A Tale of Two Cities....well, actually one city...and a tale of justice for the rich and the poor

[Horse with no Name]

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/article_c09812bd-8948-5831-9e32-f02b1dddae77.html?mode=jqm

State child welfare officials said Wednesday they will investigate an incident involving a Scottsdale mother who left her 2-year-old son sleeping in the back seat of an unlocked BMW in the Neiman Marcus parking garage at Scottsdale Fashion Square while she shopped with her dog.

http://ktla.com/2014/04/01/homeless-mom-arrested-after-leaving-kids-in-car-during-job-interview/

A homeless mother in Arizona was facing child abuse charges Tuesday after allegedly leaving her two young children unattended in an SUV while she interviewed for a job, authorities said.
Her children were placed in the care of Child Protective Services.

[marble falls]

1. Like Lenny said, "You get all the justice you can afford."

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. k&r

[Igel]

3. Great example for comparing and contrasting.

1. Kid left in car in parking structure on a cool day, probably in the shade (parking structures ... most of the parking spots are shaded). Arrested and released. Woman responsible has a home and asked, presumably, a valet to monitor him; her sister took the kids and CPS doesn't know where they are. Investigation continued; no update, even though the incident happened 2 1/2 years ago.

2. Kids left in car in parking lot on a warm day, probably in the sun. Arrested and released on bond. Woman responsible is homeless; CPS wound up taking charge of the kids. Investigation continues. Website to raise funds for this woman is set up and bringing in a reasonable amount of money. Calls for dropping charges.

They're more alike in the overall story than they are similar. Women did something bad. Both arrested. Both put in jail. Both under investigation by CPS and facing (or faced) criminal charges.

The details, matter. Not all matter in the same way because context also matters.

One crucial one is the probable-shade/probable-sun on a cool/warm day.

The homeless woman was released on bond. Better flight risk--not much ties her down. The "homeful" woman had baggage, so to speak. It doesn't say if she was released on bond or not. The "bond" angle matters in the homeless woman's story because it provides background to the fund-raising efforts. There is no such effort for the other woman. An important detail.

Homeless woman's kids under CPS supervision. They're homeless--a bad thing for kids in the first place--and it wasn't clear that anybody could look after them. I for one wouldn't let my brother and his kid be homeless if I could shelter them; the only way his kid would have been homeless is if he said "no" to my offer, so it seems a safe assumption. The "homeful" woman's sister took charge of the kid (and dog). The homeful woman also is probably married or divorced, given her mixed Polish-Nordic surname, so there's another obvious person to give the kid to. Another sharply dissimilar detail.

The homeless woman had few other options. However, it's seldom that somebody has no options. The "homeful" woman was in some ways more negligent--however, if the valet had said he'd keep an eye on them, I'd cut her the same slack I'd have cut the homeless woman if she'd gotten a parking attendent to watch over her kids.

The homeless woman, however, has defenders. Fundraisers. Community support calling for her crime to be forgiven. The other woman has no defenders. In fact, a child-endangerment charge, even a misdemeanor, might make it hard for her to keep any teaching credentials she had or to get a job if the credentials remain intact. Or to keep a job, if her name is recognized by the parents of kids in her class.

[Stuart G]

4. K and R nt

[sheshe2]

5. Kicked and Recommending!