Dead Children Continued
Oh how my wild dreams have come true. A blog post of mine has generated some real debate! And all that needed to happen was the death of 7 children. To tell you the truth, I think it was worth it. But that post and the deaths of these children has sparked a big debate as to how responsible the parents are who told their 15 year old daughter to drive their car. I am going to give a wrap up of the issues and encourage anyone with anything else to say to go ahead and leave a comment.
A) The driver of the truck killed these children. No matter who was driving this truck driver failed to stop. Whether breaking the law or not, the van has the right to stop without being hit from behind, even if the driver is driving illegally.
B) The parents of the children no doubt feel themselves responsible for the deaths of their children and neices and are hugely remorseful. They will suffer because of their choice to let their daughter drive for the rest of their lives.
C) Nevertheless, the parents were wrong to tell their daugher to drive. No matter the difficulties the parents were under, no matter anything that may have made riding the bus difficult or impossible for the children, no matter the parents’ work situations, no matter how responsible the daughter is – the parents were not correct (morally or legally) to let their daughter drive their van.
D) The parents are not victims. Because they told their daughter to drive their van and made a mistake in doing so, these parents cannot be called the victims of the accident. Only the 7 children who died can be called victims. And the children and driver of the bus who were injured.
E) The consequences of our choices determine what the punishment for those choices should be. In this case, should these parents be tried for allowing their daughter to drive, the consequences of that choice ought to be greater than had the daughter gotten pulled over for speeding. At the same time, the fact that the parents broke the law does not mean they will not be punished without a trial. If they are never tried, convicted or sentenced, they are already in prison. And they will live in that prison for the rest of their lives knowing that they themselves created the prison. They are being punished.
I believe that these five points are indisputable. But I might be wrong. Let me know if you agree or disagree. It’s been a great debate so far.
Related posts (automatically generated):
January 30th, 2006 14:19
I have a minor problem with one of the premesis of your argument although it has only minor effects on the over all argument. You say “the driver of the van was 15 years old. The legal age to drive in this country is… last time I checked… 16.” This statement is not accurate because the legal age to opporate a motor vehicle is not decided by federal law, it is state law. This means that the language and regulations of the law can differ by state. Take for instance Wisconsin, you can receive your instruction permit at age 15.5, whereas in Iowa it can be received when 15 years old. Or, if you look at Hawaii the state has delegated lisencing to the county level, creating different regulations for obtaining a lisence depending on the county one lives in. I believe that all of the states use 16 as the age at which one is eligible to receive a drivers lisence. This congruency across states is not because it is federal law, but is largely to do with the state receiving more federal money for highway systems by adhearing to that age. Finally, what I’m getting at here is that some states, like Kansas, offer restricted lisences to 15 year olds that allow them to drive, unsupervised, to and from school and work only. I am not familiar with Florida’s laws regarding opporation of a motor vehicle, and have not had time or taken the time to look it up, but I would be curious to know if it was the young woman’s parents who urged her to opporate the van, or if possibly there were other circumstances regarding the law.
January 31st, 2006 00:33
Yes, I think your point is hugly valid. Indeed, my dad brought up the idea that kids in WI can drive farm equipment on highways at 12. And so I did some checking and found this out.
In Florida, the license-granting proceedures are as follows:
Learner’s License – To earn a learner’s license, you must be at least 15 years old.
With your Learner’s License, you may:
Only drive during daylight hours during the first three months and until 10 p.m. thereafter, always with a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and occupies the front passenger seat.
Operator’s License (16 and 17 year old) – To earn an operator’s license, you must be at least 16 years old AND have held a learner’s license for at least one year without any traffic convictions.
With your Operator’s License, you may:
16 years old – only drive between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m., unless accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and occupies the front passenger seat, or you are traveling to or from work.
17 years old – only drive between 5 a.m. and 1 a.m., unless accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and occupies the front passenger seat, or you are traveling to or from work.
But I still want to know what the parents told their daughter. What was their understanding of the law? And is it the fact that the daughter did not have a right to drive that has caused this story to disappear from the media?