The Pestinikas family in Missouri took care of a 92 year old man. They were obliged to provide the basic human needs to him as it was their responsibility to take care of the old man. The family was to provide food and medical care for the old man. Later the old man succumbed due to poor malnutrition and lack of exposure which was as a result of ignorance by the family. The family did not provide the old man with food as earlier agreed when they took him. This is why his cause of death was established to malnutrition. The old man died due to negligence from then Pestinikas family. The family did not stick to the commitment they had agreed to fulfill. The Missouri state had to sue them for their ignorance and negligence as this could be the only significant cause of his death.
The state has to sue the family and press for charges for their failed role. This is because they failed to provide the old man with food and better medical care as it was required of them. It is evident and convincing enough to charge the Pestinikas family for the demise of the old man. The law does not support ignorance actions at any level (Konig 2010). This act is chargeable by the law. It is universally recommended to press charges on court cases pertaining to ignorance and negligence. The government should hold them since they have committed the criminal offense of manslaughter by playing a key role in the death of the old man. The laws concerning ignorance in Missouri state that every person has the ability to differentiate between the good and evil. Therefore, they should be accountable for their actions. This is because the law only punishes those who are culpable and not those who are aware of the law. This is according to the rule known as the “ignorance maxim” (Konig, 2010).
The Missouri state has to sue the family to maintain the moral authority it is required to maintain. The government has to maintain the moral intuition of its citizens. Thus, the people who violate the laws should be responsible for their immoral behavior. In Missouri, minor offenses are punished leniently while the serious offenses are severely punished. This is according to its jurisdictional system and constitution on criminal and civil laws. The court has to listen to the argument of the defendant and the plaintiff (Samaha, 1999).
What possible charges could be issued?
The possible charges that could be pressed on the Pekinikas family are ignorance, negligence and manslaughter. Considering the charge of ignorance, it is evidently clear that the family ignored the responsibility they willingly accepted. This responsibility was the duty of care they owed the old man. In the event, the concern of the old man did not seem to matter much to them as time progressed. They attended their own duties forgetting their responsibility of looking after the old man. This ignorance led to succumbing of the old man who was too weak to care of himself. They were ignorant about giving the old man proper medical attention. They did not seek medical advice to realize the old man was malnourished. Therefore the state has to sue them responsible for this ignorance (Temm, 2007).
The second charge against the family should be negligence. This is because, the neglected their duty to check on the well being and health of the old man. They failed and neglected the old man leaving him to succumb to ill health and malnutrition. Therefore, they are guilty for letting the old man die of controllable illness and neglecting their duty to check on his wealth.
The couple should be charged with manslaughter because their actions led to the loss of life which is a criminal offense. Since the couple’s actions are not aggravated to the level of making the man’s death a murder, manslaughter would be a better alternative. This would also help ensure that residents of the state of Missouri are aware that they are responsible for the lives of people they take into their care. That is, just like doctors, duty of care, whether implicit or explicit should be honored.
References
Konig, David Thomas, Paul Finkelman, and Christopher Alan Bracey. 78-94. The Dred Scott case: historical and contemporary perspectives on race and law. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2010. Print.
Samaha, Joel. 56-72. Criminal law. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth, 1999. Print.
Temm, Wanda M., and Julie M. Cheslik. 32-48. Missouri legal research. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2007. Print.
