This is just so sad,,and makes me ask WHY would someone do this?? I don't call it 'playing'??

[Lilsia]

Jail/prison exists to rehabilitate criminals. Probation was the right course of action in this scenario. He deserved some form of punishment from the law for his criminal negligence, but prison wasn't the answer here.

Prison is a punishment and supposed to be a deterrent for people to not commit crimes. If someone's negligence kills another and there is no punishment, then why even make it a crime? Oh, it was an accident? You can just go about your life like you always have. Too bad for the person that you killed. People would be going around and "accidentally" killing others if there was no punishment for it. Which is exactly what you are saying, that his negligence, that resulted in a child's death, should not be punished. What if it was another family's child? That he thought that he was being nice and picking up a kid to look out the window and dropped some stranger's kid. Would you feel the same if it was your kid that he killed? He should be punished for what he did and feeling bad is not a punishment.

 

[ronandannette]

And Mets face it, the state he made was written by his lawyers, at this point the family is just a pawn for attorneys.

No. The parents are both educated, professional people, employed in the justice system themselves actually. They absolutely would have the wherewithal to withdraw the case if they chose.

 

[starry_solo]

Thanks. How unusual would it be for the judge to increase the punishment? And, if the judge DOES increase the punishment, can the defendant rescind their guilty plea?

again, it’s up to the judge to decide punishment. So he or she wouldn’t be “increasing” punishment.

its difficult to rescind a guilty plea. one of the statements the defendant agrees to is that he or she was not promised anything in exchange for the plea, etc.

 

[nkereina]

Is probation really a punishment? He has to check in with his probation officer, big deal.

Legally for negligent homicide? Yes. The law takes multiple factors of the situation into consideration. As I mentioned before, public opinion on it differs greatly from what the law is bound by.

Prison is a punishment and supposed to be a deterrent for people to not commit crimes. If someone's negligence kills another and there is no punishment, then why even make it a crime? Oh, it was an accident? You can just go about your life like you always have. Too bad for the person that you killed. People would be going around and "accidentally" killing others if there was no punishment for it. Which is exactly what you are saying, that his negligence, that resulted in a child's death, should not be punished. What if it was another family's child? That he thought that he was being nice and picking up a kid to look out the window and dropped some stranger's kid. Would you feel the same if it was your kid that he killed? He should be punished for what he did and feeling bad is not a punishment.

I didn't at all say that he should not be punished... not even close. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said up-thread that he was deserving of some form of legal punishment and agreed that he should have been charged in the first place, which some people were even disputing.

Probation is a form of punishment no matter how "easy" it may seem. I don't disagree with you that when thinking about it morally, it seems like he should get something more. But when looking at it legally for a negligent homicide charge and the other factors surrounding the man, probation was the right call - no matter how lopsided it seems when considering the crime and no matter what personal opinions on the matter are. This is why judges and juries are required to be impartial without outside influence - their actions have to be based on the facts of the case and the law.

To your second point, circumstances of every case make all the difference in what charges are levied. It would be very difficult for a person to intentionally kill another and call it an "accident", resulting in these same charges. Ray Charles can see this is a negligent homicide case, so the charges were appropriate as well.

 

[Lilsia]

Legally for negligent homicide? Yes. The law takes multiple factors of the situation into consideration. As I mentioned before, public opinion on it differs greatly from what the law is bound by.


I didn't at all say that he should not be punished... not even close. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said up-thread that he was deserving of some form of legal punishment and agreed that he should have been charged in the first place, which some people were even disputing.

Probation is a form of punishment no matter how "easy" it may seem. I don't disagree with you that when thinking about it morally, it seems like he should get something more. But when looking at it legally for a negligent homicide charge and the other factors surrounding the man, probation was the right call - no matter how lopsided it seems when considering the crime and no matter what personal opinions on the matter are. This is why judges and juries are required to be impartial without outside influence - their actions have to be based on the facts of the case and the law.

To your second point, circumstances of every case make all the difference in what charges are levied. It would be very difficult for a person to intentionally kill another and call it an "accident", resulting in these same charges. Ray Charles can see this is a negligent homicide case, so the charges were appropriate as well.

I guess the issue is what someone considers "appropriate". I don't think that if a person kills someone that just getting probation is appropriate. People get jail time for possessing weed but kill someone, your all good? How is that "appropriate"?

 

[nkereina]

I guess the issue is what someone considers "appropriate". I don't think that if a person kills someone that just getting probation is appropriate. People get jail time for possessing weed but kill someone, your all good? How is that "appropriate"?

I agree with you that its not right, but its what the law says is appropriate. Not me. There's nothing you, or me, or even the judge can do about that. I have my opinion on it which is similar to yours, but I understand how the justice system works enough to look at it through an objective lens and think that the sentence for the facts of the case is what it should have been from the legal perspective.

And you're mistaken if you think I'm ok with people being jailed for possession. Up-thread, I referenced that part of the reason marijuana is being decriminalized is for this exact reason. People shouldn't be charged for possession in many circumstances. Some of the people in jail right now for it are otherwise law-abiding citizens with no prior records that made mistakes, but they're currently serving time with no real need for rehabilitation, no danger to society, and instead are wasting tax payer dollars. The justice system isn't perfect, but all judges or anyone else can do is interpret the laws as written and execute their oaths and duties responsibly.

 

[Moliphino]

I guess the issue is what someone considers "appropriate". I don't think that if a person kills someone that just getting probation is appropriate. People get jail time for possessing weed but kill someone, your all good? How is that "appropriate"?

I'd argue that getting jail time for possessing weed is also not appropriate.

 

[Lilsia]

I agree with you that its not right, but its what the law says is appropriate. Not me. There's nothing you, or me, or even the judge can do about that. I have my opinion on it which is similar to yours, but I understand how the justice system works enough to look at it through an objective lens and think that the sentence for the facts of the case is what it should have been from the legal perspective.

And you're mistaken if you think I'm ok with people being jailed for possession. Up-thread, I referenced that part of the reason marijuana is being decriminalized is for this exact reason. People shouldn't be charged for possession in many circumstances. Some of the people in jail right now for it are otherwise law-abiding citizens with no prior records that made mistakes, but they're currently serving time with no real need for rehabilitation, no danger to society, and instead are wasting tax payer dollars. The justice system isn't perfect, but all judges or anyone else can do is interpret the laws as written and execute their oaths and duties responsibly.

But from what I understand, he could have faced jail time for this. They just decided not to give it to him. That is a big difference.

 

[EMom]

I'm going out on a limb to say what most people either aren't thinking or saying. He knows exactly what he did, he's not "blocking out" any memories, and he is solely interested in self-preservation/not being an outcast in his own family, which has turned a blind eye to what he did and instead, has opted to sue the cruise line. While my heart goes out to the parents, their misdirected anger makes me SMH. I don't have sympathy for the grandfather. He knew what he was doing was risky, he chose to do it anyway, and a tragedy followed. I still cannot fathom the WHY of it all. In what sort of mind was holding a squirmy toddler out of an 11 story window a good idea?

 

[mjkacmom]

I'm going out on a limb to say what most people either aren't thinking or saying. He knows exactly what he did, he's not "blocking out" any memories, and he is solely interested in self-preservation/not being an outcast in his own family, which has turned a blind eye to what he did and instead, has opted to sue the cruise line. While my heart goes out to the parents, their misdirected anger makes me SMH. I don't have sympathy for the grandfather. He knew what he was doing was risky, he chose to do it anyway, and a tragedy followed. I still cannot fathom the WHY of it all. In what sort of mind was holding a squirmy toddler out of an 11 story window a good idea?

I don’t think he thought it was risky, I don’t think he was thinking at all. I’ve seen people do risky things with children that make me cringe, although I have a lot of anxiety about heights and falling (I get mad when my kids pick up our dog and carry her).

 

[AlohaNow]

This story is just so sad all around, with no good outcome for any of the involved parties. It reminds me of child hot car death cases. I read a very interesting article once on the topic where the general thinking is, naturally, the parent will suffer the tragedy of their mistake for the rest of their life. It is punishment enough. Let's not press charges. Then in other cases the state says, a child died, so there must be a record of what happened, a case will move forward.

As Thelma said to Louise, "The law is some tricky $%&*."

 

[nkereina]

But from what I understand, he could have faced jail time for this. They just decided not to give it to him. That is a big difference.

There is a wide range of punishment for most charges. Littering in my state can be punished by up to two years in prison. So this is where using the factors surrounding the case come into play - in this case, that it was most likely an isolated incident, clearly a horrific accident, he has no prior record, he's not a danger or menace to society, and rehabilitation isn't necessary. Courts often take the victims' stance into consideration as well, and its been my understanding that the parents have supported the grandfather throughout. Judges and lawyers don't have all that much leeway to make decisions without basis. Their decisions and judgments have to be sound, rooted in law, and supported by evidence/facts.

 

[North of Mouse]

I don't think this man is heartless, he loved her. He just made a horrific and tragic mistake. Was it stupid, of course! Was it intentional, no. I think he is living his punishment everyday knowing his granddaughter is dead because of his actions. I don't believe there is a punishment worse than that. YMMV

Well said!

 

[Lilsia]

There is a wide range of punishment for most charges. Littering in my state can be punished by up to two years in prison. So this is where using the factors surrounding the case come into play - in this case, that it was most likely an isolated incident, clearly a horrific accident, he has no prior record, he's not a danger or menace to society, and rehabilitation isn't necessary. Courts often take the victims' stance into consideration as well, and its been my understanding that the parents have supported the grandfather throughout. Judges and lawyers don't have all that much leeway to make decisions without basis. Their decisions and judgments have to be sound, rooted in law, and supported by evidence/facts.

It's funny how you keep bringing up that prison is for rehabilitation. It's for punishment for doing the wrong thing. It is supposed to be a horrible place so that you don't ever want to go there, thus turning your life around so that you don't go back to prison. It is supposed to be a deterrent, not what many have turned into, a glorified club. There is no deterrent to commit crimes anymore because many see prison as not so bad anymore. Too many are coming out and repeating the same crime over and over again. They are not being "rehabilitated", nor are the prisons bad enough to make sure that no one wants to go back. You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want to be. This whole situation looks really suspicious. The man knew the window was open and yet still picked her up and put her out the window. And then the parents, very quickly, sue the cruise line and they are "supporting" him. None of these are natural behaviors. It looks more and more like they planned to do this for a pay day.

 

[PollyannaMom]

...It looks more and more like they planned to do this for a pay day.

Maybe I'm too naïve, but I just can't imagine anyone doing that.

 

[emer95]

Maybe I'm too naïve, but I just can't imagine anyone doing that.

I completely agree with you. This was a wealthy family. They love their children. This was a tragic, horrific mistake. I’d have a very hard time not blaming the grandfather if I was Chloe’s mother. But everyone deals with grief in different ways.

 

[mjkacmom]

It's funny how you keep bringing up that prison is for rehabilitation. It's for punishment for doing the wrong thing. It is supposed to be a horrible place so that you don't ever want to go there, thus turning your life around so that you don't go back to prison. It is supposed to be a deterrent, not what many have turned into, a glorified club. There is no deterrent to commit crimes anymore because many see prison as not so bad anymore. Too many are coming out and repeating the same crime over and over again. They are not being "rehabilitated", nor are the prisons bad enough to make sure that no one wants to go back. You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want to be. This whole situation looks really suspicious. The man knew the window was open and yet still picked her up and put her out the window. And then the parents, very quickly, sue the cruise line and they are "supporting" him. None of these are natural behaviors. It looks more and more like they planned to do this for a pay day.

Take off the tinfoil hat.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's funny how you keep bringing up that prison is for rehabilitation. It's for punishment for doing the wrong thing. It is supposed to be a horrible place so that you don't ever want to go there, thus turning your life around so that you don't go back to prison. It is supposed to be a deterrent, not what many have turned into, a glorified club. There is no deterrent to commit crimes anymore because many see prison as not so bad anymore. Too many are coming out and repeating the same crime over and over again. They are not being "rehabilitated", nor are the prisons bad enough to make sure that no one wants to go back. You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want to be.

So Anello should be sent to prison for punishment, but prisons aren't bad enough? Do I have that right?

This whole situation looks really suspicious. The man knew the window was open and yet still picked her up and put her out the window. And then the parents, very quickly, sue the cruise line and they are "supporting" him. None of these are natural behaviors. It looks more and more like they planned to do this for a pay day.

Can you leap the Grand Canyon too? I REALLY believe the reason they sued the cruise line so quick is because Winkleman got in their ear VERY quickly... "What a tragedy! RCI should have known these windows were dangerous! Let's sue them to teach them a lesson." Then, there's been no "unattached" party that they trust that has seen the video and told them what they saw.

As far as Anello holding Chloe out the window... I've thought from the start he wanted to show her SOMETHING... can be a bird, a plane, how high they were, the workers on the dock, whatever. He made a bad decision and she squirmed. He lost his grip and the rest is history. That to me seems more likely than them planning this whole thing for a pay day.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I guess the issue is what someone considers "appropriate". I don't think that if a person kills someone that just getting probation is appropriate. People get jail time for possessing weed but kill someone, your all good? How is that "appropriate"?

That's why states are getting to the point of decriminalizing it at least to a point.

The man knew the window was open and yet still picked her up and put her out the window.

I'm with you here

It looks more and more like they planned to do this for a pay day.

You lost me here.

And then the parents, very quickly, sue the cruise line

This can easily be them trying to find fault anywhere but their loved one. It doesn't make it right but if it makes them feel like they can get absolution for their loved one so they don't have to instead feel that pain and burden that may be why they are doing it.

they are "supporting" him

See above. Again doesn't make it right but I think sometimes our minds simply can't reconcile the acts of our loved ones. Sometimes people are able to say "yes I know they did it but I forgive them (or they can't forgive them)" and sometimes they just can't get that far.

 

[Lilsia]

Take off the tinfoil hat.

Your right, no one has ever killed children intentionally and then come up with some BS story.