Last year, 5-month-old Daniel Hadley died three days after his mother forgot he was in the car and left him there for two hours. A month ago, a Utah court found the mother guilty of one count of misdemeanor negligent homicide and sentenced her to 18 months' probation. The Salt Lake Tribune's online community, in response to a letter to the editor entitled "Forgetting baby is murder," was deeply split between those who thought the sentence was appropriate and those who thought it was far too lenient.
I argued for the former in my comments about the letter to the editor; I did not participate in the discussion about the original news article. In the month's time that has elapsed, I have since learned that the mother in question did not call 911, but tried to cool him down herself before "eventually" taking him to the hospital. Had I known this earlier, I am not sure I would have argued so strenuously for leniency.
(Note: Reflecting my lingering interest in things Mormon -- having been an active Mormon until about 12 or so years ago, I nearly always read at least the editorial page of the Salt Lake Tribune and participate in the Comments about various editorials, columns, and letters that appear therein. I am usually drawn to debates about BushCo, Obama & BushCo, and environmental issues, so the following "local issue" represents something of a departure from my usual involvement. Although they stand reasonably well on their own, to read my comments in context, follow this link.)
A letter to the editor that appeared in the July 17, 2008 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune, which the editors titled "Forgetting baby is murder," argued strenuously that the sentence for Kamilyn Hadley of 18 months' probation for the death of her son Daniel, whom she had accidently left in her car for over two hours on a hot summer day, was far too lenient and that she deserved to be punished severely. (This tragedy occurred about two months after the death of another baby under similar circumstances, but no charges were filed in the earlier incident.) The online community was divided about the issue, and at least one other Kossack ("tOSU"--he goes by a different moniker on dkos) and I found ourselves on opposite sides for probably the first time ever.
I found the letter writer's vehemently vengeful tone appalling; as far as I can tell, the letter writer herself participated in the discussion using the name "UtahLady." Again, per my comment in the introduction, had I known that Mrs Hadley didn't call 911 immediately, I might not have been so squarely in the camp that found the sentence appropriate, although I still believe that jail time would have served no good purpose.
***
My comments:
7/17/2008 12:38:00 AM
This mother will grieve and relive the guilt and anguish of her tragic mistake all the days of her life. That seems more than sufficient punishment to me.
She is not a danger to society, so locking her up would do no good.
PS: As a mother, I was once at the beach with my first-born who was only a few months old. When it came time to leave, I couldn't find her, and looked around frantically until I realized I was carrying her on my hip all along. (Yes, really. My family found this bizarre lapse hilarious.) Post-partum hormones (including the possibility of depression) are not a trivial matter and memory problems often afflict new mothers (sleep deprivation is another factor). It has nothing to do with how much one loves one's baby nor how diligently one tries to bring one's best to the challenges of new parenthood.
***
7/17/2008 12:47:00 AM
tOSU: Even making an example of this mother is not going to lower the incidence of these kinds of mistakes. There may be a technological solution: for example, a carseat/carrier that is somehow hooked into the car's electronic system that would "notice" (by weight, perhaps) that the carseat was still occupied when the other seats are empty, and sound an alarm, for example.
The people who should be prosecuted are those who knowingly leave their kids (and pets) in the car (as evidenced by rolling down the windows a few inches)... and whose "few minutes to run an errand" turn into a much longer, and deadly, amount of time.
***
7/17/2008 2:02:00 AM
Most people cannot imagine themselves forgetting a child in a car (or anywhere else), but most people should be able to imagine how they'd feel if they did, especially if the child were injured or died because of it. If the mother doesn't feel guilt and anguish, then she's a sociopath and locking her up isn't going to do much good anyway (except for the brief period of incarceration, I suppose).
Wasn't there someone who was very recently convicted of manslaughter for leaving an elderly, incapacitated person locked in a car? It might be instructive to see what differences and parallels there were in these two situations.
UPDATE: janoose: I have a friend who watched children in her home for many years. One horrible day she went in to wake up the baby she'd watched for months... and the baby had died. (Not sure if it was SIDS or just what.) Although she was not at fault, she blamed herself, played the "what if" game, and felt intense anguish for years, and obviously could not bring herself to keep watching other people's children. As far as I know, she was lucky in that the parents of this baby didn't file suit (as they might have been encouraged to do by certain unscrupulous, profiteering members of the legal profession).
There is negligence and there is negligence (again, a new mom forgetting a baby v. a paid caregiver "forgetting" an adult seem to be two very different circumstances).
How would I feel if the baby had been mine (or been a grandchild)? Would I want revenge? (Because that's what it would amount to.) I hope I never have to face the issue. But the point is moot: this woman caused the death of her own child, and assuming that she is not a sociopath, what good would it serve to add to the kind of torment she already feels? Is justice somehow better served to have her behind bars on the taxpayer's dime? Will she have "learned her lesson better" by being in prison? Good grief.
***
7/17/2008 2:31:00 AM
I'm not privy to all the details in this case, but I certainly can understand how a sleep-deprived person (for example--are there any new mothers who aren't sleep-deprived?) can forget a great many enormously important things, possibly even including a quiet, sleeping baby in the back seat of a car. It's horrible to contemplate. Did I ever start walking away from my own locked car and then remember my child(ren), the treasure(s) of my heart, in the back seat? It was a long time ago, but I honestly suspect I did so, and likely more than once. (And I have three good reasons--my kids--to consider myself a responsible and conscientious mother, even though I grappled with post-partum issues including memory problems and depression.)
Thank God I remembered. "But for the grace of God go I" (and you, and good people generally)... and that's why I draw a line between this tragic situation and situations in which people deliberately choose to put their children, other people, and their pets, at risk.
***
7/17/2008 4:13:00 AM
If in fact the mother in question made a conscious decision to leave her baby in the car, then I agree with you. But if she simply, tragically forgot, then I don't. (UPDATE: Having read several different accounts now, it is clear to me--and to the judge who heard the case--that she left her baby in the car unintentionally.)
This lady will pay a price for what she did all her life (imagine the impact on her marriage and husband as well). The judge may have given her a year's probation, but she carries this with her for her entire life. And what sentence would be appropriate? Punish her enough, and there will be another untimely death -- hers (I assume the counseling is to keep her from committing suicide; I would certainly feel self-destructive had I made such a horrendous mistake).
Further, I ask again: what good would it do to lock her up at taxpayer expense? What good would it do her other two young children? (The U.S. leads industrialized nations in its incarceration rate, and yet our crime rate is no better than nations whose first thought is not to put people behind bars.)
I realize I am projecting my feelings onto this situation, but I do not see the benefit to anyone by desiring to punish this woman further. I think it highly unlikely that new laws, regardless of severity, will have any impact whatsoever on the incidence of children being left in cars unintentionally. (Someone out there probably has some data to compare the rates between states with and without laws.) Insofar as passing another such law (and the publicity the process would receive) might make careless people think twice, then fine.
***
7/17/2008 4:46:00 AM
tOSU: There have been similar incidents in France, of course. But to get thrown in jail here, people generally have to intentionally commit violent crimes or (if a public official) violate the public trust. Fines and suspended sentences and community service are the norm. It's cheaper and just as effective than the knee-jerk response of throwing people in jail for [pick among the many kinds of offenses and crimes possible].
***
7/17/2008 5:27:00 AM
UtahLady: I know what it's like to come within a hair's breadth of life-or-death tragedy because I forgot something important, so perhaps I can empathize and understand how such a hideous thing can happen to someone else. Is there anyone out there who has not made the mistake of letting something "urgent" take precedence over something more truly important? In this case, the consequences were dire. (May we all be so fortunate to avoid making mistakes of such magnitude, given that each and every one of us has moments of "unfitness" in our jobs and roles.)
(As an aside, it's not clear to me that helping to provide for her family qualifies as "putting her own needs above her child's," although being distracted by the effort obviously played an enormous role in this situation.)
As I (and I imagine you) do not have access to the court transcripts, we are left to draw our own conclusions from the various incomplete news accounts. The judge who heard all the testimony and circumstances decided that it would be inappropriate to impose a more severe sentence, and according to at least one account, there was a huge debate in the prosecutor's office about whether to bring charges against Mrs Hadley at all. It was thought that the very act of bringing her to trial would serve as a warning to others.
Nothing can be done to bring back Daniel Hadley. The bottom line for me is that with all the facts and testimony in hand, the judge decided, rightly in my opinion, to show mercy and not compound this family's tragedy by putting the mother in jail.
Finally, do you think Mrs Hadley hasn't thought over and over and over about how her precious baby suffered and died because of her? How could jail be worse than this? How would it help?
***
7/17/2008 9:46:00 AM
UintahSea: A person who impulsively lashes out in violence (whether by fist or with a weapon) seems to me much more likely to present a danger to society than someone like the mother in question.
stirthepot: The accounts I have read state that she was dealing with business, presumably to help support her family. Does earning a living really qualify as a "selfish interest"?
But again, I remind people that we here were not in the courtroom. The versions I have heard just on this board about this woman's frame of mind, demeanor, activities, and so on seem to be at variance from what I have read in newspaper accounts. The judge heard all the testimony, saw all the evidence, found her guilty, but showed compassion and mercy... because it wouldn't just be punishing her were she to be sent to jail. Her remaining children (and others) would be punished as well.
For those who insist that she got off easy, I am curious: what if this woman were your sister or daughter or other loved one, or even your own wife? (Or husband, son, brother.) What kind of punishment would you want for someone you love? What kind of penalty would you want someone you love to pay in addition to the accidental, tragic loss of her own child?
***
7/17/2008 12:31:00 PM
stirthepot, you wrote in response to my question, "Does earning a living really qualify as a 'selfish interest'?" with "When making money becomes more of a focus then being a responsible parent, Yes! The old saying 'money can't buy you love'"... and then proceed to assert that my questions about the appropriateness of further punishing this woman somehow constitute "defending her reckless behavior," that I have been "brainwashed" to put money above all else, even to buying a seat in "Kolob" (a curious interjection of Mormon terminology for this discussion), and finally finishing with calling into question my own worthiness and ability to be a good mother (a bit moot, given that my children have grown up to be productive, sensible, and genuinely pleasant adults). Why is such a personal attack necessary?
I do not defend the woman's reckless behavior. She clearly was deeply distracted by her business concerns and as I read what reports are available, there were other unusual circumstances contributing to her tragic lapse as well.
What I question is the wisdom and efficacy of punishing this woman further either as a means of deterrence or as societal vengeance for the baby's suffering and death.
I don't believe this woman is "going on her merry way" (to quote another writer)... her life has become a nightmare because of an unintentional act. Besides her own personal hell, clearly there are more than enough people willing to call her a murderer and to shun her and to punish her socially in myriad ways to "make up for" the judge's decision. To them, such treatment is no more than she deserves. (For those who believe in God, I can't help but wonder why "blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" isn't under consideration here -- and note that there is no prerequisite discussion about being merciful only to those who are worthy of it.)
***
Thus endeth my SLTrib comments. I recognize that there are many nuanced degrees or levels of negligence in accidental deaths. For example, recently two 13-year-old boys in Corsica accidentally killed an 8-month-old baby who got hit by one of the rocks they had been throwing off the ramparts of Bonafaccio's old city wall. It was a stupid game. They weren't trying to hit anyone. They've been put in an adult penitentiary pending trial (which I think is completely inappropriate -- surely there are juvenile detention facilities on Corsica??). What should be their punishment in this case? For me, I largely hold with what the (non-Corsican!) French tend to do wrt jail: they don't lock people up except in cases of violent crime, repeated criminal acts, and/or violation of public trust (as in political corruption). Fines, probation, and public service seem more beneficial and appropriate punishments, and are far less costly alternatives.
But then, I am a bleeding-heart liberal.