Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke1985
Well then that state made its decision and I can live with that.
And no, I don't know that exact number.
In Indiana, right now, there is a case in which my some class-mates of my future sister in law had been taking some substances and got into a car crash. The driver in this case was 16, he's in a coma now, out of the four people in his car and the two people in the other car, he's is only one out of two survivors. Now if he dies the prosecutor in this case has stated he's planning on pressing charges on the boy's mother.
Also I'm pretty sure in Michigan if a minor commits a crime at the discretion of the proper legal authority can be brought against the parent.
So am I ignorant?
|
I use the word "ignorant" in the proper definition. As in, "not knowing".
I readily admit I am ignorant on many, many things.
So don't take it as an insult.
The case you stated...there is liability on behalf of the parent for doing something like giving the kid access to drugs, etc. Maybe it is giving the kid the car when you know they are under the influence. No different than a bar getting charged for keeping alcohol flowing to patrons who then drive drunk.
But in the first situation about the brick...there is nothing that Tom did wrong. Unless he gave the brick to Suri and told her to go do the damage, which would make him an accomplice, he did nothign wrong.
BIG difference there.
(oh, in the future, it might help your argument if it didn't rely on the classmates of a cousin's friend who is going to be related to me by marriage possibly. You ever play the telephone game? A bunch of people sit side by side and the person on the left whispers something to the person on their right, who then whispers it to the person on their right, etc. When it finally gets to the end the original statement is drastically changed?)
------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
A point of this thread is what the law ought to be in regard to proxy medical decisions where denying medical care supposedly based on the proxy decision maker's religious beliefs is the given reason for denial.
Why should someone's allleged religious beliefs have any legal standing whatsoever in regard to making a proxy decision in medical matters for someone else?
|
Why?
First amendment.
Combined with Parental Rights.
Between the freedom of religion, and parental rights (which override the rights of strangers on raising a child), it pretty much allows that decision to be made.
And I think that is the way it should be. Yes, there are those rare situations which death results. Tragic and horrible. I wouldn't make that decision. Yet that parent still has the right to determine the matters of their child more than I do.
If you start saying "society" has more power than parents, you open pandora's box, allowing such things as the courts to determine whether a grounding is appropriate, at what point, etc.
Once you get to that point, why should any parent be involved in being a "parent"?
If I can't parent my child without government looking in over every little thing, then why not just save me the time, effort, and aggravation and turn the child over to the government?
After that, I wouldn't have to worry about things like the cost of raising the child. Let the government worry about it. Cause if there is something everyone knows...the government is the most efficient and logical solution to any problem...(sarcasm...heavy sarcasm).