'What is murder?'

[Pitbull]

The writer is a MyBB forumite and found this bit very interresting and thought you guys might want to put it up for debate.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Colleen_Figg/0,,2-1630-2120_2520642,00.html

Colleen Figg

The news on Tuesday of the father who drove over and killed his two children has unleashed a storm of very acrimonious debate all over the internet.

One forum member on the M&G Forum kicked off a thread on the subject by stating that if the article had reported the matter correctly, the father should be "sent away for life" as "clearly, they [the children] were not wearing seatbelts". (A sentiment I strongly disagree with, by the way. I really feel for this father and for the family).

This unleashed a volley of replies, pro and con, but a point raised by many was how a common oversight (the father not strapping the children in) becomes a crime when tragedy occurs.

Yet this same thing happens in every area in this country, judging by how many people complained of seeing parents with toddlers standing in the front seats, in the back seats of in between the seats. (A sight common to all of us, I think).

We were brought up wearing seatbelts before a law was promulgated to the effect that anyone in a car must wear a seatbelt, and for us it is second nature. Not so for many others.

My question is: is it criminal for a parent to disregard a "soft" law like the seatbelt law which is rarely enforced and if a man should be sent to jail for life as a result of a fatal accident arising from his children not being strapped in, then what should the penalty be for these parents who let their children leap, stand and clamber all over the car while they are driving?

Is the sight of a baby standing in the front seat something we should mutter about while we sit in traffic, or is it something we should report by way of taking photographs, noting down the registration number and reporting the parent/s to the police for immediate arrest and conviction?

Will the law ever allow a parent to be strongly convicted for a misdemeanour now that could become a crime later?

Meaning, if no accident ever occurs, all the parent will be guilty of is extremely bad judgement but if the child is injured or dies in an accident they'll become guilty of manslaughter or murder, depending on the charge.

Should we as a society start coming down hard on acts of casual negligence such as children not being strapped in?

Furthermore, if we go as far as to really push for strong enforcement on the seatbelt question, can we then hold government responsible for potholes that result in the death of people in cars, too?

Can liquor store holders be prosecuted for creating alcoholics? Will parents be called to account if they do not give their children a properly rounded education and do not see that their emotional IQ is well enough equipped to make intelligent fulfilling life decisions instead of self destructive ones?

What, after all, is murder?

I don't agree with calling for the head of the father. Losing his 2 kids is by far the worst punishment a father could ever have to endure.

Appart from that:

. Bakkies don't have Childlocks (The single cab bakkies). If the kids where strapped in, who are we to think the kids would not have gotten out of the seat belt anyway?
. It was a farm road (Not that I say they should not have been buckled up)
. Can you buckle up 2 kids in the front seat of a bakkie?

It was a very tragic incident and I personally believe that the father was not guilty of anything.

But that is just my POV

 

[koeks]

The writer is a MyBB forumite and found this bit very interresting and thought you guys might want to put it up for debate.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Colleen_Figg/0,,2-1630-2120_2520642,00.html



I don't agree with calling for the head of the father. Losing his 2 kids is by far the worst punishment a father could ever have to endure.

Appart from that:

. Bakkies don't have Childlocks (The single cab bakkies). If the kids where strapped in, who are we to think the kids would not have gooten out of the seat belt anyway?
. It was a farm road (Not that I say they should not have been buckled up)
. Can you buckle up 2 kids in the front seat of a bakkie?

It was a very tragic incident and I personally believe that the father was not guilty of anything.

But that is just my POV

+1

 

[koeks]

The writer is a MyBB forumite and found this bit very interresting and thought you guys might want to put it up for debate.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Colleen_Figg/0,,2-1630-2120_2520642,00.html



I don't agree with calling for the head of the father. Losing his 2 kids is by far the worst punishment a father could ever have to endure.

Appart from that:

. Bakkies don't have Childlocks (The single cab bakkies). If the kids where strapped in, who are we to think the kids would not have gooten out of the seat belt anyway?
. It was a farm road (Not that I say they should not have been buckled up)
. Can you buckle up 2 kids in the front seat of a bakkie?

It was a very tragic incident and I personally believe that the father was not guilty of anything.

But that is just my POV

i also had an accident last year. i ran over a child... very sad

 

[Nerfherder]

I don't think that he is guilty of murder, he made a mistake with tragic consequences.

People who let their small kids jump around a car do piss me off though... there should be big fines for doing that.

 

[Pitbull]

I don't think that he is guilty of murder, he made a mistake with tragic consequences.

People who let their small kids jump around a car do piss me off though... there should be big fines for doing that.

I agree 1000%

Big fines should be issued, but also for not using your seatbelt. I myself am very guilty of this. I only put it on when I hit a highway. But it's a proven fact that the most accidents happen in suburb areas and about 5 kilometers from home

I say fine us all big amounts for not wearing our seatbelt and revoke the licenses of people not strapping their kids in. I'm guilty of that too

 

[Nerfherder]

Stopping suddenly at 60km/h is enough to kill a small child.... I think that a lot of people don't even think about that.

You have to allow for the way other people drive

 

[Picard]

Back to the OP ...

This will be corrected someday and one day we will look back and say "those people in the beginning of the 21st century really had a backward justice system.

Just as we look at medieval justice systems, where one one could lose a hand for just stealing a loaf of bread, as barbaric, so will our eventual grandchildren look upon ours.

 

[milomak]

Single cab bakkies don’t have child locks? Wow I find that amazing.

If he took reasonable steps to ensure the children’s safety then he should not be charged. But if he is found to have been negligent then he must face the law.

After all, if I kill an adult by accident will you also afford me the same sympathy of having to live with the guilt or will you say I must face the law?

As an aside, the first thing I do when I get into my car is to put on the seatbelt.

 

[Picard]

But if he is found to have been negligent then he must face the law.

Would you also condemn a person in the same manner who is negligent but where nothing happened

 

[Nanfeishen]

I say fine us all big amounts for not wearing our seatbelt

Why?
Personally i have a problem with these "soft laws", or as i refer to them "regulations".
I should have the choice not to wear my seatbelt or crash helmet. Why should i be fined for exercising my choice?
Yes, i could be injured by not wearing either one, yes, I could also be killed as a result, but it it still my choice at the end of the day, knowing full well that i could suffer from the consequences of my actions, and still choosing to do so.
I say if people want to wear seatbelts, fine, the car is fitted with them, but dont fine people for exercising their freedom of choice not to.

 

[bwana]

Does SA have a provision for negligent homicide?

 

[milomak]

Would you also condemn a person in the same manner who is negligent but where nothing happened

the law punishes consequence. so i am not sure what you are getting at.

but i condemn people who put their children at risk when in vehicles (if that is what you are asking)

Does SA have a provision for negligent homicide?

cases of culpable homicide are opened (as i think it is in this case)

 

[Nanfeishen]

Does SA have a provision for negligent homicide?

South African criminal law confines negligence to reasonable
foreseeability of death.

Common-law crimes:
Our law does not know the crime of negligent injury or negligent assault.

Criminalisation of negligent / unintentional behaviour
Our common law does not punish negligent harm or negligent injury/endangerment, since negligent behaviour is normally not regarded as blameworthy. This general approach may, however, be adapted when the public interest is seriously threatened by negligent behaviour. Our common law does punish the negligent killing of another person, and on occasion the legislature has intervened ÷ in the case of firearms and motor vehicles, which are regarded as dangerous tools and a threat to the safety of others which require special diligence in their use. The legislature has in these instances decided that the actual and potential incidence of negligent driving and of negligent use of firearms is substantially damaging to society.

The Road Traffic Act25 provides that no person shall drive a vehicle on a public road recklessly or negligently.26 A fine not exceeding R24 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six years or both the fine and imprisonment may be imposed for reckless driving.27 For negligent driving, a fine not exceeding R12 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or both such fine and imprisonment, may be imposed.28

The Arms and Ammunition Act29 provides that any person who discharges an arm and thereby negligently injures or endangers the life or limb of another person, or who handles an arm in any negligent manner, whether that arm discharges or not, is guilty of an offence.30

Extracts from following link
http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=6991&P_ForPrint=1

 

[bdt]

I don't agree with calling for the head of the father. Losing his 2 kids is by far the worst punishment a father could ever have to endure.

Fair comment on how he's now in a very private hell - that, any which way you dice it IS of his own making or, put another way, he's culpable; not, I would say, of murder, but of homicide. Which, like it or not, has to carry a penalty. Going by (what VERY little) we 'know', this case is very different from the one where the father shot and killed his daughter: that was more like manslaughter, as in accidental/unintentional ..as in, this all hinges on intent.

Appart from that:

. Bakkies don't have Childlocks (The single cab bakkies). If the kids where strapped in, who are we to think the kids would not have gotten out of the seat belt anyway?
. It was a farm road (Not that I say they should not have been buckled up)
. Can you buckle up 2 kids in the front seat of a bakkie?

Notwithstanding we the chattering classes know nothing of what actually went down, questions like 2 small kids in a single seat and not in their own childseats have to be answered. Sad to say, but there's no getting around the fact of the decision making - and therefore responsibility-bearing - parent has to account for WHY he did what he did.

It was a very tragic incident and I personally believe that the father was not guilty of anything.

If nothing else, negligence applies.

And, pulling from the article: we have laws that explicitly state children should be strapped in and yet we've all seen kids in cars of ALL price ranges not strapped in. Now, we can froth at the rich folk not strapping in, going by the fancypants cars they drive they've *obviously* (...right?) got the lousy grand or so to pony up for the required standard seat. But what about the lower-income ones, you know the kind: 80's-ish old bangers with dull paint jobs and the like and visibly not well off parents - what about them?

Well, they can get the bloody car seats too - that grand I mentioned above is NOT the low-water mark and they're available in Edgars and the like, places you can get the seat on account if they can't afford up-front. Hell, they've got the eating/crapping/growing machine anyway: the cost of that car seat weighed up against feeding/clothing/baby care gets really small, even over the course of a single year.

 

[bdt]

People who let their small kids jump around a car do piss me off though... there should be big fines for doing that.

Quite, and I doubt you would find ANYone against that idea, only ...have you got any ideas on how to get the bloody useless uniformed/uninformed "kakbroeke" to, you know, do actual law-enforcement instead of just feeding off the bleeding carcase that is the South African motoring public?

 

[Nerfherder]

Quite, and I doubt you would find ANYone against that idea, only ...have you got any ideas on how to get the bloody useless uniformed/uninformed "kakbroeke" to, you know, do actual law-enforcement instead of just feeding off the bleeding carcase that is the South African motoring public?

Just found some one in this very thread who has a problem with that....

Why?
Personally i have a problem with these "soft laws", or as i refer to them "regulations".
I should have the choice not to wear my seatbelt or crash helmet. Why should i be fined for exercising my choice?
Yes, i could be injured by not wearing either one, yes, I could also be killed as a result, but it it still my choice at the end of the day, knowing full well that i could suffer from the consequences of my actions, and still choosing to do so.
I say if people want to wear seatbelts, fine, the car is fitted with them, but dont fine people for exercising their freedom of choice not to.

The above poster should be prevented from driving on our roads AND from having kids !

By keeping yourself safe you keep everyone else safe...it is also your responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe.

 

[LillPienkPawny]

Why?
Personally i have a problem with these "soft laws", or as i refer to them "regulations".
I should have the choice not to wear my seatbelt or crash helmet. Why should i be fined for exercising my choice?
Yes, i could be injured by not wearing either one, yes, I could also be killed as a result, but it it still my choice at the end of the day, knowing full well that i could suffer from the consequences of my actions, and still choosing to do so.
I say if people want to wear seatbelts, fine, the car is fitted with them, but dont fine people for exercising their freedom of choice not to.

The problem with your line of thought is , when you are in an accident and you have a serious injury due to you not wearing a safety belt maybe you get disabled for life you will still want to claim from the Road Accident fund or the state will have to find a foster home for your kids, if such an event occurs the state is also involveed as is every tax payer.

 

[Nanfeishen]

JThe above poster should be prevented from driving on our roads AND from having kids !

Why?
I am not advocating reckless driving , drunken driving, nor am I endangering any other road users by my personal choice.

By keeping yourself safe you keep everyone else safe...it is also your responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe.

Kindly explain why my not wearing a seatbelt effects you as a fellow road user, or in any way endangers you or your family on the road.

 

[bdt]

*sigh* yes, that's ...not hugely smart. Look, his viewpoint that he's got the choice is in effect because the *snort* law "enforcement" don't, they just plunder (well, I'll give them around 3% actual, real policing level) the motorist for all they can get.

But his position opens up the can of worms that is whether seatbelts work: just consider that modern cars with their curtains of explosive baggies all around the occupants DEPEND on said soft-bags-of-mostly-water being restrained, so as not to get too badly smashed by the explosively opening bags in the kind of crash severe enough to fire them ..and potentially save the occupants.

Then there's the regrettable way people (all too inevitably) refuse to take accountability for their actions and, post-crash, look around for someone to sue and so cash in on THEIR refusal to comply with the law.

 

[Nerfherder]

Why?
I am not advocating reckless driving , drunken driving, nor am I endangering any other road users by my personal choice.


Kindly explain why my not wearing a seatbelt effects you as a fellow road user, or in any way endangers you or your family on the road.

When you come flying out the window and hit my car you endanger me ! It happens a lot.

You also sap up the medical aid, hog the ambulances, clog up the road with your dead body and waste tax payers money. The state takes responsibility for your stupidity... even though you don't !