ConHog
Rookie
- Jun 4, 2010
- 14,538
- 951
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #101
BUT - consider THIS:
CH's federal statute sets forth a crime when parents allow a child to engage in something that involves imminent danger of injury or death. We have seen that "imminent" means "immediate" or "just about to happen."
I had commented that there is no "imminent" danger when a presumably competent sailor sets out to sail solo around the world. There is danger that might come up along the way, but there is nothing "imminent" and, in fact, the sailor may make it safely around the world with no problems at all.
But what if the parental consent is for something that most certainly will result in serious injury or death - but at a later time, i.e., the danger is not "imminent" when the parental consent is given? Take this sailing example. There is certainly a great risk involved in what this young girl attempted to do. The parental consent was given at the start of the trip, when nothing was "imminent." But does the fact that the real danger won't come up until the girl is well into the actual voyage, remove the parents from the purview of this statute?
If life-threatening danger is a given, then what difference does it make when the parental consent is given relative to the time when the life-threatening danger occurs? Isn't parental consent for an activity that will be life-threatening for the child a violation of the statute, regardless of when the danger arises - just so long as it is foreseeable that it could arise?
Child wants to walk to the zoo, jump into the lion cage and feed the lions by hand. Parents give the child consent. It could be argued that it takes two hours to walk to the zoo and, therefore, the danger is not "imminent" when the consent is given. Think that would pass muster for avoiding prosecution under the statute? I don't.
If something terrible had in fact happened to the 16-year-old sailor in this case, I think the parents could have been prosecuted under the first part of the federal statute, which criminalizes serious injury or death when it has actually happened. ("Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation.")
The act also criminalizes parental consent where such consent might result in harm to the child. ("An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm")
Since no actual harm occurred, then the only possible proscution would be under the second part of the statute. I guess what I am very long windedly saying here is, that I don't think analyzing this type of situation on the basis of "imminence" of the potential harm is proper. Rather, I think it should be analyzed on the basis of degree of risk.
Analyzing it in this manner makes it a much closer call as to whether the parents could come under the purview of the second part of the statute. I'm not saying they would, but it becomes a much closer call.
Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
Am I wrong in my reading of the law because it seems to me that you are saying that the harm actually has to occur, but by my reading it doesn't , reasonable people just have to agree that it COULD ?