Compare the Wright case to the case of Susan Iwicki. Iwicki was babysitting 2-year-old Daxton Borchardt when her two Pit Bulls attacked and killed young Daxton. Iwicki was never charged with a crime. Some people have reacted (arguably disingenuously) to the Wright verdict by questioning why Susan Iwicki was not also convicted for the death of a child she was babysitting. Fair enough question, but even a modicum of research reveals that the two cases were vastly different.
In the case of Daxton Borchardt, the babysitter, Iwicki, was holding the child when her Pit Bulls (which had never shown any signs of aggression) pulled the child from her arms and attacked. Susuan Iwicki then valiantly attempted to save the child, and even suffered wounds herself. Afterwards, she voluntarily surrendered the dogs to be euthanized, and has since become of vocal supporter of victim advocacy groups.
On the other hand, Jena Wright completely abandoned a child under her care, in the back yard, with dogs that had previously shown signs of aggression. Wright did nothing to stop the attack, because she was nowhere to be found while it was happening. And after the attack, she showed little remorse, and has actually been defiant and confrontational. Iwicki’s only mistake was owning dogs that the Humane Society and the ASPCA and shelters across America assure us are “misunderstood” and “good with children.” Jena Wright’s mistake was leaving a child unattended in an area where a known danger existed. The result would likely have been the same if Jordyn Arndt had fallen into an open well while being unattended in an area that had an open well. The Wright case has that extra element of ‘consciousness of danger’ – forseeability.
Read more: 
http://www.yourlawscholar.com/?p=103
http://www.yourlawscholar.com/?p=103
No comments:
Post a Comment