At the end of August, the not guilty verdict in the Arkansas trial of Judge Wade Naramore for the accidental death of his child resulted in many impassioned responses pro and con about whether he should have been held accountable for this death or whether the jury was right to find him not guilty.  The case is especially relevant today in light of the several hundred deaths each year of kids and pets locked in cars while their owners are away for varying lengths of time with various reasons, resulting in different charges and proceedings in the justice system in different parts of the country.

        So was justice served or not by the verdict?  This is the question Paul Brakke, the author of American Justice? published by Touchpoint Press decided to explore by looking at the varied responses of local citizens to the verdict.  To this end, he asked the co-author of his book American Justice?, Gini Graham Scott, Ph.D., a writer, sociologist, with a J.D. from the University of San Francisco Law School, to comment on what it means to obtain justice in an accidental death case and when is one criminally responsible for causing the accident. 

        In general, most of the respondents felt the jury had done the right thing, as Dr. Scott agreed.  But other respondents made a strong, compelling case for taking the opposite position, which might be appropriate under other circumstances, where the individual causing the victim's death is truly negligent due to his or her irresponsible behavior.  But if not, the situation might best be regarded as a tragic accident.

        The basic circumstances of the case are this, as Brakke described in a blog devoted to the case on the book's website www.americanjusticethebook.com.  A year ago, Naramore forgot that he had left his 17 month old son Thomas in his car, and the boy succumbed to heat stroke and died.  Naramore thought he had dropped his son, who was in the back seat, off at day care, but when he returned from his court hearings for the day and thought he was going to pick up Thomas to take him to a swimming lesson, he discovered the boy's lifeless body in the back of the car.

        Naramore was devastated.  He sobbed hysterically and held his son in his arms in a yard in front of his neighbor's house exclaiming "I killed my child, I killed my child," as the neighbor reported.  So Naramore  clearly had no intention of killing his son, and he had not engaged in any irresponsible, negligent behavior to bring about his death, such as being intoxicated, going on an extended shopping trip, having a conversation that lasted longer than expected, or meeting a mistress for some fun in the afternoon.  Even so, despite this lack of intent and lack of irresponsible behavior, the local prosecutor charged Naramore with negligent homicide -- a misdemeanor with a maximum term of a year in prison and a fine of $2500.

        Thus, under a legal definition of the crime, Naramore was certainly not guilty, as Dr. Scott points out.  According the state statute, the state has to show "beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the death would occur."  But in this case, Naramore offered ample proof that he was not aware, and as has been shown in many other cases, in which simple forgetfulness is not considered a matter of criminal intent.  For example, the situation would have been different if Naramore was aware his son was in the back seat and decided to stop in to buy something in a store, but then the child succumbed to the heat in those few minutes, because he would have committed an unjustifiable risk in leaving his child in the car.  Or if he had been drinking, and his reduced awareness caused him to forget his child was in the back seat, that would be another reason to find him guilty, because he was negligent in his decision to drink and thereafter act under the influence of alcohol.

        But in this case, Naramore had forgotten entirely because he was preoccupied with other ordinary things of the day, such as his upcoming court cases, his involvement in routine activities, and his feelings of stress.  So he was for very good reasons not aware of doing anything that was a "substantial and unjustifiable risk;" therefore, legally he did nothing wrong.  In fact, an expert witness David Diamond, a scientist and professor at the University of South Florida, demonstrated that he was totally unaware of his child remaining in the car, based on his 12 years of research into why parents forget their children in vehicles.  As Diamond explained, parents can come to experience a false memory of doing something that they usually do.  In this way, Naramore had developed the false belief that he had already dropped Thomas off at day care that morning.  Thereafter, he was truly devastated, had nightmares, and woke up screaming, helping to show how much he loved his child and in no way wanted to harm him. 

        While some opponents of the verdict thought that Naramore's ability to hire an expert witness and lawyer for his defense enabled him to escape punishment, in most cases, as Brakke's co-author Scott notes, people aren't typically charged and convicted on the facts of Naramore's case, because simply forgetting something does not show criminal intent.  While the police have made arrested a few person for leaving a child in a car and charged them for being negligent, even when the child suffers no serious harm, such an arrest is the rare exception, and generally are unlikely to result in a later prosecution.  Rather, a probable outcome is for social services to step in to work out future arrangements with the parents to be sure the children will be properly cared for and safe.

        Thus, it is understandable why the jury found Naramore innocent, and why the courtroom broke into loud cheers and sobbing when the verdict of innocence was announced and many agreed in a reader's survey conducted by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's reader survey.  In general, those supporting the verdict tended to emphasize Naramore's great suffering and the fact that his feelings of guilt and loss would be much greater punishment than the actual punishment for the crime if he was found guilty.  By contrast, those who felt he should have been punished focused on the child's suffering or seemed to see this as a case of a high-profile wealthy person getting away with a crime because he could afford the best defense.  The irony is that in actuality, Naramore was charged and went to trial because of his high profile, whereas if he was just an ordinary citizen, the police would not have even arrested him, based on the facts of the case, which showed his lack of negligence and intent.  The irony is that Naramore was actually charged because the incident gained a lot of publicity due to his position, and so the prosecutor felt compelled to charge him, though he probably wouldn't have otherwise.

        This discussion of whether justice was served in other cases is also considered in Brakke's book American Justice?, written with Dr. Scott.  As the book suggests, there are many opinions about what is justice or injustice, and there are many flaws in the criminal justice system.  The book provides some suggestions about what to do to deal with these problems, and perhaps these suggestions will help people come to a better consensus about what is justice.

* * * * * * *

         Paul Brakke, is a scientist based in the Little Rock, Arkansas area.  He became interested in studying the criminal justice system when his life was turned upside down after his wife was falsely accused of aggravated assault for trying to run some kids over with her car, since the kids and some neighbors wanted her out of the neighborhood.  Eventually, they had to move, as part of a plea agreement, since otherwise, Brakke's wife faced a possible 16 year jail sentence if the case went to trial and she lost.  He has told his wife's story in American Justice?, along with a critique of the criminal justice system. The book's website is at www.americanjusticethebook.com.