Also (and so I don't paint myself into the corner of appearing to argue too strongly about something, when I don't yet hold a strong opinion either way) I don't know how much of an issue it is locally, but the relationship between the prosecutor and her lawyer needs to be looked into more closely.

Obviously if she did this intentionally, then she should be prosecuted for murder. Or if she saw the baby in the back and said, "I don't have time to drop her off... It's not that hot, she'll be OK. Maybe I'll pop out between meetings and check on her..." then she is, IMO, at minimum an unfit mother. I doubt these things can be proven, but if there is any chance that the prosecutor has done less than a full investigation because of his relationship with her lawyer, then he needs to be replaced, and an independent investigator brought in.

Edit: WTF? What is the County Commissioner doing taking on individual defense cases in the first place, if he controls the budget for the Prosecutor's Office? How is such a glaring conflict of interests allowed? How many cases has he taken since becoming CC? I'll bet he has stellar defense record.

I don't have a good feel for this (I'm not a parent), but you're probably right Boris.

I'm surprised that this isn't considered criminal negligence, and that the "accident" argument stands.

I understand how one could have sympathy for this woman, but personally I find the situation intolerable. There are defining moments in people's lives - this is Brenda Slaby's, and she must be held accountable.

I'm not sure that parsing the difference between "accident" and "negligence" is particularly critical here. I don't view this situation as an accident, either way, what's clear to me is that a direct series of actions (over an 8-hour timeframe) on this woman's part led to her child's death. I believe this point is inarguable.

I don't consider myself a particularly judgmental person, but this level of "absent-mindedness" is tantamount to throwing her baby down the stairs, imo.

I am of the view that people are not held accountable enough for their actions in today's society, and in no way should she get a pass on this. If one of my children attended the school where Slaby is VP, I would take a stand and request her dismissal. We need no further evidence of her incompetence.

-Al

Look, if you're a douchebag and try to pass it off as something else, and get called on it, don't act so surprised and indignant.

You also seem to be very perverse in insisting that those who disagree with you have not thought about an issue or have closed minds. Believe it, disagreeing with you does not make anyone your inferiors. Casting them as such really sucks, though.

Blarg - some interesting points. I think you're spot on wrt her narcissism.

However, I also don't think it's necessary to plumb the depths of her psyche in passing judgment on this situation. The gross negligence on display and the resulting death of her child is enough for me.

-Al

The point is that there are degrees of carelessness, and I don't think it's an obscure one.

Agreed. It looks to me to be another feeble extension of this culture of victimhood that America seems to have so wholeheartedly embraced that we now want to make even someone who repeatedly rolls the dice on her child's life come out looking like she's just been misunderstood and is unfairly being set upon. There's a victim here all right, but it's not the mother.

Would that qualify as an ad hominem remark?

Come of that utterly silly Straw Man. Disagreeing with you is not acting superior to anyone.

I meant to respond to this earlier, but got sidetracked in all the silliness.

At two most kids are in a forward-facing seat. My daughter is small for her age and was forward-facing at age two. This makes the likelihood that mom would have glanced over her shoulder and not seen her child close to nil, IMO. I'd have to hear her explanation of how she backed up (did she look over her left shoulder? Did she use her mirrors?)

I guess the crux of the matter to me is that I'd want really strong evidence before I put her away for this. I don't see how jail helps her or society as a whole. If the concern is that she might endanger children in her care through neglect or incompetence, then she should lose her job. If there's some reason she can't be fired, maybe the school board could mandate that there always be another adult with her if she's ever going to be around children. Then her contract would not be renewed at the end of the year.

On the off chance that she wasn't malicious or willfully negligent, and just had a really really disastrous brainfart, I guess I lean toward the allow one guilty person to go free to be sure 100 innocents don't go to jail camp.

Again I'll refer back to the man in Detroit who forgot his baby in the car. (And let's assume for a second that he really was "innocent".) Should he have gone to jail? Should his wife and other children have been deprived of his presence (and paycheck)?

Thinking about this more I'm really leaning towards of the side of she knew about this, but just didn't care and therefore should be punished. My reasoning is as follows, but let me preface it by saying that I do not have children, so I'm not speaking from experience, but rather my own instincts/feelings.

I assume like 99% of other working adults with children, she probably has a picture of them on her desk. Therefore at any point she is at her desk she should see the picture of her children and be reminded of them. Even if she isn't at her desk, I'm sure most parents think about their kids often during the day (or so I'm told). Therefore, when she thought of her children, shouldn't it have occurred to her that she left one of them in the car! This is much like leaving your keys in the car and saying oh [censored], i forgot my keys, during the middle of the day or insert another example here.

I just think this whole thing is a load of crap and that saying this is a forgivable accident in the eyes of society is a bunch of bull. And then letting her return to her job with a bunch of children, as an educator, don't even get me started on that.

What if she passed a polygraph and the examiner concluded that she somehow didn't see her child in the back seat?

Should she go to jail?
Should she lose her job?
Should she lose custody of her other child?

Assuming she's married, I guess I'd answer No, Yes, No.

Having experienced something as traumatic as losing her child and facing blame for it, she's going to start believing that she didn't see her child and thus render a polygraph test unreliable.

Now hypothetically if the above weren't an issue, then my answer would be no, yes, maybe. She could keep her kid so long as she is never solely responsible for her care.

This is the biggest cop out I have seen on 2p2. You complacently dismissed DeuceKicker's perspective from the get go. He replied by rationally outlining his case, as well as pointing to some clear problems with yours and the hypocrisy evident in your criticisms of him. Then you turn around and just dismiss that as well! Not only that, but you have the gall to suggest that he is the one complacently assuming an air of supperiority.

I guess it can be hard having your views challenged when you've already determined beyond all doubt that you're right, though.

Anyway, that's not my fight, so whatever. I just couldn't let it go unmentioned.

FWIW, I'm sorry to railbird The Lounge. I got to this thread late and don't have much new to contribute. Like DeuceKicker, though, I have been struck by the ease with which people are willing to pass judgment in this case. I have also been struck by the fetish for retribution.

The problem has been that as I have read on the facts of the case have seemed to become more and more damning. I wouldn't dare try to diagnose her psychological state from a few newspaper clippings and a forum discussion, but the possibility that this was pure forgetfullness to me seems to be highly unlikely. What really shocked me was the speed with which people have been willing to jump to this conclusion.

Why should forgetfullness reduce the culpability anyway?

It doesn't work for the mother who left methadone in reach of a child.

It doesn't work for the mother who forgot her kids in a casino carpark.

It doesn't work for the mother who forgot her kids were in a bath unattended.

It doesn't work for this woman either.

I understand the concept of "me" time. In practice it is something else entirely. I have never heard anyone use the phrase who wasn't already a completely selfish [censored] who was already at the point of neglecting their kids. It is why I see the phrase as a derogatory remark rather than what it's original intention was.

"Me" time in practice is always at the expense of others - in this day and age that usually means kids and grandparents get to spend a lot of time with each other while mum & dad indulge their habits. If this really was about a bit of time out and balance it would never be a problem. People who don't have these issues, don't tend to use the phrase.

The McCanns did - within days of their daughter going missing they needed some 'alone' time up a mountain. That is [censored].

Wow I find the quantity of times that presumption being stated as clear and obvious fact, and condemnation where there is some doubt about what happened and how it played out very, VERY depressing and distasteful

I'm glad there's been at least a few reasonable posts which basically suggested maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge, and give good reasons why we shouldn't.

'Doesn't work' how? It's difficult to make sense of your point here, and it's impossible to comment on one line descriptions of different hypothetical scenarios.

What I would say, though, is that people generally seem to be completely oblivious or dismissive of what I call "life variance." I know I for one have made some terrible errors of judgment in my time, but not always have the full potential consequences of those decisions been realised. I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the loving and caring mum who, as a result of some unfortunate chain of events, forgets about her toddler in the back seat on a hot day and must accept responsibility for the death of a child. I have an enormous amount of sympathy, also, for the otherwise upstanding citizen who makes the mistake of hopping in a car drunk and goes on to have a fatal accident. That is not to say I have a relaxed approach to drink driving, I am a bit of a nazi about it if anything, but alcohol impairs peoples judgment and I don't think I have a single friend who is a driver who hasn't on occasion made the mistake of driving drunk. Humans are fallible creatures and we all make mistakes all the time. It's natural when a mistake leads directly to tragedy to judge more harshly than in other instances, but there is also a degree to which it is irrational, because huge errors of judgment go unpunished and unnoticed all the time, while some small errors of judgment destroy lives.

That is not to say that I don't think there are times where gross negligence is simply unnacceptable. It's just that my initial response when I hear stories like these is not to froth at the mouth in my impatience to cast condemnation.

And just to reiterate, the facts of this case point to gross negligence of a pretty high magnitude in my opinion, and there should definitely be questions asked about the process by which she was cleared of culpability. I am also unconvinced by the mother's public reaction to the incident which seems disingenuous (though that is based only on a couple of unverified annecdotes in this thread as well as an interview where she endlessly talks about strength through faith).

I can recall specific incidents for each of the scenarios I mentioned where the parent has been castigated publicly, charged and convicted.

Sympathy has nothing to do with it. We all feel sympathy.

Forgetfullness is a weak excuse in any scenario where someone is killed. Even moreso when that "someone" is entirely dependent on the other person for almost everything.

If a workmate forgets something that results in a workplace death then there are repercussions. If a driver forgets something and a death ensues then there are repercussions.

I can't think of any scenario where forgetfullness is an excuse for causing someone else's death. Except where kids are involved. No frothing at the mouth, no emotional rant, no lack of sympathy for those involved, and no excuses.

Sure, of course there are instances of the cases you mentioned before where people have been publicly castigated and prosecuted. And I don't mean to suggest that it's all unwarranted.

Keep in mind here that I am trying to put into words my intuitive response to these sorts of issues. So the ideas aren't 100% coherent yet, I'm still thinking my way through them.

What I would say, though, is that where a parent who harbours no ill-will (sub-conscious or otherwise) toward their child, is then responsible through sheer absent-mindedness for that child's death, I don't really think it's anyone's job to dish out retribution.

I will expand on that if anyone's interested later on, I'm having a lot of trouble organising my thoughts at the moment and I have a movie to go to.

That is a preposterous reading. The guy came in saying everyone who didn't agree with him hadn't considered the issue and was perhaps incapable of doing so. This was a long thread before he got here, and the ideas were laid out for quite some time. His simple rejection of them does not suffice as a reason to say they did not exist.

It was also an ad hominem way to make an entry into the discussion in the first place.

Yours is no wiser, and equally willful.

Exactly. The world is full of things that can be passed off as forgetfulness or any other excuse that's handy. Being forgetful is not an excuse.

Besides, I would never "forget" to not lean on an open burner with my hand. Some things are worth remembering no matter how forgetful you are. I would hope the life of one's child would be coming in toward the top of that group.

The guy came in saying exactly this:
Some people had decided that there was a 0% chance this wasn't intentional, and were calling for this woman's death and torture, and you have a problem with me saying maybe emotion has gotten the better of some? Stop being such a delicate--and hypocritical--flower.


Nuttin' to do wit nuttin'. When did anybody ever say any ideas did not exist? Are you even trying?

I thought the whining about "ad hominem" was kind of silly, but it's a typical fall-back. But this is the umpteenth time you've put words in my mouth that couldn't by the longest stretch be inferred. What's next... you gonna compare me to Hitler?

This is what The Guy read from you before he posted:
This is why I found it so ironic that you started whining about me supposedly dismissing out of hand anyone who disagreed with me.

You're saying the only people who could possibly disagree with you are stupid and dumbly empathetic. But you do throw them a bone: Not to worry, simpletons! Take heart! You're not as big a [censored]-up as this woman. How very magnanimous of you.

So I'm one of these stupid people who think there is a non-zero chance that it could have been an accident, and I'm resorting to ad hominem attacks? While you were, what, just stating the painfully obvious about we poor unwashed masses?

And then you end by saying that Michaelson's differing opinion from yours could only be the result of a lack of wisdom. The irony. It drips.

Question:

Does anyone disagree with this sentiment? Especially in this instance, which to me is beyond appalling and very easy to categorize as "gross negligence". As a reminder, her child slowly baked to death in a 150 degree environment over an 8 hour period...

Regardless of her motive or the circumstances surrounding the event, as I mentioned above, this woman is worthy of our condemnation, imo.

-Al

I kind of agree with it, but am left with the question: What do you do about it? Or maybe more accurately, what is it not an excuse from? From blame? From prison time? From loss of job?

I don't think anybody has offered a blanket excuse for this woman. She will have to live with what she did for the rest of her life.

If we're after a pound of flesh, I just don't think there's anything we can do that's worse than what she'll do to herself every time she sees the sadness in her husband's face or her own face in a mirror, or has to rock her other child to sleep who is crying over missing their sister. Every birthday and holiday she'll relive the moment she opened the car door and pulled her daughter's lifeless body out.

What more do we want to do to her, and what is our motive? Do we want her to lose her job as a protection to the children at her school? I think that's a bit of a stretch, but I wouldn't chain myself to the courthouse doors to prevent it.

Do we want to send her to jail? Why? Sorry, but I just don't buy the deterrence arguments. If losing your child is not a deterrent to other parents, jail time won't be either.

Is jail time simply punitive? If you believe in punishment for punishment's sake I guess you might favor it. I see negatives but no real positive outcomes of putting her behind bars.

Deuce - well I guess I'm of the mind that gross negligence leading to the death of a child should be punishable by our legal system in some way.

Legal guardians of children should be held accountable for their negligence. This falls under the rubric "unfit mother", and if IIRC there are laws in place that are punitive in this category (e.g. failing to comply with child seat laws).

I actually agree that this will not really serve much in the way of deterrence, if only because there are so few incidents with this level magnitude of negligence.

-Al

I agree with what you're saying. I'm usually a big proponent of accountability.

Much of the discussion in this thread has been surrounding whether she knew her baby was in the car. The phrase "she chose to..." has been used often. Just to be clear, if it could somehow be known that she knew she'd left the child in the car, then I'd be all for throwing the book at her. Hell, maybe this seems inconsistent, but if she said she knew the baby was in the car, and planned to drop the donuts off in the office and run right back out, but got sidetracked in the building, forgot, and went into her meetings, I'd have little sympathy for her.

But going on the assumption that she really did not know the baby was there, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe it is an overactive empathy gland. I have a daughter who means the world to me, and while I can't imagine doing this particular thing (if only because when my daughter's in the car you KNOW it) but I can conceive of some horrible confluence of events that would lead to her death and would be my fault.

For example; One day shortly after my daughter was born, I left for the day. As I was headed home 8-10 hours later, I was hit by the thought that I definitely had NOT turned off the iron that morning. It was something that my girlfriend and I argued about a lot. She said it was no big deal because it had an auto-shut-off timer, and I didn't think that was good enough.

So anyway, I knew that I'd meant to turn it off, but had been sidetracked by something and distinctly remembered running out the door without going back to the ironing board. I had left mother and baby sleeping upstairs, and as I turned the corner I just knew I was going to see firetrucks and a smoking ruin. (Maybe a small earthquake knocked the iron off the board and onto the box of papers I'd been meaning to move, which was directly under a few silk blouses...)

So let's say the unimaginable happened. It would be a moot point, because as soon as the police got there I'd tackle one and eat his gun. But for the sake of argument, should I be sent to jail? My brain fart directly lead to the death of the two most important people in my life.

Or what if my girlfriend died but the baby somehow lived? Should I be called an unfit parent and have her taken away from me?

If this were the third time I'd caused a house fire by leaving something on, then I could see the argument. Maybe that's at the bottom of some of the certainty that this woman is guilty; that she'd been warned before about leaving her child in the car when dropping another one off.

In the end maybe it depends on our definition of gross negligence. Blarg rhetorically asked how many times she gets to "forget" but I think it's a good question to ask, and isn't so easy to answer.