The Best Article of American Journalism in 2009

Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?

By Gene Weingarten
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 8, 2009

Quote:

---

The defendant was an immense man, well over 300 pounds, but in the gravity of his sorrow and shame he seemed larger still. He hunched forward in the sturdy wooden armchair that barely contained him, sobbing softly into tissue after tissue, a leg bouncing nervously under the table. In the first pew of spectators sat his wife, looking stricken, absently twisting her wedding band. The room was a sepulcher. Witnesses spoke softly of events so painful that many lost their composure. When a hospital emergency room nurse described how the defendant had behaved after the police first brought him in, she wept. He was virtually catatonic, she remembered, his eyes shut tight, rocking back and forth, locked away in some unfathomable private torment. He would not speak at all for the longest time, not until the nurse sank down beside him and held his hand. It was only then that the patient began to open up, and what he said was that he didn't want any sedation, that he didn't deserve a respite from pain, that he wanted to feel it all, and then to die.

The charge in the courtroom was manslaughter, brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia. No significant facts were in dispute. Miles Harrison, 49, was an amiable person, a diligent businessman and a doting, conscientious father until the day last summer -- beset by problems at work, making call after call on his cellphone -- he forgot to drop his son, Chase, at day care. The toddler slowly sweltered to death, strapped into a car seat for nearly nine hours in an office parking lot in Herndon in the blistering heat of July.

It was an inexplicable, inexcusable mistake, but was it a crime? That was the question for a judge to decide.

---

One of the saddest and thought provoking articles I've ever read.

As a daddy, I can tell immediately that I'm not gonna be able to read that article. I'm sure it's amazing, but real-life examination of a man who inadvertently left his child to die ... I can't take it.

How can you forget your child is in the car? Seriously, how?

A good piece, well written and poingnant.

I cannot help but believe that criminal punishment is superfluous. Either the parent is remorseful -- and no judge could impose a penalty as harsh as true self loathing -- or they are not -- and no criminal conviction would alter such amorality.

Had I done such a thing, I would not have had to contemplate suicide for long....and I am certain that my wife wouldn't have been convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus

I cannot help but believe that criminal punishment is superfluous.

---

Definitely.

Thanks for the link CR, it's an great piece of writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

How can you forget your child is in the car? Seriously, how?

---

Good lord man, read the article. ~:pissed:

An excellent piece.

I don't think stuffing vehicles with yet another safety nanny is the answer, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

How can you forget your child is in the car? Seriously, how?

---

READ. THE. ARTICLE.

Really, man? REALLY?!

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

READ. THE. ARTICLE.

Really, man? REALLY?!

CR

---

I. DID. READ. THE. ARTICLE.

You deserve a slap for posting like that.

The point in my post is that is basically near impossible to actually 'forget' without clinical reasons about a child there. It is like a police car forgetting to turn off its siren while driving around on patrol. The big massive chair in the back, the baby making noises, pooping and other things. Also, it is the rountine and habits, do you forget to put on your underwear first and not second before you go to work? Also, what are they even doing using a mobile phone in a car? It is illegal to have your hands 'occupied' whilst driving and an automatic £1000 fine. There is a great list of things which could go on for a while as to why the vast majority don't get themselves caught in a zipper, I never got myself caught in a zipper and that is far less obvious than a child in the backseat.

Neglect but not intentional neglect, tough one to call. Good job I'm not a judge. A thought needs to be spared for the kid though, I can't even begin to imagine how slow and agonising a death that must of been for such a small child.

As for the father, he seems genuinely remorseful. I'm obviously to young to be a parent but living with that kind of torment every day would be too much for me. I don't think any prison sentence will make a difference, this guys already in his own private hell.

Babies and children sleep. It happens.

The numbers are miniscule, so it rarely happens that a child is that quiet / the parent is that forgetful / focused elsewhere. Almost all the time the parent remembers. A trip to and from nursery on work days. That's 400 trips per year per person. We're talking almost half a billion trips - and this is assuming none on weekends of course - for a year in the USA.

I've left my phone at home. I've left my laptop at home. I've even gone shopping and left my credit card at home. Not often, over 99% of the time in these instances I remember without thinking about it.

If you get your member caught in the zipper it hurts so you notice


This is where statutory sentences make no sense in a court - but they do to a politician who wants to be "tough" to some demographic or other.

Guilty? Yes, of course.
Punishment: from the court's perspective, time served. The man (in this instance) needs support. If that were my wife I don't know how I could continue to live with her though.

~:smoking:

I'm scared by that article. It is exactly the kind of thing that could happen to me. A bit absent-minded, easily caught up in my own thought, sometimes only half-present in the physical world.

When I don't do my things on a clear routine, everything becomes a mess. When I do do my things on routine, I leave out stuff. When I make a conscious effort of it, it soaks up all my energy. I have never really solved that.
As a consequence, the bizarre easily happens. I miss connecting trains because I get caught up in a newspaper. I once turned up at a riverside picknick with my belt dangling from my pants and my zipper open, I think I got distracted halfway through putting my trousers on. I once fell asleep on the train, only to be brutally woken up by the Spanish border police asking for my passport.
I marvel at people who perform the simple effortlessly.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Several people -- including Mary Parks of Blacksburg -- have driven from their workplace to the day-care center to pick up the child they'd thought they'd dropped off, never noticing the corpse in the back seat.
:shame:

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

I was a bit dissapointed that the National Enquirer did not win a Pulitzer Prize.

The same situation occured here to a local mom 2-3 years ago. The parent has been punished enough. What more can the law do to one who has to try and live with that? It could easily happen to any one of us.

What does the person's weight have to do with the tragedy? Are we supposed to loath him all the more because it's okay to despise obese people? Would a slim attractive person garner more compassion from the law and/or the court of public opinion? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The big massive chair in the back, the baby making noises, pooping and other things. Also, it is the rountine and habits, do you forget to put on your underwear first and not second before you go to work?

---

It's unsurprising CR would assume you hadn't read the article. All of these issues were already addressed in it. What is your response to the counterpoints already raised?

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You deserve a slap for posting like that.

---

Me? I post an article explaining how a terrible tragedy could happen, and you post and ask, literally "how could this happen?". You claim to have read the article; you know it's five pages long right?

Quote:

---

The point in my post is that is basically near impossible to actually 'forget' without clinical reasons about a child there. It is like a police car forgetting to turn off its siren while driving around on patrol. The big massive chair in the back, the baby making noises, pooping and other things. Also, it is the rountine and habits, do you forget to put on your underwear first and not second before you go to work? Also, what are they even doing using a mobile phone in a car? It is illegal to have your hands 'occupied' whilst driving and an automatic £1000 fine. There is a great list of things which could go on for a while as to why the vast majority don't get themselves caught in a zipper, I never got myself caught in a zipper and that is far less obvious than a child in the backseat.

---

It certainly sounds like you didn't read the article. Also, this is about America, not stupid laws land, and there's no national cell phone law, and no outrageous fine in any state.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It certainly sounds like you didn't read the article. Also, this is about America, not stupid laws land, and there's no national cell phone law, and no outrageous fine in any state.

---

Actually, it is not to operate them while driving, for pretty obvious and practical reasons. Since it is common-sense not to actually use a phone while driving, the law is there to stop people who lack it from doing it.

Also, yes, I read the article, I just don't believe the majority of it. You can't forget your child is there, and even then, the smell of the dead body which has been roasted to death in the back of your car.. and you never noticed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

and no criminal conviction would alter such amorality.

---

....So we shouldn't punish thieves who aren't going to stop stealing?

I say let the man burn. There is no excuse for this behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....So we shouldn't punish thieves who aren't going to stop stealing?

I say let the man burn. There is no excuse for this behaviour.

---

Theft requires intent. This is simple absent mindedness with the worst possible outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Theft requires intent. This is simple absent mindedness with the worst possible outcome.

---

Leaving a child in a death-trap isn't simple absent mindedness. It is complete idiocy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Leaving a child in a death-trap isn't simple absent mindedness. It is complete idiocy.

---

Actually, the article would indicate otherwise. Rocket scientists, pharmacists, and business owners are generally not idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You can't forget your child is there, and even then, the smell of the dead body which has been roasted to death in the back of your car.. and you never noticed?

---

Where does the article say he didn't notice the childs body? It seems he went into work and the child died during the 9 hour period he was in work, I assume he finished his shift and came back to find the body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....So we shouldn't punish thieves who aren't going to stop stealing?

---

A fair question.

Thievery is, of course, a crime against property and not against person. Some means of preventing further thievery -- like permanent incarceration for someone who demonstrates no willingness to alter their behavior -- is mandated by the larger good of society.

Were this a crime of malice, and not negligence, I would (as would you and most others I am certain) believe that punishment should be meted out to deter such behavior and/or prevent any recidivism.

With a crime of negligence, I am uncertain. At what point does one's negligence effectively constitute a form of malice? I do not know that any single rule applies here. There can be no doubt that these incidents fit most definitions for "involuntary manslaughter." Yet the persons involved did not render themselves negligent through their own behavior -- nobody got drunk and ran someone over -- so I am unsure as to just how justified some form of punishment is.

Horetore:

If you accept that the person involved had no intention to cause harm, did nothing untoward, and is clearly remorseful; how is a punitive response going to improve things? Set aside your justifiable desire for some form of vengeance -- a child being harmed brings that out in us, touching our very sense of survival -- and address the larger good. How does punishment serve a larger purpose here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Theft requires intent. This is simple absent mindedness with the worst possible outcome.

---

If I ever want to kill my baby, leaving him to burn in my car sounds like the best way ever! I'll even get fan clubs!

negligence is a crime, unfortunately. Intent isn't necessary for me to get punished, like if I shoot someone by accident, for example. That's entire point of the manslaughter charge, nobody who is found guilty of manslaughter intended to kill someone. But their lack of responsibility killed someone, and they are to be punished for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You can't forget your child is there, and even then, the smell of the dead body which has been roasted to death in the back of your car.. and you never noticed?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Where does the article say he didn't notice the childs body? It seems he went into work and the child died during the 9 hour period he was in work, I assume he finished his shift and came back to find the body.

---

It does seem odd to suggest the smell should tip people off, when the child dies while they are away from the car and they wouldn't have a chance to notice any smell until it's too late anyway. Of course, I don't even know what kind of a smell a recently dead infant would produce. It's possible it would be very noticeable, but the article mentions some individuals who didn't notice until after driving to their daycare centers to pick their children up. Perhaps it doesn't necessarily produce much of an odor.

Ajax

I doubt that you would smell it. A car has its own “accumulated” smell; and after a sweltering hot summer's day so will you. Plus you are set, in your mind, to collect your kid from daycare (well, in the US that is). You might see it, depending on how you enter your car; at which point it is a little... late.

I can easily see such a thing happen to me; except that I am not a father and do not want to become one either... FWIW I do not consider myself an idiot. Okay, well, a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Where does the article say he didn't notice the childs body? It seems he went into work and the child died during the 9 hour period he was in work, I assume he finished his shift and came back to find the body.

---

The part where the Mother went to pick the child up from day care whilst it was dead in the back of the car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Thievery is, of course, a crime against property and not against person.

---

:dizzy2: What a curious idea. I wonder how you would classify the theft of identity? :inquisitive:

I have heard of a different take on thievery: all crime is essentially thievery. That is based on the idea that by committing crime X you essentially take away (steal) someone Y's right/opportunity/possibility to Z. (E.g.: by committing murder you steal someone's possibility to live; by committing rape you steal someone's right to the sanctity of his/her body.)

The point I want to make is that as I see it, all crime is the exact opposite of how you seem to rank thievery: it is by definition the mistreatment of some sentient being or group of beings by you. Directly (e.g. abuse) or indirectly (e.g. illegal dumping of waste).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The part where the Mother went to pick the child up from day care whilst it was dead in the back of the car.

---

OK, I thought you were commenting on the part quoted in the OP.

Um.....a recently dead body doesn't stink, even if it died of hyperthermia in the back of the car. What, you think it smells like bacon? You think maggots already set in? These kids didn't spontaneously combust, and babies barely perspire. There is nothing to smell other than possible feces in the diaper, and the car probably smells like that all the time anyway. You seem to think all these people did it on purpose as some grand scheme to rid themselves of their child.

I still don't think you initially read the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

:dizzy2: What a curious idea. I wonder how you would classify the theft of identity? :inquisitive:

I have heard of a different take on thievery: all crime is essentially thievery. That is based on the idea that by committing crime X you essentially take away (steal) someone Y's right/opportunity/possibility to Z. (E.g.: by committing murder you steal someone's possibility to live; by committing rape you steal someone's right to the sanctity of his/her body.)

The point I want to make is that as I see it, all crime is the exact opposite of how you seem to rank thievery: it is by definition the mistreatment of some sentient being or group of beings by you. Directly (e.g. abuse) or indirectly (e.g. illegal dumping of waste).

---

Indirectly, at least, all crime is crime against another person, I agree. By labeling it a crime against property, I was NOT minimizing it. I'm rather Lockean in my outlook and consider property as an extension of the self inasmuch as it represents the use of part of your life to obtain or replace it. I suspect you and I are on the same page here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Horetore:

If you accept that the person involved had no intention to cause harm, did nothing untoward, and is clearly remorseful; how is a punitive response going to improve things? Set aside your justifiable desire for some form of vengeance -- a child being harmed brings that out in us, touching our very sense of survival -- and address the larger good. How does punishment serve a larger purpose here?

---

Allright, how 'bout this:

I'm driving down a road, while talking in the phone. Let's say I'm having a heartrending brake-up conversation with a (hypothetical atm) girlfriend. Out from the bushes on the right side of the car, your toddler jumps out.

I hit him, he dies.

I had absolutely no intention to kill your 2-year old. My only crime was being distracted by my bitch of an ex who tought it would be brilliant to brake up over the phone. I am clearly remorseful.

Are we cool?



I'll answer it myself; no, we're most definitely not cool. Your kid is dead. I killed him. My negligent behaviour resulted in the death of your beloved son, that's the truth. If I had paid attention to what was important, the road, instead of yelling at my ex, your son would've lived. I did not, and your kid is dead.

Just like this mans kid is dead because of his negligent behaviour.



But do we really know that this isn't his plan to kill his offspring without going to jail....?