Since When Is Ignorance Excusable?
Earlier today it was announced that the jury deadlocked in the case against Maureen Faibish. Maureen was the mother of 12 year old Nicholas, who was mauled to death in their home on Lincoln Avenue in the Inner Sunset. Maureen was charged with felony endangerment.
That was a grim day for the Faibish family. A grim day for many people, a child died in the fury of a dog mauling.
A couple of the Jurors were quoted by the AP:
“None of them believed that when Ms. Faibish walked out the door she believed her son would be seriously injured or killed,” said Lidia Stiglich. “There’s not much more that can be done to her. Her son is dead, and she’s the one who left him on that day.”
What I can’t understand is that the jurors essentially believe that since Faibish didn’t know that the dogs were primed to attack that day, she can’t be found guilty. Since when is ignorance an excuse (or a defense)? Anyone who has had experience with dogs knows that they can do great harm if they are not trained and taken care of. Especially stronger breeds. Regardless, if she didn’t think they were dangerous, why was Nicholas locked in the basement?
From a study in 2000:
Children are the most vulnerable victims in dog attacks. Those under the age of 14 account for 42 percent of dog bite injuries. The highest rate of injuries was to children between the ages of 5 and 9.
Of the 27 people who died in from dog bites, 19 were children under the age of 15. The animal responsible for 3 out of 4 injuries involving youth under the age of 14 is the family dog.
In the city of SF:
Pit bull and pit bull mixes accounted for 27 percent of dog bites reported to the city’s Animal Care and Control department since 2003, even though pit bulls account for just 6 percent of licensed dogs in the city, records show.
From the SF Chronicle
How can a jury believe that Faibish’s actions, or lack of action couldn’t be found to be endangerment? There must be an incredibly low standard for endangerment, what else can explain this? She more than neglected the well being of her son when she left him there, locked in a basement, with a shovel propped against a door to keep the horny dogs outside. She knew there was danger on the other side of that door.
Related posts:
Juries are a bitch. As are legal standards of culpability. You’re right that ignorance is no excuse - but that’s ignorance of *the law* - not just being plain ignorant. That is to say, she doesn’t have to know the statute she’s violating exists - we’re all on constructive notice that some things are wrong and criminally so.
I’m not sure what legal standard the city needed to prove here, but likely something along the lines of a more than an inkling the dogs would be trouble were they left alone with the kid.
I don’t know about you - but I can’t help but think back to the news reports immediately after the interview when Mom Faibish said things like it “was his time” or other nonsense crap. She seemed icey and strange. No doubt traumatized, but not that sympathetic either. Juries, of course, are forbidden from considering such things in their deliberations - they only get what’s in the courtroom to shop from when making their decisions.
Pit Bull owners are up there with Holocaust denialists in my book of “Confused People Who Enjoy Doing Harm To Others” with their denial of both basic statistical information and basic biological science. And they’re very loud in their support of their biologically dangerous dogs.
At the same time, depending on her court demeanor, if the jury saw little way to issue her a punishment more severe than what she is already suffering . . . . jury nulification (ie: when a jury does what it wants rather than what legal scholars decree to be the correct answer) is very real. Its merits are debatable . . . .
When confused by a jury verdict, its often helpful to look at the underlying details (i.e., facts) of the case.
Here, the prosecutors charged the mother with felony child endangerment, i.e., a violation of Penal Code section 273(a), which reads:
(Emphasis added.)
The term willfully in the statute has been interpreted to mean that a defendant accused of this crime must have known and/or intended that the child suffer injury by their conduct.
Here, according to news reports, the jury was not (unanimously) convinced that the prosecutors had proved the knowledge/intent to harm element beyond a reasonable doubt. I didn’t watch the trial so I do not have an opinion whether that was a sensible conclusion or not. But I am certain that generalized statements like “[dogs] can do great harm if they are not trained and taken care of,” even if correct, are not sufficient to meet that standard.
The jury heard more than we did. The child was not locked in the basement. It was a garage the length of the apartment building with two ways to exit: the garage door and the back door which was broken hence the use of the shovel.