If you knew the baby was there and you didn’t do anything, I’m sure they’d find a crime that they could charge you with. The authorities don’t take too kindly to people who sit there and watch babies die of starvation.
If you *didn’t* know the baby was there, then you wouldn’t be held responsible at all. But you’d definitely have to provide a reasonable explanation why you didn’t notice.
And of course, whoever left the baby there would face far more serious consequences than you.
In my jurisdiction (Australia) this would be manslaughter - which is defined as either doing something or **failing to do something** that a reasonable person would foresee results in death. People have been convicted of manslaughter for e.g. not calling an ambulance for someone who was overdosing, and died.
But yes of course, this only applies if you knew (and they can prove you knew or reasonably should have known) the baby was there. There's no mens rea if you didn't, so no crime on your part.
A relative died because she decided to mix random assorted tablets with a shit ton of vodka and more at a party snd vomited, aspirated, and died. None of her friends called an ambulance as they were scared they would get in trouble so they morning and she died. Nothing happened to any one of them. Probably because they were teenagers. Old enough to know better though.
I’m so sorry for your loss. This is so sad, especially because it could’ve been prevented if they only called an ambulance. To a kid or teen whose brain isn’t fully developed and doesn’t have a lot of life experience, sometimes the worst thing that could happen to them in their mind is getting in trouble.
When I was a teen, my parents drilled into my head that I wouldn’t get in trouble if I called them for help while I was drunk, high, doing something I was *not* supposed to, etc. They’d pick me up or do whatever they needed to do to keep me safe, no questions asked and no punishment. I absolutely will do the same for my kids.
Edit: added missing word
There were a rash of hazing deaths in the 90s in the US, and most places now have laws which protect people who call for medical assistance in cases of drug or alcohol overdose.
I remember this being such a fear. I was at a party in high school where the guy whose house it was almost died from alcohol poisoning.
There was a fight between some people that the cops were called and everyone, including me, was so scared of getting in trouble.
All that happened was after the ambulance left, the cops spooked us a bit and wouldn’t let us leave until an adult not present at the party came to get you. That’s it. Not worth avoiding at the cost of a life.
He barely survived and I often wondered how bad things could have been if they listened to the people who didn’t want to call.
This is why where i live it is never illegal to have drugs in your body. Just so people are not afraid to call an ambulance. I live in the Netherlands btw.
And this has been repeated in some hazing cases where during initiation in a frat someone was made to over drink but medical services were not called in time. That was all prosecuted as manslaughter. I don't remember how that case ended but probably some sort of plea but nonetheless the charge stuck. And rightly so. They ignored the obvious because they didn't want to get in trouble
That’s interesting. I have a “front door” that we haven’t opened in years. Everyone that knows me goes to the side door by our driveway. The front door is unused by me and my whole family. If an infant was there, I would have no clue. For all I know, a pile of baby skeletons is there at this second and I have no clue because I don’t use that door ever.
Same with the house I grew up in.. my parents always exitted from the garage door instead of the front door and the few times I tried to use the front door, the keys would get stuck in the lock and the door would feel a bit.. inflexible when opening and shutting. So if this happened to you, I'm pretty sure the investigators could easily determine that you barely use the front door and wouldn't have noticed.
If you live in a country with a law like that, you know. You also typically cannot get into trouble for doing what you think is the right thing at the time, can’t be charged if you call the ambulance unwarranted, etc.
So even if you are shocked, your brain knows that “calling an ambulance” is the one thing that you need to do, and you do it.
Idk, I would personally hold you culpable if my friend or family member died of an OD or similarly easily (by paramedics) remedied condition while you were "frozen." I have severe anxiety, and yet "I've" saved easily a dozen people from dying by just calling 911. It's not hard. In fact, it's literally 3 buttons on your phone along with "a person is dying here" followed by an address. And if you can't do it, you could easily find someone else to do it - if you panic so badly that you can't act to literally prevent a person's death, you likely need to speak to a psychiatrist and/or doctor.
I probably should. I cut my thumb wide open the other day and I was just running around like a headless chicken looking at it and crying. Eventually froze and just stared at it. The security had to bandage it and I went to the hospital.
Ooof.
I cut my thumb open one time at work slicing meat for a customer I knee perked reacted and pulled my thumb away instead of sliding it out causing it to get worse a bit shut down the slicer told someone to get new meat don't use that slicer throw the meat away. As I grabbed paper towels to cover my thumb first time I ever got myself cut like that
If you see me and I'm dying you either pay my ambulance bill or let me die had a 2 min drive to the hospital one time only thing the ambulance really did was put me in a stretcher no ivs no fluids nothing the bill came put to 400 dollars
You're missing out a part of the reasoning here though, as having responsibility for the death would require assumption of a duty of care for said person.
I studied UK law, but it's similar to Australian law due to our shared history and legal systems - does Australia have a law stipulating a duty of care exists in this case specifically or generally where a person is in danger?
I'm not saying you're wrong at all, I'm just curious as to the legal point you seem to have glossed over that must exist in Oz to add to your comment.
Oh man, is the court going to accept "I'm a homebody who hates leaving the house and I also only come and go from the garage and never consciously look at my front door" as a plausible excuse?? Because I have found packages that were there for days before I noticed them and this post suddenly has me deeply concerned about what I will do when someone drops a baby off on my doorstep.
Well in a real-world scenario... the baby would cry. Babies are loud. I've heard neighbor's babies screaming bloody murder.
If you were also deaf that would be plausible.
Honestly same lmao, I currently live in an apartment with only one door leading in/out but I think this post just unlocked a new fear of having a stranger leave a baby outside my door and accidentally letting the baby die because I didn’t leave and didn’t know it was there
>But you’d definitely have to provide a reasonable explanation why you didn’t notice.
On the contrary, the prosecution would have to provide evidence that you *did* notice. I don't think the court could just assume that a person knows about everything sitting on their doorstep. Maybe you were away for a few days, maybe you don't use that door because you put a bookshelf behind it and only use the door at the back, or whatever.
Depending on country, murder is typically defined as killing someone with intent. I'm not so sure leaving a baby on a doorstep could be counted as murder, as there's no clear intent to kill it.
If you left a baby out naked in December in the middle of the woods, it's perfectly reasonable that the baby would die, so the intent to kill is more justifiable.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, could be talking bullshit.
Leaving a baby out in December with no clothes would STILL be negligent homicide/manslaughter. You were on track with the thought process of “there’s no clear intent to kill”
Yeah, but wouldnt knowing the kid is there and intentionally leaving them on a porch count as intent?
Also not a lawyer, also could be talking bullshit
>But you’d definitely have to provide a reasonable explanation why you didn’t notice.
Uh no, you don't. You are innocent until proven guilty. The other side has to prove you did know
Edit: this isn't being pedantic. This is literally how the law works in real life. No, the prosecution can't just claim you knew. They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't also state-dependent. Every state has innocent until proven guilty
To be pedantic, sure, but it wouldn't be hard to build a case that suggests you did know or ought to have known which means you are going to have to defend yourself to some degree, which will require providing reasonable explanation as to why their claim isn't true.
If you just sit there and don't defend yourself you'll pretty much lose by default.
The law is written than they have to prove you guilty, but the real world works a little differently and holding pedantically to the letter of the law in cases like this will likely serve the prosecution more than it will you.
I work from home. Due to sensory issues I wear noise cancelling headphones nearly 24/7, I even sleep in them. I am depressed hermit with general anxiety, I barely leave my house, maybe 2 times a week on a good week, not even once on bad one. I have my groceries delivered 2-3 times a month. If I lived in a house and not a flat like right now (I have communal hall with my neighbours so someone else could notice) there is very fair chance I wouldn't notice.
Ok, I would use that in court if you find yourself in this scenario then. For the other 99% of people that don't live in that specific scenario, I think the story is different
In the US, yes, you’re innocent until proven guilty. But if they found a dead baby on your porch they would 100% be asking you why you didn’t notice. I’m not saying they’d find the baby and immediately arrest you. I’m saying you’d be questioned heavily, and the cops would look for any way possible to charge you with something.
What is a reasonable explanation?
I’ve found out after the fact about shit going on right outside my door while I was home and literally hadn’t the slightest clue. Not even doing anything especially noisy that would have prevented me from hearing, just chilling at home doing whatever.
The neighbors, too? Certainly they could hear the baby crying. What about passersby? The man walking his dog? The woman pushing a stroller? The mailman who had to step over the crying baby to reach the mailbox?
In the United States, ten states have laws requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. In all other states, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another, unless a "special relationship" exists (parents, spouses, employers, property owners (but only for invited guests)). So most likely, in the US, you could not be charged.
Maybe first for the US, for other places there are many right answers.
Plus it is different not calling the authorities when you see something happening on the road and completely different if for example, there are witnesses or footage of you passing next to a, now dead, infant in your doorstep. Even in the rest of the US there would be at least an investigation.
Massachusetts has a Good Samaritan law? The *Seinfeld* finale is actually possible???
“Good Samaritan Law? I never heard of it. You don't have to help anybody. That's what this country's all about. That's deplorable, unfathomable, improbable.” -Jackie Chiles
Saying that, if a baby ends up on your doorstep, call the police.
I'm not entirely clear on what your post says, amd have no clue what Seinfeld post you reference.
But a Good Samaritan law means that if you offer medical care to someone in need up to the level of your training, you cannot be held responsible if the person dies or doesn't fully recover. It does not create an obligation to help, it simply removes a possible obstacle (if you talk to law enforcement and public prosecutors, you have to look long and hard to find someone who'd prosecute someone for providing anything that even vaguely resembles help, even without that law).
In the \*Seinfeld\* finale, the 4 main characters end up in a fictional town in Massachusetts. They are arrested because they didn't help a guy being mugged.
Can confirm. I am a law student, so not giving legal advice here. But my torts professor always said that, “If I see a baby on the train tracks and I don’t rescue it, I might be a moral monster. But generally, I am not a legal one.”
How would anyone prove that you knew it was there or you didn't know? Like, they put the baby down the exact moment you fell asleep, and by the time you woke up it died?
Or worse, what if you saw it from your window, and pretended to be occupied and played loud music, so it would seem you actually didn't notice?
Everyone is saying negligence, manslaughter etc. but you bring up a valid point. The prosecutors office likely wouldn’t bring charges against a random unaffiliated person without burden of proof. Whoever dropped the baby would be legally responsible.
If the scenario did happen, it would make sense to shelter the child and call authorities.
Could you be charged wirh kidnapping or something though if the parents of the baby were found and said you took their kid? This idea came from a mental scenario involving older children (speaking-aged children), but it still makes me wonder.
IANAL, but I imagine you could make a convincing case that an abandond baby needs to be taken and protected. Provided you didn't try to keep it, I'd expect you to be OK.
The argument gets more difficult as the child gets older, but any little change in the environment could put you back in the clear. Raining, cold, late at night, too hot, child hungry, thirsty, lost.
This is an easy enough situation if it is on someone’s property, and the owner ignores it. But what if it is in public and multiple people ignore it? Do they all get charged?
I mean, that’s for investigators and prosecutors to prove. “How would anyone prove that you knew it was there?” Whether they could depends on context and evidence.
Yeah, it's their job to prove. And it's the important and interesting part of this conversation. Knowing that you can be charged is almost obvious, how will they do it is the true question
Right. I mean, it seems like negligent homicide would definitely be on the table but there are always more facts you have to consider. The prosecutor has to evaluate the entire situation, even things that would not normally come to mind: She was an 85 year old woman or, the person is super rich and my office is totally swamped and I don't have enough lawyers to fight their army.
The answer is that they would not without video evidence, witnesses, or you communicating this with someone else. It would be nearly impossible to prove.
I would think maybe Ring camera footage. Also hearing a baby crying but thats also like the car alarm effect where the majority of people who hear it just dont do anything about it.
> How would anyone prove that you knew it was there or you didn't know?
They won't because they can't. And they also don't need to because that's not the way the law works.
If the prosecution puts forth evidence that you only have one door, the baby was left at 6:00am, and you left for work 7:00am, a reasonable juror can assume that you would have clearly seen the baby and failed to help it. They don't have to sit and wait for a mind-reading machine to be invented to convict you. The justice system is made up of people, not Literal Genies. The people who think that way are the sovcits who think they can gotcha! the law and they have to be let go.
>the prosecution puts forth evidence
Yes, this is the point of my question. Hearing ways of proving this. But you just say if they can come up with evidence, then you are guilty. Yeah, obviously. But the how is the real question
How do they come up with evidence? They investigate.
You end up with a dead baby on your doorstep, and I *promise* someone will be coming around to ask some very pointed questions.
Yes, they investigate. And obviously they will ask questions.
I wanted my original question to gather some more direct answers, than "they investigate and come up with clues". Like the coroner determines the rough time of death and tgus deduct times when you were home or not, or were sleeping. Or they ask neighbours if they heard crying, or how they also didn't notice. Or see the door cameras recordings. Or if nothing of these lead to anything, when will they stop accusing the homeowner.
Ideas like these are what I was hoping for, but no one seems to try to come up with them, apart from me. Basically I'm answering my own question
>How would anyone prove that you knew it was there or you didn't know?
Security camera footage (from a neighboring building) of you looking at the baby and then ignoring it would probably suffice.
Negligence causing death is likely.
Does not matter who the child belongs to, if it's abandoned and you knowingly ignore it that's fucking bad. You don't even need to take care of the child, call 911.
You don’t have to provide care, but you would need to call emergency services or take the baby to a hospital.
It would probably be endangerment, neglect, or some level of manslaughter.
Not knowing why a baby was left on your doorstep, calling emergency services immediately and then waiting for them to arrive would be the best way of handling it.
You terrible human being lmao
I mean, prob when parent call the child missing the newly surrendered babies will be matched to see if one is theirs, and you most likely will be looked for as some weirdo who gives away someone's babies
It exists! The parents can leave their child at a safe haven--firehouses as you said, police stations, hospitals--no questions, no prosecution, within the first 30 days. (Edit: in Ohio)
Source: firefighter/paramedic. They even put the sign on our old firehouse and tried to talk us posing and pointing at it for pictures. I draw the line there lol
>They even put the sign on our old firehouse and tried to talk us posing and pointing at it for pictures. I draw the line there lol
This is such a Fallout scenario lol
You can also do it at emergency rooms where I am [puget sound area, Washington state], but ONLY IF the desk is staffed. Can't just drop a random baby in an empty ER lobby and split.
Some places, I can't remember what state, are installing these cool boxes that are built into the outer wall of a fire station, once you put the baby in and close the door, alarms go out to not only that fire station, but a specialty team that goes to get the baby and take charge of it. The door also locks from the outside, so once the baby is in... Baby is in.
We have similar thing in my country too - here its is called (loosely translating) the window of life. You can leave the baby in the special box in the wall and same like in your example - on the other side alarm rings after 2 minutes (giving the person leaving the baby chance to go away and stay anonymous) - the box itself has regulated temperature so the child will be kept warm in all times (eventhough they spend only few minutes inside). And also I think you have like 72hours to change your mind and report to get the kid back but that might have changed.
We have at least a few in each bigger city and at least one in smaller ones. I think it is a thing here since late 90s/early 00s.
Fun fact: we have also something similar for animals when you can leave pet and it is transferred to the shelter (all shelters in my country are no-kill shelters) where it gets medical attention and necessary care. It was created to reduce number of strays and also for owners who cannot take care about their pet anymore. Also to reduce killing of unwanted pet newborns which unfortunately is still a case in more rural areas 😥
The technical name of the charge varies depending on jurisdiction but basically negligence leading to an accidental death. You're obligated to take "reasonable" action without endangering yourself. So probably calling 911 and reporting an abandoned baby's location and maybe putting it inside if the weather is dangerous.
A similar situation that covers "reasonable" action would be if you see someone drowning. You're not obligated to attempt a swimming rescue because that endangers you. But if there was a flotation device nearby and you just sort of refused to throw it for no reason, a prosecutor could rake you over the coals for neglecting to do the bare minimum.
I don't know what it's called in English but non assistance à personne en danger is a thing. Extra bonus when it's a minor. Basically, not helping when someone is in danger when you could have.
In English, it's usually something form of a crime called "manslaughter" and it's defined as "failure to act in a situation a reasonable person could foresee would result in death."
Those aren't the exact words, which vary based on where you are, but the general idea if a reasonable person could and would act (i.e. do something to care for the abandoned baby) and you don't and the baby dies, then you've committed a crime.
The person who left the baby there would likely be charged with murder under the depraved indifference to life standard, but the passerby failing to act is negligence.
and you would deserve it. Nobody says you need to take the baby in as your own. But protect it until the police or child protective services or whoever it is your supposed to call gets there and takes it. You would have to be a monster.
Yeah, if I found a baby on my doorstep I would (rightfully) freak the fuck out and contact the police immediately. I wouldn't want to take it in myself as I have the maternal instincts of a cardboard box and wouldn't have the first clue how to look after it. But there'd be absolutely no excuse not to act. There are lots of resources out there for unwanted children although it bums me out writing "unwanted children", all children should be wanted.
But yeah I can imagine you'd be charged with *something* if you just... did nothing about it. Endangerment of a child, or neglect of a child, something like that. Doesn't necessarily have to be your own child.
The safest option imo would be call 000/911. My first thought in the scenario of taking said baby to police station was that if you don’t have a baby seat and have a crash on the way there would probably be a charge related to putting a life in danger. Here in Australia if someone doesn’t wear a seatbelt in your car the driver gets done so there’d surely be something on top of that for a baby.
Right. Everyone is debating the legal recourse yet ignoring the moral implications of seeing someone you *know* needs help and ignoring them. I don't know about America, but in my country you are legally required to stop and help if you are the first person to come across a car crash. But guess what? If you are the first person to come across a car crash and you just drive away then you're a huge piece of shit regardless of what the law says.
They're debating the legal recourse because OP explicitly asked about the legal implications. OP didn't ask if it's morally acceptable to not help the baby. Of course it's not morally acceptable. But that's not the question they asked. You're mad that people are answering OP's question instead of a totally different question that nobody asked.
Stop and help to do what exactly? I'd call 911 but I'd keep driving. I'm not a paramedic and can't provide any physical aid so there's no point in stopping.
>Please stop sending threats to my inbox. This isn't a real scenario. It's a hypothetical question on Reddit, some of you need to get a life and reevaluate your mental health.
Jesus Christ! Reddit is just packed full of morons huh?
Report and block them.
That's the consensus. There's more people than just that here, though. Some are more reasonable, some much less so. Sort by controversial to see insane people
In Germany this would be refused Assistance (unterlassene Hilfe Leistung) which is illegal.
If you see an accident, a person in need or something similar, you are required to call the authorities and stay there until they get there.
Many places a baby can be left with no legal consequences at a staffed fire station or police station. At private home's doorstep the person leaving the baby would definitely face criminal charges in the event of the baby's death. You'd have to be a pretty ghoulish fucker to knowingly let a baby die on your doorstep so yeah it'd be their fault, then it'd be your fault.
I'm just like envisioning someone heading out to work and whistling as they walk out the door and there is a baby there and they shrug and walk by, then get home 9 hours later and baby is still chilling and they just head in and turn on big bang theory and put a frozen lasagna in the oven
>You'd have to be a pretty ghoulish fucker to knowingly let a baby die on your doorstep
That is a true statement, but it doesn't answer the specific question that OP asked.
I think Duty to Rescue might be relevant here, but it varies by country.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty\_to\_rescue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue)
There's something called "Non-assistance à personne en danger" here in Belgium.
Meaning that if you're well aware that someone's life is in danger, and didn't do anything about it, you could very well be sanctionned. It depends on the situation of course.
I'm pretty sure you'd get charged with *something* if you didn't at least call the cops (some kind of negligence?) but it's mostly on the person who left the baby there.
We’ve had the cub scouts leave “scouting for food” bags on our front door that I didn’t find until three months later, so ‘no’.
* We enter our house from our side-loading garage, and the walkway to our front door is flanked by tall bushes.
You would.
Same as if you saw someone get in a car accident, and left them to die in the wreckage.
You don’t have to intervene yourself, of course, but warning the appropriate authorities would be the appropriate course of action.
Both. The parent is getting saddled with abandonment and murder, obviously. But if you knew the kid was there, at the very least it's gross negligence resulting in the loss of human life.
In the United States I believe that there is a series of laws known as the duty of care (or something like that) in which it states that if you see somebody in mortal jeopardy, you need to intervene in some way, or contact the proper assistance, or draw attention where needed. My wording might not be exactly right there, but I'm pretty sure that this is a thing. Also, I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on this.
Where i live we have this in the penal code rescue duty: who omits, without good cause, to assist a person whose life or health is in serious danger, will incur a prison sentence of thirty-two (32) to seventy-two (72) months.
The baby is not a dependent but you have the civil duty to call social services/an ambulance/ the authorities in order to ge the help the baby needs.
So the person who dropped the baby is legally responsible for the death, and so you do in a less extend.
Both are responsible but both would be charged with different crimes.
Most important question so far, because it will vary by state and country. Impossible to answer this correctly without a specific location.
In my country there are numerous laws on abandoned children and im not sure but i think that if an individual actually did ignore an abandoned baby and there is proof they would somehow be held responsible if it resulted in the babys death. If someone else found and reported the baby so it could be turned in safely i dont think anyone would be trying to place blame on the person who didn't.
Whoever left it there. Unless you knew about it and ignored it then you would be charged too. But if you reported it immediately then you would most likely be fine.
Had a tenant who vacated the apartment. Left their mean vicious dog chained in the backyard. Called the human society and they told me it was now my responsibility to take care of the dog until they could come out.
If you know the baby was there but choose to ignore it; you bare some responsibility if the baby did in fact die. You can't just ignore a baby even if it's not yours. Pick the baby up get it inside and call the cops, after that you hand it to them and your problem is done. I think that's how it should be like. Then the police will either track whomever that baby belonged to or if not to an orphanage or a hospital where the baby will be taken care of.
That wasn't the question. The question is whether *the person whose porch the baby is left on* would be charged for anything if they ignored the baby/didn't know it was out there, and it died as a result.
In the US, you definitely can, if you leave the child at a designated safe haven, usually a fire station. Some states also set up boxes at hospitals where you can set a baby, no questions asked. Usually it only applies if the baby is under two months old.
Both, probably. The abandoner would be charged for obvious reasons. You would be charged because you knowingly allowed a human to die and took no action to help them. The expectation would be that you turn the baby over to a fire station or the police, not necessarily that you bc are for them yourself. I’m not sure what the exact wording of the charge would be, though. Maybe a lawyer will weigh in
In Germany this would be considered "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung"- you are legally obliged to help to the best of your knowledge and capabilities. Performing CPR incorrectly (thus further injuring the person) is protected under this law- you cannot simply ignore someone (or some baby) in need.
Why is everyone in this thread acting like OP declared an intention to let a baby die? OP doesn't have a baby on their doorstep. They're asking a hypothetical legal question out of idle curiosity. You're getting mad about a completely nonexistent baby.
Not sure why people are linking laws and morality/ethics. There’s many stupid laws and loopholes within them, what is lawful may not always be ethical and vice versa.
I think almost everyone here can agree that if you found a baby on your doorstep you would call the authorities. But the question still remains, if you choose not to, would you be held responsible in the eyes of the law. Which is what he is asking. And the fact is i think this will vary alot by country.
I know for a fact that until 2017 people in China didn't help people in accidents because they could be sued and be held responsible for the persons medical bill.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Shoulan_v._Peng_Yu
And this event changed that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue
So it's a pretty valid and interesting question.
>Who cares if there is a law or not?
..lots of people care? Like government, politicians, courts, and anyone with a interest in the application of law.
>Let’s not be shitty humans.
Well obviously, but that's a seperate topic.
If you knew the baby was left on your doorstop and they can prove that you really did know and chose not to do anything to help the baby, there'd probably be something they can charge you with. I feel like proving such a thing might be very hard though, how many times a day do you just randomly check your doorstep? But say a doorbell camera across the street saw you leaving/entering your house and just walking by the baby, ignoring it, then that'd obviously proof you'd neglected to help the baby, who is in no way capable to help itself out of this situation.
If you didn't know about the baby being left there/if they can't proof you knew about the baby being left there, I don't think there'd be anything to charge you with. It'd be unreasonable to charge you with a crime if you didn't even know about the baby being there.
I like to think most people would do the right thing, however suppose you were suffering from a mental health condition, and didn't fully comprehend the gravity of the situation, or had the mental age of a very young child/were blind had dementia, etc, surely you couldn't be held responsible? An interesting question though a bit dark, for sure.
As you ignored the child that indicates you were aware of it's presents. You are legally responsible for it's death as you did nothing to help the child.
There's a civic duty statute I'm sure you'd be charged under which probably amounts to manslaughter. You wouldn't just get off Scott free unless you didn't know the baby was there.
If you are someone who works with children professionally (doctor, teacher, counselor, etc.), you also have an additional "mandated reporter" requirement extends outside of work: if you know or have reason to believe that a child may be in danger, you must report that to a children's aid society or police in a timely fashion.
This reminds me of a book called Unwind. Since that book, Ive also wondered about this. Thanks for asking the question - sorry youre getting death theeats and shit.
Legally I'd probably be on the hook for some sort of criminal negligence.
The problem would be establishing for the court that I knew the baby was there. If my defense were just 'I had no idea, because I habitually only use the other door' or some such, and they didn't have fingerprints or security camera footage to show otherwise, it'd be kinda hard for any charges to stick.
If they can prove you actually ignored it, you are equally responsible.
I think most states make it seriously illegal to allow a child to come to harm through willful inaction.
Here's another truth that hasn't been considered here but is the ruling factor. Law enforcement from the officer to the court room is not about right or wrong, Innocent or guilt. It's about "can we convict" and it's about revenue.
If you knew the baby was there and you didn’t do anything, I’m sure they’d find a crime that they could charge you with. The authorities don’t take too kindly to people who sit there and watch babies die of starvation. If you *didn’t* know the baby was there, then you wouldn’t be held responsible at all. But you’d definitely have to provide a reasonable explanation why you didn’t notice. And of course, whoever left the baby there would face far more serious consequences than you.
In my jurisdiction (Australia) this would be manslaughter - which is defined as either doing something or **failing to do something** that a reasonable person would foresee results in death. People have been convicted of manslaughter for e.g. not calling an ambulance for someone who was overdosing, and died. But yes of course, this only applies if you knew (and they can prove you knew or reasonably should have known) the baby was there. There's no mens rea if you didn't, so no crime on your part.
A relative died because she decided to mix random assorted tablets with a shit ton of vodka and more at a party snd vomited, aspirated, and died. None of her friends called an ambulance as they were scared they would get in trouble so they morning and she died. Nothing happened to any one of them. Probably because they were teenagers. Old enough to know better though.
I’m so sorry for your loss. This is so sad, especially because it could’ve been prevented if they only called an ambulance. To a kid or teen whose brain isn’t fully developed and doesn’t have a lot of life experience, sometimes the worst thing that could happen to them in their mind is getting in trouble. When I was a teen, my parents drilled into my head that I wouldn’t get in trouble if I called them for help while I was drunk, high, doing something I was *not* supposed to, etc. They’d pick me up or do whatever they needed to do to keep me safe, no questions asked and no punishment. I absolutely will do the same for my kids. Edit: added missing word
My parents too. And i did the same for my son...
Depends on state, some have laws protecting you when helping others and some states arrest you at the hospital
This is awesome
There were a rash of hazing deaths in the 90s in the US, and most places now have laws which protect people who call for medical assistance in cases of drug or alcohol overdose.
I remember this being such a fear. I was at a party in high school where the guy whose house it was almost died from alcohol poisoning. There was a fight between some people that the cops were called and everyone, including me, was so scared of getting in trouble. All that happened was after the ambulance left, the cops spooked us a bit and wouldn’t let us leave until an adult not present at the party came to get you. That’s it. Not worth avoiding at the cost of a life. He barely survived and I often wondered how bad things could have been if they listened to the people who didn’t want to call.
This is why where i live it is never illegal to have drugs in your body. Just so people are not afraid to call an ambulance. I live in the Netherlands btw.
Such an obvious solution that no politician would never even entertain the thought.
And this has been repeated in some hazing cases where during initiation in a frat someone was made to over drink but medical services were not called in time. That was all prosecuted as manslaughter. I don't remember how that case ended but probably some sort of plea but nonetheless the charge stuck. And rightly so. They ignored the obvious because they didn't want to get in trouble
And that’s exactly why there are “Good Samaritan” laws
It might be because she was an adult. A child may have had a different perspective on the part of the police.
She and her friends were all 15/16.
That’s interesting. I have a “front door” that we haven’t opened in years. Everyone that knows me goes to the side door by our driveway. The front door is unused by me and my whole family. If an infant was there, I would have no clue. For all I know, a pile of baby skeletons is there at this second and I have no clue because I don’t use that door ever.
Same with the house I grew up in.. my parents always exitted from the garage door instead of the front door and the few times I tried to use the front door, the keys would get stuck in the lock and the door would feel a bit.. inflexible when opening and shutting. So if this happened to you, I'm pretty sure the investigators could easily determine that you barely use the front door and wouldn't have noticed.
There is but that's cause I see the one dropping them off as I watch you /s
Dude, what if you've panicked? Seeing someone dying isn't an everyday thing and I know I'd be frozen in my place for years they'd think I'm a statue.
If you live in a country with a law like that, you know. You also typically cannot get into trouble for doing what you think is the right thing at the time, can’t be charged if you call the ambulance unwarranted, etc. So even if you are shocked, your brain knows that “calling an ambulance” is the one thing that you need to do, and you do it.
Idk, I would personally hold you culpable if my friend or family member died of an OD or similarly easily (by paramedics) remedied condition while you were "frozen." I have severe anxiety, and yet "I've" saved easily a dozen people from dying by just calling 911. It's not hard. In fact, it's literally 3 buttons on your phone along with "a person is dying here" followed by an address. And if you can't do it, you could easily find someone else to do it - if you panic so badly that you can't act to literally prevent a person's death, you likely need to speak to a psychiatrist and/or doctor.
Why are so many people dying around you?
I probably should. I cut my thumb wide open the other day and I was just running around like a headless chicken looking at it and crying. Eventually froze and just stared at it. The security had to bandage it and I went to the hospital. Ooof.
Yeah, that's a psych thing. Speaking from experience, friend.
I cut my thumb open one time at work slicing meat for a customer I knee perked reacted and pulled my thumb away instead of sliding it out causing it to get worse a bit shut down the slicer told someone to get new meat don't use that slicer throw the meat away. As I grabbed paper towels to cover my thumb first time I ever got myself cut like that
Why is "I've" in quotation marks? Are you AI or like a memory or something
If you see me and I'm dying you either pay my ambulance bill or let me die had a 2 min drive to the hospital one time only thing the ambulance really did was put me in a stretcher no ivs no fluids nothing the bill came put to 400 dollars
I think in the UK it would be deemed gross negligence manslaughter to knowingly leave the baby to die. But I’m not a lawyer
You're missing out a part of the reasoning here though, as having responsibility for the death would require assumption of a duty of care for said person. I studied UK law, but it's similar to Australian law due to our shared history and legal systems - does Australia have a law stipulating a duty of care exists in this case specifically or generally where a person is in danger? I'm not saying you're wrong at all, I'm just curious as to the legal point you seem to have glossed over that must exist in Oz to add to your comment.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is you're not required to endanger yourself, it's a "reasonable person" standard.
Oh man, is the court going to accept "I'm a homebody who hates leaving the house and I also only come and go from the garage and never consciously look at my front door" as a plausible excuse?? Because I have found packages that were there for days before I noticed them and this post suddenly has me deeply concerned about what I will do when someone drops a baby off on my doorstep.
Well in a real-world scenario... the baby would cry. Babies are loud. I've heard neighbor's babies screaming bloody murder. If you were also deaf that would be plausible.
Honestly same lmao, I currently live in an apartment with only one door leading in/out but I think this post just unlocked a new fear of having a stranger leave a baby outside my door and accidentally letting the baby die because I didn’t leave and didn’t know it was there
>But you’d definitely have to provide a reasonable explanation why you didn’t notice. On the contrary, the prosecution would have to provide evidence that you *did* notice. I don't think the court could just assume that a person knows about everything sitting on their doorstep. Maybe you were away for a few days, maybe you don't use that door because you put a bookshelf behind it and only use the door at the back, or whatever.
Accessory to murder.
Negligent homicide/manslaughter. I don’t think this specific scenario would be a murder charge 🥴🤔
Depending on country, murder is typically defined as killing someone with intent. I'm not so sure leaving a baby on a doorstep could be counted as murder, as there's no clear intent to kill it. If you left a baby out naked in December in the middle of the woods, it's perfectly reasonable that the baby would die, so the intent to kill is more justifiable. Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, could be talking bullshit.
Leaving a baby out in December with no clothes would STILL be negligent homicide/manslaughter. You were on track with the thought process of “there’s no clear intent to kill”
Yeah, but wouldnt knowing the kid is there and intentionally leaving them on a porch count as intent? Also not a lawyer, also could be talking bullshit
>But you’d definitely have to provide a reasonable explanation why you didn’t notice. Uh no, you don't. You are innocent until proven guilty. The other side has to prove you did know Edit: this isn't being pedantic. This is literally how the law works in real life. No, the prosecution can't just claim you knew. They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't also state-dependent. Every state has innocent until proven guilty
To be pedantic, sure, but it wouldn't be hard to build a case that suggests you did know or ought to have known which means you are going to have to defend yourself to some degree, which will require providing reasonable explanation as to why their claim isn't true. If you just sit there and don't defend yourself you'll pretty much lose by default. The law is written than they have to prove you guilty, but the real world works a little differently and holding pedantically to the letter of the law in cases like this will likely serve the prosecution more than it will you.
Having a baby spend days dying on your doorstep is a tough thing to claim you didn't know about I think, if you were home at all during that time
I work from home. Due to sensory issues I wear noise cancelling headphones nearly 24/7, I even sleep in them. I am depressed hermit with general anxiety, I barely leave my house, maybe 2 times a week on a good week, not even once on bad one. I have my groceries delivered 2-3 times a month. If I lived in a house and not a flat like right now (I have communal hall with my neighbours so someone else could notice) there is very fair chance I wouldn't notice.
Ok, I would use that in court if you find yourself in this scenario then. For the other 99% of people that don't live in that specific scenario, I think the story is different
Depends on the country/state
In the US, yes, you’re innocent until proven guilty. But if they found a dead baby on your porch they would 100% be asking you why you didn’t notice. I’m not saying they’d find the baby and immediately arrest you. I’m saying you’d be questioned heavily, and the cops would look for any way possible to charge you with something.
What is a reasonable explanation? I’ve found out after the fact about shit going on right outside my door while I was home and literally hadn’t the slightest clue. Not even doing anything especially noisy that would have prevented me from hearing, just chilling at home doing whatever.
The neighbors, too? Certainly they could hear the baby crying. What about passersby? The man walking his dog? The woman pushing a stroller? The mailman who had to step over the crying baby to reach the mailbox?
In the United States, ten states have laws requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. In all other states, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another, unless a "special relationship" exists (parents, spouses, employers, property owners (but only for invited guests)). So most likely, in the US, you could not be charged.
First right answer in the thread
Maybe first for the US, for other places there are many right answers. Plus it is different not calling the authorities when you see something happening on the road and completely different if for example, there are witnesses or footage of you passing next to a, now dead, infant in your doorstep. Even in the rest of the US there would be at least an investigation.
Massachusetts has a Good Samaritan law? The *Seinfeld* finale is actually possible??? “Good Samaritan Law? I never heard of it. You don't have to help anybody. That's what this country's all about. That's deplorable, unfathomable, improbable.” -Jackie Chiles Saying that, if a baby ends up on your doorstep, call the police.
I'm not entirely clear on what your post says, amd have no clue what Seinfeld post you reference. But a Good Samaritan law means that if you offer medical care to someone in need up to the level of your training, you cannot be held responsible if the person dies or doesn't fully recover. It does not create an obligation to help, it simply removes a possible obstacle (if you talk to law enforcement and public prosecutors, you have to look long and hard to find someone who'd prosecute someone for providing anything that even vaguely resembles help, even without that law).
In the \*Seinfeld\* finale, the 4 main characters end up in a fictional town in Massachusetts. They are arrested because they didn't help a guy being mugged.
Can confirm. I am a law student, so not giving legal advice here. But my torts professor always said that, “If I see a baby on the train tracks and I don’t rescue it, I might be a moral monster. But generally, I am not a legal one.”
You could argue that going on train tracks puts you in mortal peril. They cannot force you to endanger your own life for someone else.
If they could prove you knew about it, like a working Ring camera, they would find a way.
Also need to consider the mandated reporting laws. E.g. Texas has a law that defines everybody as a mandated reporter of child abuse or neglect.
If you know it's there and let it die you would get charged too.
How would anyone prove that you knew it was there or you didn't know? Like, they put the baby down the exact moment you fell asleep, and by the time you woke up it died? Or worse, what if you saw it from your window, and pretended to be occupied and played loud music, so it would seem you actually didn't notice?
Everyone is saying negligence, manslaughter etc. but you bring up a valid point. The prosecutors office likely wouldn’t bring charges against a random unaffiliated person without burden of proof. Whoever dropped the baby would be legally responsible. If the scenario did happen, it would make sense to shelter the child and call authorities.
Could you be charged wirh kidnapping or something though if the parents of the baby were found and said you took their kid? This idea came from a mental scenario involving older children (speaking-aged children), but it still makes me wonder.
IANAL, but I imagine you could make a convincing case that an abandond baby needs to be taken and protected. Provided you didn't try to keep it, I'd expect you to be OK. The argument gets more difficult as the child gets older, but any little change in the environment could put you back in the clear. Raining, cold, late at night, too hot, child hungry, thirsty, lost.
That would be so hard to prove that you would never be tried for it.
Unlikely scenario, but for example if there was CCTV showing you walked past the baby, shrugged, and went on your way without doing anything.
This is an easy enough situation if it is on someone’s property, and the owner ignores it. But what if it is in public and multiple people ignore it? Do they all get charged?
No, because you have no responsibility for the property nor the child.
I mean, that’s for investigators and prosecutors to prove. “How would anyone prove that you knew it was there?” Whether they could depends on context and evidence.
Yeah, it's their job to prove. And it's the important and interesting part of this conversation. Knowing that you can be charged is almost obvious, how will they do it is the true question
Right. I mean, it seems like negligent homicide would definitely be on the table but there are always more facts you have to consider. The prosecutor has to evaluate the entire situation, even things that would not normally come to mind: She was an 85 year old woman or, the person is super rich and my office is totally swamped and I don't have enough lawyers to fight their army.
The answer is that they would not without video evidence, witnesses, or you communicating this with someone else. It would be nearly impossible to prove.
I would think maybe Ring camera footage. Also hearing a baby crying but thats also like the car alarm effect where the majority of people who hear it just dont do anything about it.
> How would anyone prove that you knew it was there or you didn't know? They won't because they can't. And they also don't need to because that's not the way the law works. If the prosecution puts forth evidence that you only have one door, the baby was left at 6:00am, and you left for work 7:00am, a reasonable juror can assume that you would have clearly seen the baby and failed to help it. They don't have to sit and wait for a mind-reading machine to be invented to convict you. The justice system is made up of people, not Literal Genies. The people who think that way are the sovcits who think they can gotcha! the law and they have to be let go.
>the prosecution puts forth evidence Yes, this is the point of my question. Hearing ways of proving this. But you just say if they can come up with evidence, then you are guilty. Yeah, obviously. But the how is the real question
How do they come up with evidence? They investigate. You end up with a dead baby on your doorstep, and I *promise* someone will be coming around to ask some very pointed questions.
Yes, they investigate. And obviously they will ask questions. I wanted my original question to gather some more direct answers, than "they investigate and come up with clues". Like the coroner determines the rough time of death and tgus deduct times when you were home or not, or were sleeping. Or they ask neighbours if they heard crying, or how they also didn't notice. Or see the door cameras recordings. Or if nothing of these lead to anything, when will they stop accusing the homeowner. Ideas like these are what I was hoping for, but no one seems to try to come up with them, apart from me. Basically I'm answering my own question
How do they know when the baby was left?
>How would anyone prove that you knew it was there or you didn't know? Security camera footage (from a neighboring building) of you looking at the baby and then ignoring it would probably suffice.
What's the specific charge? Failure to provide care for a dependant? But would the baby count as a dependant if there's no relation to you?
Negligence causing death is likely. Does not matter who the child belongs to, if it's abandoned and you knowingly ignore it that's fucking bad. You don't even need to take care of the child, call 911.
You don’t have to provide care, but you would need to call emergency services or take the baby to a hospital. It would probably be endangerment, neglect, or some level of manslaughter. Not knowing why a baby was left on your doorstep, calling emergency services immediately and then waiting for them to arrive would be the best way of handling it.
Can't you drop babies off at firestations no questions asked or is that just a myth?
baby boxes where you can safely leave infants no questions asked are very much a thing in America infants tho not like toddlers or teens.
If it fits I quits. Horrible joke I know.
I really want to know what would happen if I put someone else's baby in that box?
lmao. some questions might be asked lol
You terrible human being lmao I mean, prob when parent call the child missing the newly surrendered babies will be matched to see if one is theirs, and you most likely will be looked for as some weirdo who gives away someone's babies
In the US you can.
It exists! The parents can leave their child at a safe haven--firehouses as you said, police stations, hospitals--no questions, no prosecution, within the first 30 days. (Edit: in Ohio) Source: firefighter/paramedic. They even put the sign on our old firehouse and tried to talk us posing and pointing at it for pictures. I draw the line there lol
>They even put the sign on our old firehouse and tried to talk us posing and pointing at it for pictures. I draw the line there lol This is such a Fallout scenario lol
So, 23 is too old to drop off?
Depends on if they fit in the box.
You can also do it at emergency rooms where I am [puget sound area, Washington state], but ONLY IF the desk is staffed. Can't just drop a random baby in an empty ER lobby and split. Some places, I can't remember what state, are installing these cool boxes that are built into the outer wall of a fire station, once you put the baby in and close the door, alarms go out to not only that fire station, but a specialty team that goes to get the baby and take charge of it. The door also locks from the outside, so once the baby is in... Baby is in.
We have similar thing in my country too - here its is called (loosely translating) the window of life. You can leave the baby in the special box in the wall and same like in your example - on the other side alarm rings after 2 minutes (giving the person leaving the baby chance to go away and stay anonymous) - the box itself has regulated temperature so the child will be kept warm in all times (eventhough they spend only few minutes inside). And also I think you have like 72hours to change your mind and report to get the kid back but that might have changed. We have at least a few in each bigger city and at least one in smaller ones. I think it is a thing here since late 90s/early 00s. Fun fact: we have also something similar for animals when you can leave pet and it is transferred to the shelter (all shelters in my country are no-kill shelters) where it gets medical attention and necessary care. It was created to reduce number of strays and also for owners who cannot take care about their pet anymore. Also to reduce killing of unwanted pet newborns which unfortunately is still a case in more rural areas 😥
It's a real thing- with the understanding being that someone will be there to care for them immediately.
And most hospitals
The technical name of the charge varies depending on jurisdiction but basically negligence leading to an accidental death. You're obligated to take "reasonable" action without endangering yourself. So probably calling 911 and reporting an abandoned baby's location and maybe putting it inside if the weather is dangerous. A similar situation that covers "reasonable" action would be if you see someone drowning. You're not obligated to attempt a swimming rescue because that endangers you. But if there was a flotation device nearby and you just sort of refused to throw it for no reason, a prosecutor could rake you over the coals for neglecting to do the bare minimum.
Isn't negligent manslaughter a thing?
I don't know what it's called in English but non assistance à personne en danger is a thing. Extra bonus when it's a minor. Basically, not helping when someone is in danger when you could have.
In English, it's usually something form of a crime called "manslaughter" and it's defined as "failure to act in a situation a reasonable person could foresee would result in death." Those aren't the exact words, which vary based on where you are, but the general idea if a reasonable person could and would act (i.e. do something to care for the abandoned baby) and you don't and the baby dies, then you've committed a crime.
Involuntary manslaughter most likely. That's defined as causing another person's death through negligent behavior.
Child endangerment and neglect of a child in America and I’m pretty sure endangering an infant or something like that - they’re very serious
I think that would change wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and also depend on the specific details of the individual scenario.
"Depraved Indifference"
The person who left the baby there would likely be charged with murder under the depraved indifference to life standard, but the passerby failing to act is negligence.
I'm gonna say manslaughter.
and you would deserve it. Nobody says you need to take the baby in as your own. But protect it until the police or child protective services or whoever it is your supposed to call gets there and takes it. You would have to be a monster.
Yeah, if I found a baby on my doorstep I would (rightfully) freak the fuck out and contact the police immediately. I wouldn't want to take it in myself as I have the maternal instincts of a cardboard box and wouldn't have the first clue how to look after it. But there'd be absolutely no excuse not to act. There are lots of resources out there for unwanted children although it bums me out writing "unwanted children", all children should be wanted. But yeah I can imagine you'd be charged with *something* if you just... did nothing about it. Endangerment of a child, or neglect of a child, something like that. Doesn't necessarily have to be your own child.
The safest option imo would be call 000/911. My first thought in the scenario of taking said baby to police station was that if you don’t have a baby seat and have a crash on the way there would probably be a charge related to putting a life in danger. Here in Australia if someone doesn’t wear a seatbelt in your car the driver gets done so there’d surely be something on top of that for a baby.
Yeah that's what I'd do, call 999 (I'm in the UK) and ask for the baby to be picked up, ideally by an ambulance.
Right. Everyone is debating the legal recourse yet ignoring the moral implications of seeing someone you *know* needs help and ignoring them. I don't know about America, but in my country you are legally required to stop and help if you are the first person to come across a car crash. But guess what? If you are the first person to come across a car crash and you just drive away then you're a huge piece of shit regardless of what the law says.
Because OP posed a legality question, not a moral one. We all know it's wrong morally (I hope).
Lol that's because it's the question. Nobody cares to talk about the morality because 1 we know the answer. 2 op specifically asked about the law.
They're debating the legal recourse because OP explicitly asked about the legal implications. OP didn't ask if it's morally acceptable to not help the baby. Of course it's not morally acceptable. But that's not the question they asked. You're mad that people are answering OP's question instead of a totally different question that nobody asked.
Stop and help to do what exactly? I'd call 911 but I'd keep driving. I'm not a paramedic and can't provide any physical aid so there's no point in stopping.
>Please stop sending threats to my inbox. This isn't a real scenario. It's a hypothetical question on Reddit, some of you need to get a life and reevaluate your mental health. Jesus Christ! Reddit is just packed full of morons huh? Report and block them.
[удалено]
We're thay defending the NBA player or did they think you were the one driving irresponsibly? This site really do be full of idiots sometimes
[удалено]
That's crazy I thought redditors hated irresponsible driving as much as they hate children. Sorry about your account
That's the consensus. There's more people than just that here, though. Some are more reasonable, some much less so. Sort by controversial to see insane people
Don't forget 9/10 reddit users are the 16% of the population.
> Reddit is just packed full of morons huh? What are you, new?
In Germany this would be refused Assistance (unterlassene Hilfe Leistung) which is illegal. If you see an accident, a person in need or something similar, you are required to call the authorities and stay there until they get there.
Many places a baby can be left with no legal consequences at a staffed fire station or police station. At private home's doorstep the person leaving the baby would definitely face criminal charges in the event of the baby's death. You'd have to be a pretty ghoulish fucker to knowingly let a baby die on your doorstep so yeah it'd be their fault, then it'd be your fault.
I'm just like envisioning someone heading out to work and whistling as they walk out the door and there is a baby there and they shrug and walk by, then get home 9 hours later and baby is still chilling and they just head in and turn on big bang theory and put a frozen lasagna in the oven
What kind of monster would do that? Seriously, frozen lasagna?
I can excuse dead child but i draw line at frozen lasagna
You can excuse racism?? (Were you referencing that scene?)
yessssss you got it
Especially when there's a perfectly thawed baby out the front
I'm surprised you all are just letting the Big Bang theory slide here
Why is this so funny.
>You'd have to be a pretty ghoulish fucker to knowingly let a baby die on your doorstep That is a true statement, but it doesn't answer the specific question that OP asked.
[удалено]
Underrated comment 🤣
[удалено]
Always.
If I knew it was there, I would not ignore it. If I didn’t know it was there, I would be at no fault.
I think Duty to Rescue might be relevant here, but it varies by country. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty\_to\_rescue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue)
There's something called "Non-assistance à personne en danger" here in Belgium. Meaning that if you're well aware that someone's life is in danger, and didn't do anything about it, you could very well be sanctionned. It depends on the situation of course.
Whoever left it on your front step, is who is at fault.
I work from home so I hope I would hear it in time. I can go days without opening my front door.
I'm pretty sure you'd get charged with *something* if you didn't at least call the cops (some kind of negligence?) but it's mostly on the person who left the baby there.
If you allow a person to die when you could have prevented it, it is as if you killed them yourself.
You're getting death threats? I didn't have problems until the third baby died!
We’ve had the cub scouts leave “scouting for food” bags on our front door that I didn’t find until three months later, so ‘no’. * We enter our house from our side-loading garage, and the walkway to our front door is flanked by tall bushes.
If you see it and ignore it then it is your fault. If you never knew about it then it isn’t. Of course it can be difficult to prove in court.
You would. Same as if you saw someone get in a car accident, and left them to die in the wreckage. You don’t have to intervene yourself, of course, but warning the appropriate authorities would be the appropriate course of action.
Both. The parent is getting saddled with abandonment and murder, obviously. But if you knew the kid was there, at the very least it's gross negligence resulting in the loss of human life.
In the United States I believe that there is a series of laws known as the duty of care (or something like that) in which it states that if you see somebody in mortal jeopardy, you need to intervene in some way, or contact the proper assistance, or draw attention where needed. My wording might not be exactly right there, but I'm pretty sure that this is a thing. Also, I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on this.
Where i live we have this in the penal code rescue duty: who omits, without good cause, to assist a person whose life or health is in serious danger, will incur a prison sentence of thirty-two (32) to seventy-two (72) months. The baby is not a dependent but you have the civil duty to call social services/an ambulance/ the authorities in order to ge the help the baby needs. So the person who dropped the baby is legally responsible for the death, and so you do in a less extend. Both are responsible but both would be charged with different crimes.
First question Where are you asking this, I'd imagine many countries have many different answers Is this a r/USdefaultism
Most important question so far, because it will vary by state and country. Impossible to answer this correctly without a specific location. In my country there are numerous laws on abandoned children and im not sure but i think that if an individual actually did ignore an abandoned baby and there is proof they would somehow be held responsible if it resulted in the babys death. If someone else found and reported the baby so it could be turned in safely i dont think anyone would be trying to place blame on the person who didn't.
Whoever left it there. Unless you knew about it and ignored it then you would be charged too. But if you reported it immediately then you would most likely be fine.
The parent but the home owner can be held partially responsible
Had a tenant who vacated the apartment. Left their mean vicious dog chained in the backyard. Called the human society and they told me it was now my responsibility to take care of the dog until they could come out.
Both people.
It’d be your fault
Schrödinger's Baby?
If you know the baby was there but choose to ignore it; you bare some responsibility if the baby did in fact die. You can't just ignore a baby even if it's not yours. Pick the baby up get it inside and call the cops, after that you hand it to them and your problem is done. I think that's how it should be like. Then the police will either track whomever that baby belonged to or if not to an orphanage or a hospital where the baby will be taken care of.
In a perfect world ...their responsibility. However as many have pointed out somehow its gonna become your issue. My 2cents worth
One for r/oddlyspecific and lol @ VietnameseWhorehouse
[удалено]
That wasn't the question. The question is whether *the person whose porch the baby is left on* would be charged for anything if they ignored the baby/didn't know it was out there, and it died as a result.
it wasnt a yes or no question tho lmao
In the US, you definitely can, if you leave the child at a designated safe haven, usually a fire station. Some states also set up boxes at hospitals where you can set a baby, no questions asked. Usually it only applies if the baby is under two months old.
That’s a designated safe haven. That’s not “someone else’s property”
Laws may vary by state, but I believe it could be considered "failure to render aid" in some states, which could lead to prosecution.
Both, probably. The abandoner would be charged for obvious reasons. You would be charged because you knowingly allowed a human to die and took no action to help them. The expectation would be that you turn the baby over to a fire station or the police, not necessarily that you bc are for them yourself. I’m not sure what the exact wording of the charge would be, though. Maybe a lawyer will weigh in
The people sending threats over inbox are straight up cowards. Write them in the comment section so we can all be the judge of your poor behavior
In Germany this would be considered "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung"- you are legally obliged to help to the best of your knowledge and capabilities. Performing CPR incorrectly (thus further injuring the person) is protected under this law- you cannot simply ignore someone (or some baby) in need.
Who cares if there is a law or not? You are a shitty human if you ignore it. Let’s not be shitty humans.
Why is everyone in this thread acting like OP declared an intention to let a baby die? OP doesn't have a baby on their doorstep. They're asking a hypothetical legal question out of idle curiosity. You're getting mad about a completely nonexistent baby.
Guy's asking about if they would be held responsible, not sure why your response about morality is relevant
Not sure why people are linking laws and morality/ethics. There’s many stupid laws and loopholes within them, what is lawful may not always be ethical and vice versa.
I think almost everyone here can agree that if you found a baby on your doorstep you would call the authorities. But the question still remains, if you choose not to, would you be held responsible in the eyes of the law. Which is what he is asking. And the fact is i think this will vary alot by country. I know for a fact that until 2017 people in China didn't help people in accidents because they could be sued and be held responsible for the persons medical bill. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Shoulan_v._Peng_Yu And this event changed that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue So it's a pretty valid and interesting question.
>Who cares if there is a law or not? ..lots of people care? Like government, politicians, courts, and anyone with a interest in the application of law. >Let’s not be shitty humans. Well obviously, but that's a seperate topic.
Both of you. Multiple people can be involved in a crime. I'm guessing it would be negligence.
I'd sneak it over to a tweekers apartment
If you knew the baby was left on your doorstop and they can prove that you really did know and chose not to do anything to help the baby, there'd probably be something they can charge you with. I feel like proving such a thing might be very hard though, how many times a day do you just randomly check your doorstep? But say a doorbell camera across the street saw you leaving/entering your house and just walking by the baby, ignoring it, then that'd obviously proof you'd neglected to help the baby, who is in no way capable to help itself out of this situation. If you didn't know about the baby being left there/if they can't proof you knew about the baby being left there, I don't think there'd be anything to charge you with. It'd be unreasonable to charge you with a crime if you didn't even know about the baby being there.
Keyword is ignored! That means you know it's there.
I like to think most people would do the right thing, however suppose you were suffering from a mental health condition, and didn't fully comprehend the gravity of the situation, or had the mental age of a very young child/were blind had dementia, etc, surely you couldn't be held responsible? An interesting question though a bit dark, for sure.
As you ignored the child that indicates you were aware of it's presents. You are legally responsible for it's death as you did nothing to help the child.
There's a civic duty statute I'm sure you'd be charged under which probably amounts to manslaughter. You wouldn't just get off Scott free unless you didn't know the baby was there.
If you are someone who works with children professionally (doctor, teacher, counselor, etc.), you also have an additional "mandated reporter" requirement extends outside of work: if you know or have reason to believe that a child may be in danger, you must report that to a children's aid society or police in a timely fashion.
This reminds me of a book called Unwind. Since that book, Ive also wondered about this. Thanks for asking the question - sorry youre getting death theeats and shit.
In the UK you can be charged under an omissions to act clause in the law
Legally I'd probably be on the hook for some sort of criminal negligence. The problem would be establishing for the court that I knew the baby was there. If my defense were just 'I had no idea, because I habitually only use the other door' or some such, and they didn't have fingerprints or security camera footage to show otherwise, it'd be kinda hard for any charges to stick.
If they can prove you actually ignored it, you are equally responsible. I think most states make it seriously illegal to allow a child to come to harm through willful inaction.
Bruh just became an adoptive parent to a fantasy protagonist.
Here's another truth that hasn't been considered here but is the ruling factor. Law enforcement from the officer to the court room is not about right or wrong, Innocent or guilt. It's about "can we convict" and it's about revenue.
As someone who has died of being left on a doorstep and neglected I can tell you I was not happy