, killing his older brother. The 2 year old is not going to be sent to jail for murder.)
2. Involuntary manslaughter. The defendant acted in a way that was "reckless," resulting in the accidental death of another person. Generally this means that there was a very substantial risk of serious bodily harm or death, and the defendant was aware of this risk but still committed the act.
Under some jurisdictions, there is also a lesser crime of "negligent homicide," where the risk was there and the defendant "should have been" aware of it.
Regarding the baby, there's no way that its conduct can be viewed as either reckless or negligent. All the baby did was get born. (It seems to me that the baby doesn't really do much - isn't the work all done by the mother?)
Here's an example: Bob is driving his car down the road, obeying all laws and safety rules, and in the bike lane to Bob's right, Joe is riding a bicycle, also obeying all the rules. Joe hits a rock or hole that he didn't notice, and the impact knocks him suddenly off his bike and into the road. Bob has no time to react and hits Joe, killing him. While Bob caused Joe's death, he clearly didn't have the intent to do so, nor was he acting negligently or recklessly.
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
Valkyrie is completely correct, in my mind, in the way she's broken the situation down. Are you going to start putting mothers in jail for not getting enough folic acid? it's a simple extension of the principle being stated already, and the consequences are nearly as bad.
|
From my understanding the deal with folic acid is that it helps prevent birth defects that while serious, would not occur in the majority of births. It's also a matter of degree, where ideally pregnant women would eat all their veggies and take vitamins to hit the target level, but pretty much everyone gets at least some folic acid in the average diet. Also, I was under the impression that the most important time for folic acid is actually right before you get pregnant - not when you're pregnant.
But here's the real issue: No, we are NOT going to put mothers in jail for not getting enough folic acid. As you put it, that's an "extension" of the principle. One of the points of criminal laws is to draw a line - what conduct does our society want to prohibit, and what will we allow, or in other words, how far do we want to "extend" the reach of the law?
I would think that most people could see a difference between not always following a perfect diet and a pregnant woman drinking alcohol, especially so late in pregnancy (i.e., in the 8th or 9th month, when the child could be born at any time and be healthy), and especially so severely as this article suggested.
Linear Mode
