ITA
Very, I mean very enlightening that the prosecution does not need to show/prove intent.
Why even have a trial, just charge him and sentence.
It's a proven fact RH was the one that caused the death of his son. I thought the whole question was accident or murder.
What's the sense of all the news - the hype - getting public opinions - testing/retesting of cars/car seats if there's no need to prove accident/murder.
:doh:
my opinion, etc. :moo:
Lets be reasonable. They still have a lot to prove.
Also in Georgia, a conviction for felony murder may be predicated on second degree child cruelty, which qualifies as that "inherently dangerous felony." That's what has happened so far in this case. The prosecution has charged Harris with second degree child cruelty, and used that charge as the predicate felony for the murder charge. There's just one problem: The second degree cruelty charge is a negligence crime.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/08/opinion/cevallos-hot-car-felony-murder/index.html
link to the the case cited in the article above (blue text is embedde link), White vs State, was appealed and the appeal was unsuccessful. The mother was found guilty of the child cruelty and neglect and murder of her daughter.
Janice White appeals her convictions for felony murder while in the commission of cruelty to a child in the second degree, aggravated assault, and cruelty to a child in the first degree, in connection with the death of her infant daughter, Daija White. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and vacate in part.[SUP][1]
[/SUP]https://www.courtlistener.com/ga/88Uz/white-v-state/
The defendant in that case left her infant daughter with a man who continually abused the 10 month old. The baby had layers of bruising on her little body from belts. She had been shaken hard enough to cause injury. There is no way, based on her statements to LE and the layers of bruising that his woman didn't know what was happening to her little girl.
I have NO problem with this woman being convicted of felony murder. I wish the charge was available in every state to deal with people who allow their new mates to torture their kids.
because it is more complex than that IMO which is why there is so much debate about these charges.
The murder guilt hinges on the neglect charges. So when we analyse all this, we have to think about what is the burden of proof on the neglect charge. Does he have to be conscious that he is committing a neglectful act? Does he have to be aware he is doing something neglectful that could result in death?
That is where the nitty gritty of the debate goes IMO.
It looks as if there are those who view it like this:
If he genuinely forgot his child was in the car but the mere act of forgetting constitutes that level of neglect then
a) that is basically saying forgetting a child in a car is automatically always 2nd degree neglect, which in the state of GA also means you can be charged with felony murder.
or
b) if awareness is the burden of proof then the individual must be proven to have had that AWARENESS to be proven guilty
Then there are others who seem to feel
If you leave your child in the car, aware or not, forgot or knew, and that child dies, you are straight up guilty of criminal neglect and therefore also guilty of felony murder under the law as written in GA. (no a or b, just one road to travel and all roads lead to guilty - I fall into this school )
I'm taking a look at what crimminal negligence means in the State of Georgia. I found this.
So it doesn't mean an intentional act but it implies knowledge of probable consequences and also willful or wanton disregard of the probable effects. To me, for the state to prove criminal negligence, which is required for the 2nd degree child cruelty and then the felony murder to be applied, a willful or wanton disregard must be proven.
To me a willful or wanton disregard for the death of a child is a deliberate and unprovoked act. I'm not sure how that could happen unintentionally. It seems that intent would be involved somehow.
How will a jury see this?
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/the-crime-of-reckless-conduct-in-georgia
Here's what I wrote, guys, that may explain it better. (It's not perfect but it's pretty good):
This is what they would need to find in order to find him guilty of felony murder:
1. Ross Harris knew the likely consequences of forgetting or leaving Cooper in a hot car for hours. He had a reasonable "foresight" of the probable injuries of being left in a hot car.
2. He deliberately or recklessly disregarded the consequences of forgetting Cooper or was neglectfully indifferent to Cooper's rights and safety (did not care).
3. As a result of Ross Harris' reckless disregard of the consequences of leaving Cooper in a hot car, or as a result of his neglectful indifference to the rights and safety of Cooper, Cooper died.
4. Cooper died in a cruel and/or excessively painful manner.
It is unnecessary to find that a) Ross intended to kill Cooper. b) Ross intended to cause serious bodily harm to Cooper.
Can they find that it was a pure accident? Well, that depends on what you mean by accident. Is it an accident if a person forgets their children in car because they decided to get super high? They know it is dangerous. They should be more vigilant, but they are reckless or indifferent about the safety of their children, because their own needs, their own desires to go get wasted are more important?
Although that is not the situation here, that is a situation that could result in the same charges and it is one in which the actual death or the harm resulting from being baked in a hot car, was not intentional.
Going off the list above, here's how I think the charges could be proved:
1. Ross had recently been made very aware of hot car deaths involving children, via reading about the Georgia safe kids in cars program and by doing independent research of how long it would take a living being to die in a hot car. He was well aware of the danger to a child resulting in such an event.
2. Despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, Ross he didn't take reasonable precautions to prevent from forgetting Cooper, such as putting belongings he needed to take, in the back seat, attaching a note to his dash, having his wife call or text him after arrival at work, etc.
- Or, despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, he was quite unconcerned about the possibility of Cooper dying in a hot car, so he forget his kid in the 30 seconds it took to turn left or right out of the Chik-fil-A parking lot, and in the 2 to 3 minute drive to work, and in the 30 seconds he sat in his car before exiting, leaving Cooper behind.
- Or, despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, he just didn't care about what happened to Cooper and was more concerned about his own affairs, such as working, sexting, going to movie, so he just left him there, possibly knowing he left him or leaving without knowing when all the facts - 30 seconds after leaving the parking lot of Chik-fil-A, he turned the wrong direction, 3 minutes in a small car with an awake Cooper, he doesn't realize he needs to drop him off, 30 seconds parked in the lot, he doesn't realize Cooper is there, despite the fact that the car seat is jammed up against the side of his face, practically - show that he should have known.
3. Cooper died because his dad, despite clearly knowing what could happen to Cooper in a hot car:
a) took no reasonable precautions to stop from forgetting him;
b) didn't care what happened to Cooper and was narcissistically immersed in his own affairs or needs and desires instead of doing what he needed to keep Cooper safe, so he forget him;
c) knew Cooper was in the car but cared more about his own needs than Cooper's life or safety;
d) reasonably should have known Cooper was in the car, and should not have forgotten him under the circumstances, because a halfway decent parent would not have forgotten under those same circumstances.
4. Cooper died horribly with great suffering as shown by the frantic injuries to his head and face and his open eyes and protruding tongue.
I think that practically, the jury would have to find much more than a pure accident that could happen to many people - you know, a lot on the mind, little sleep, uncharacteristically quiet/asleep child during the drive, constant phone calls or distractions during the drive, a difference in routine that day, etc.
But they don't have to go all the way to finding he intended to murder Cooper or even that he intended to cause him any harm.
