Comments Elsewhere

She shares responsibility in this child’s death. But she was acting in good faith in what she thought was the best interests of her child. I don’t see any crime in that.

I don’t see any justice in punishing the mother either, but what you’ve said so far here is surely not enough of a reason for the conclusion. Supposing that you, acting in good faith on what you think is the best information possible, take my treasured Ming vase (because you mistakenly believe that it was stolen from you). Does the fact that you were acting in good faith mean you don’t have to give it back?

Supposing that in the process of trying to forcibly “recover” the vase from me, you drop it and it shatters into a million pieces. Does the fact that you were acting in good faith mean that you don’t have to pay me compensation for the destruction of what was, in fact, my vase?

Supposing that I try to stop you from taking the vase and you break my leg in the process of trying to forcibly stop me from forcibly stopping you. Does the fact that you were acting in good faith mean that you don’t have to make restitution to me for breaking my leg in the process of taking and destroying what was, in fact, my vase, from my own property?

Broadly speaking, what does the fact that someone is acting in good faith have to do with anything? If it’s somebody else’s property you’re damaging or taking, why should good faith or acting on what you think is the best information have any mitigating effect on your guilt or what you owe for the damage?