Readers ehbtsaznrt
— The parent-criminalizing bill that was postponed a few weeks ago is back on the Rhode Island House agenda for TUESDAY, APRIL 4. Here, once again, is local activist Randall Rose’s explanation and plea:
— The parent-criminalizing bill that was postponed a few weeks ago is back on the Rhode Island House agenda for TUESDAY, APRIL 4. Here, once again, is local activist Randall Rose’s explanation and plea:
The bill that criminalizes leaving kids in cars, S72,is having a hearing Tuesday in the Senate JudiciaryCommittee at the State House, Room 313. Peoplecan come and sign up to tell the committee whatthey think of the bill at this hearing, which startsat 4:30 or 5 Tuesday. This is the last hearing on thisbill..If you can’t make the hearing, Rhode Island residentscan call the committee clerk at 401-222-6625 to saythey’re against this bill. It’s best to give your nameand town..Almost all cases of leaving children in cars are harmless,and parents sometimes face situations where theyreasonably decide that having the child remain in thecar is safe enough. The S72 bill would make it a crimein Rhode Island to leave a child under 7 in a car forover 5 minutes, even if the child was accompanied bya 13-year-old sibling. Penalties could include a $1000fine or a 1-year jail sentence, even if the child wasunharmed. This bill is too judgmental. Current RhodeIsland law already says that police can issue a warningto parents in this situation, and that’s better thanhaving fines or criminal penalties for what are almostcertainly harmless parenting choices..Also, please share the petition against this bill withothers:
Share away! – L
.
.
20 Comments
Contact your assemblycritters, Rhodinsular free-rangers!
If nothing else, I just learned that the proper adjective for “pertaining to Rhode Island” is Rhodinsular. Which makes perfect sense, but never would have occurred to me!
“If nothing else, I just learned that the proper adjective for “pertaining to Rhode Island” is Rhodinsular. Which makes perfect sense, but never would have occurred to me!”
I’m not sure it’s an ‘official’ word. I’ve seen it in H. P. Lovecraft’s writings (he was from Providence) but nowhere else.
(Until I used it here.)
There’s a typo in the headline.
I live in RI and just wrote my State Senator about this. Hopefully this will die in committee like it did last year.
Do these guys think people are made of money? 1000 bucks?my parents couldn’t do that and neither could I.
Randall Rose sounds kind of thorny to me with this issue….
Proponents and supporters of this bill probably do not realize that it will legitimize and decriminalize intentionally leaving a child under the age of seven (7) years unattended in a motor vehicle, unrestrained by any belt, harness, or similar device, for up to four (4) minutes fifty-nine (59) seconds, with the engine running and the shift lever unlocked, as long as said child is not subject to extreme heat or cold, and is provided with adequate ventilation.
Any parent leaving an infant in charge of a running car will be protected from prosecution by the black letter limits of the law. When the legislature wrote and passed this law, they perforce specified sharp limits on what does and does not constitute the proscribed behavior.
This has been a principle of civilized jurisprudence since the code of Hammurabi. If there is no published law governing a specific behavior, police and courts are more free to use common sense and judgement. Once a law is published, police and courts may not fail to reach it nor go beyond it.
@theresa “Do these guys think people are made of money? 1000 bucks?my parents couldn’t do that and neither could I.”
That’s the idea. You can’t pay, so you go to prison. And that shows you can’t take care of your children so CPS has an excuse to take them away and put them in foster care…
@Harrow
“Any parent leaving an infant in charge of a running car will be protected from prosecution by the black letter limits of the law. When the legislature wrote and passed this law, they perforce specified sharp limits on what does and does not constitute the proscribed behavior.”
Don’t worry. If this law passes, they’ll be back in a year to fix any “loopholes” such as you describe.
And yet, just today in Australia, a woman on her third DUI conviction, at 6x the legal limit, who severely injured a young girl, was sentenced to only 6 months in detention (and this will possibly be in her own home).
What is WRONG with the world???
“Rhodinsular” beat “NEw Jerseyan” or worse, “NEw Yorker” for anyone outside the five burooughs, all hollow!
Did you notice paragraph (c)?
Even when a parent is well within the law, if a law enforcement officer suspects that the child is underage, s/he may break a window if the s/he deems it necessary.
I just had a crazy thought.
Who is going to be sitting there with stop watches to make sure the parents don’t go over the 5 minute mark?
“Who is going to be sitting there with stop watches to make sure the parents don’t go over the 5 minute mark?”
Enough busybodies around in places like RI…
And paid parkings it’s even easier, just look at the parking tickets behind each window every few minutes…
“Even when a parent is well within the law, if a law enforcement officer suspects that the child is underage, s/he may break a window if the s/he deems it necessary”
If the law enforcement officer thinks a child is in danger, they’re going to break a window. Start by assuming this is true (because it is) and you’ll write the law that way.
“Who is going to be sitting there with stop watches to make sure the parents don’t go over the 5 minute mark?”
That’s probably why the time limit is so short. A cop who rolls up on a young child alone in a car can afford to hang out for 5 minutes. The officer doesn’t know when you left the child unattended, but they do know that they observed 5 minutes unattended.
Update 4/5/17: Like its House counterpart, the bill has been held for further study.
@ Teresa
My thoughts exactly, especially as an Southern Appalachian American (snicker). It’s excessive and insane in general, but the thought of someone trying implement this in an area with with 20% (or greater) below poverty rate is grotesque.
Awhile back I watched a good discussion about excessive safety concerns and out of control attempts to stop bullying in schools. The main question was Are We Creating Snowflakes? (To which I say YES, in part). This was set in the U.K but as with much of our insanity, it spreads to other countries, and is very similar. A man (your traditional older, misguided, advocating Boomer) who had been working on anti bullying measures and programs in U.K. Schools for the last 30+ years flat out said that they started the campaigns with complete confidence that they could eliminate all bullying in schools (because he’s narcissistic with delusions of grandeur). Over the years they started to become more frustrated, aggravated and eventually furious because the bullying had not yet stopped (shocking!). They had failed! So, they started redefining bullying until they eventually watered it down to anything that hurt a child’s feeling for a nanosecond, while tightening their grip around students throats and becoming harsher and harder toward them. (Some college Millennials have been characterized as having a vindictive protectiveness where they overreact, lash out, and try to hurt/destroy anyone or thing they perceive as potentially offensive to someone else. I wonder where they get it from?) This delusional man was getting ready to move his anti bullying work into colleges, and suggesting rooms full of puppies for adult students, who already color when triggered.
I see this as the same thing happening around child safety. The movement gained steam in the 1970s & 80s, went off the rails soon after, and those who have been advocating for years keep tightening their grip around parents throats, while watering everything down and implementing zero tolerance policies. There are still 22 accidental deaths a years from … out 78 million ages 18 and under!!! It’s time to put parents under the jail so we can meet our objective!
I wish you could eliminate accidents but it’s not going happen, and there is no need to treat every parent as if they are criminal for running into the store.
Does anyone know if this is based on a specific, but highly rare case? The terms and conditions bring the word micromanaging to mind.
Last year little Johnny was in the car with his 13 year old brother Mike. Their abusive, neglectful mother was inside the farmers market, buying kale to make their favorite vegetable chips. She was only gone 5 min. That’s all it took! Johnny knocked the car out of gear (provided it was made before 2010 when BTSI safety features were put in place) and it rolled into the corn stand. The car was buried in hay bails. As his brother was trying to climb out, Johnny hit the power window switch, trapping Mike from the waist down, and eventually cutting him in half.
Kids in Cars would like to remind you that thousands of children have been killed by power windows. 50 since 1990 alone!
Wait, what?
PSA of the Day: It takes just 22 pounds of force to suffocate or injure an infant while power windows can exert an upward force of 30-80 pounds of force.
Ummm… how and why is your infant hanging out of the window?
(I’m not heartless. Promise)
This a big decision in Law. I totally appreciated with this