本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛这次分析不牵涉道德.
警方落案控告“虐母”案嫌疑人criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death: ss. 219–221(刑事疏忽致他人受伤) 和failure to provide the necessities of life: s. 215(未提供生活必需)2項罪名。
第一项罪名对应Crime Code Section 219-221，是hybrid(混合型)罪行。因Section 220涉及的是“疏忽致他人死亡”(death)，故略去，条文如下：
Criminal negligence
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety
of other persons.
Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence
221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 204.
Section 219应用于因疏忽而对他人造成伤害，警方已经不将嫌疑人视为故意伤害(assault)，估计已经考虑了嫌疑人关于“车房两边原设有两条‘暖气管’，应受害人要求拆去一条”的说法；也由于老人虐待没有更多的适用法律。
受伤的证据是明确的——低温冻伤：
..長者被送往附近的慈恩醫院時﹐證實中風﹐身體多處亦嚴重凍傷﹐更一度需要倚靠維生器支持﹐生命危殆。
关于受伤的直接原因的证据也是明确的：
..“皮膚冰冷”、“嚴重凍傷”
..整個車房惟一暖氣來源是一個接連覑房子的通氣口﹐車房內的溫度比房子內的溫度低20度。
..長者被發現時﹐不但身穿單薄衣服﹐她更只有一張薄氈保暖。
嫌疑人可以加以辩护的是所负“duty”的大小、“negligence”的程度——也就是导致直接原因的原因——但这种辩护只能改变刑罚的轻重。Section 221提出的最高刑罚是10年。
第二项罪名对应Crime Code Section 215，条文如下：
Duty of persons to provide necessaries
215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty
(a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under
the age of sixteen years;
(b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and
(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person
(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself
from that charge, and
(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.
Punishment
(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection
(2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding eighteen months.
因老人骨折卧床、轻度老年痴呆，属于“illness, mental disorder”，同住的儿子作为caregiver，并未能提供生活必需：
..該車房為磚牆建造﹐不但全無隔熱設備﹐亦沒有取暖裝置﹐整個車房惟一暖氣來源是一個接連覑房子的通氣口﹐車房內的溫度比房子內的溫度低20度。
..車房內亦沒有照明設備﹐相信長者到了晚上﹐所有活動都要摸黑進行。
..警員發現長者時﹐車房內衛生環境惡劣﹐臭氣薰天。
..長者送院後檢查﹐發現她的胃部空無不（一？）物。
这个最高刑罚是5年的罪名，实在看不出嫌疑人还有翻盘的机会。
以上的分析，还是有点笼统概括的，没有作证据链(evidence chain)的详细推导，但逻辑上还是比较明显的。作为elder abuse，其实是很难定罪的。如果嫌疑人懂法会逻辑，警方会面临很大挑战去起诉，局面会很不同。所以也不想说很细，以免被人误用。更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
警方落案控告“虐母”案嫌疑人criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death: ss. 219–221(刑事疏忽致他人受伤) 和failure to provide the necessities of life: s. 215(未提供生活必需)2項罪名。
第一项罪名对应Crime Code Section 219-221，是hybrid(混合型)罪行。因Section 220涉及的是“疏忽致他人死亡”(death)，故略去，条文如下：
Criminal negligence
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety
of other persons.
Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence
221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 204.
Section 219应用于因疏忽而对他人造成伤害，警方已经不将嫌疑人视为故意伤害(assault)，估计已经考虑了嫌疑人关于“车房两边原设有两条‘暖气管’，应受害人要求拆去一条”的说法；也由于老人虐待没有更多的适用法律。
受伤的证据是明确的——低温冻伤：
..長者被送往附近的慈恩醫院時﹐證實中風﹐身體多處亦嚴重凍傷﹐更一度需要倚靠維生器支持﹐生命危殆。
关于受伤的直接原因的证据也是明确的：
..“皮膚冰冷”、“嚴重凍傷”
..整個車房惟一暖氣來源是一個接連覑房子的通氣口﹐車房內的溫度比房子內的溫度低20度。
..長者被發現時﹐不但身穿單薄衣服﹐她更只有一張薄氈保暖。
嫌疑人可以加以辩护的是所负“duty”的大小、“negligence”的程度——也就是导致直接原因的原因——但这种辩护只能改变刑罚的轻重。Section 221提出的最高刑罚是10年。
第二项罪名对应Crime Code Section 215，条文如下：
Duty of persons to provide necessaries
215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty
(a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under
the age of sixteen years;
(b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and
(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person
(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself
from that charge, and
(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.
Punishment
(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection
(2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding eighteen months.
因老人骨折卧床、轻度老年痴呆，属于“illness, mental disorder”，同住的儿子作为caregiver，并未能提供生活必需：
..該車房為磚牆建造﹐不但全無隔熱設備﹐亦沒有取暖裝置﹐整個車房惟一暖氣來源是一個接連覑房子的通氣口﹐車房內的溫度比房子內的溫度低20度。
..車房內亦沒有照明設備﹐相信長者到了晚上﹐所有活動都要摸黑進行。
..警員發現長者時﹐車房內衛生環境惡劣﹐臭氣薰天。
..長者送院後檢查﹐發現她的胃部空無不（一？）物。
这个最高刑罚是5年的罪名，实在看不出嫌疑人还有翻盘的机会。
以上的分析，还是有点笼统概括的，没有作证据链(evidence chain)的详细推导，但逻辑上还是比较明显的。作为elder abuse，其实是很难定罪的。如果嫌疑人懂法会逻辑，警方会面临很大挑战去起诉，局面会很不同。所以也不想说很细，以免被人误用。更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net