brighid

I would think in sentencing the point of contributory negligence would/should come up. It isn't the fault of the van driver that he was in this accident, but his negligence with regard to seat belt usage can be argued to have contributed to the outcome. Any good attorney would seek to reduce the charges from homicide to manslaughter. It is one of those "but if not for" scenarios.

Morally speaking they are both responsible for their actions and inactions that contributed to the overall outcome of this unfortunate incident. We cannot absolve the driver for his contribution to his own death. I don't think this is a situation where the victim is being blamed, such as in the case of a rape victim who is told she was dressing too provactively and therefore "deserved" to be raped. I don't think this man deserved to die, but it is plausible (and a forensic examination of the scene and evidence would determine that) that a seat belt would have saved his life.

The driver is largely responsible for the accident. The driver was driving under a suspended license (and therefore shouldn't have been at the wheel) and ran a red light. The driver should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for willful disobedience and the contribution that had to the death of one man, and the injury of his passenger.

Brighid

scigirl

I think that's true, but I think, in legal terms, it is irrelevant.

If a doctor is negligent in treating his patient, and the patient dies a week sooner than expected, he can be prosecuted, even if the patient was definitely going to die anyway. Even if the patient was dying of an illegal drug overdose or self-inflicted wound. But I see we both agree on the sentence of the driver so I'm probably belaboring the point.

Interesting case on law and order about this - a guy was being obnoxious firing a gun into the "air" and he struck a man. This man went to the hospital, and the doctor there let him die so he could harvest his organs. The doctor technically "killed" him, but the gun-toting bastard set the events into motion. In the show, they were both found guilty of murder. In real life- not sure what would happen.

I like discussing these cases - they make you think about life and death and intent and morality in new ways.

scigirl

brighid

Me too I find the perspectives of so many different people to be very interesting. Often times others come up with thoughts and ideas that I would not have thought of, thereby broadening my own education.

As to the legality of it ... I suppose that depends on the laws of that state. I think all those who contributed (like the Law & Order example you gave) should suffer the consequences. No one person is entirely responsible and therefore each should be according to his/her actions.

Morally speaking they are both responsible, although the driver of the car is most responsible, should suffer equitably and obviously the van driver can suffer no greater consequence then the one he already suffered.

People shouldn't be careless and on a personal level drivers that run red lights really, really piss me off. A few weeks ago I nearly got creamed by one. She didn't even slow down and in that moment I was so angry that any one could be so oblivious as to fail to realize they nearly killed another person. I wanted to turn around, follow her and yell at her ... but the foreseeable consequences to that were not pretty and I just went home, shaking like a leaf from the near death collision. I am confident, despite seat belts and air bags I would have been severly injured from a 60 mph impact in the passenger side. I was just happy my son wasn't in the car with me at the time. It makes me sick to think about that.

Brighid

Pyrrho

Very interesting point. Other people can die or have other suffering due to someone else not wearing a seatbelt. By not wearing seatbelts, people also increase the cost of insurance for everyone. Maybe they should have to pay that portion of my car insurance.

Regarding the motorcycle helmets, I think anyone who would ride without one doesn't have anything worth protecting. The same goes for those who don't wear seatbelts.

I think the law should be changed such that those who do not use the appropriate safety equipment should have to pay for all injuries sustained by them, regardless of who is considered to be at fault for the accident. Their violation of the law affects us all, and I think they should have to pay for it.

MollyMac

Brighid, you make it sound as if homicide only refers to murder - is that true in your part of the universe? Here in the UK the term homicide is a general term used to cover both murder and manslaughter and last time I checked the law on vehicle crime, neither were applicable in cases like this.

In the UK this would be charged as 'causing death by reckless driving' and would attract a sentence of a couple of years at most. The fact that the guy wasn't wearing a seat belt, which is a legal requirement here, may well mean that the sentence would be reduced still further. I don't think the sentences for reckless driving here are harsh enough. But at the same time I don't accept that a crime like this should be classified as either murder or manslaugher - at least not how they are legally defined here. To be convicted of murder, prosecuting counsel has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there was intent to kill. To be convicted of manslaughter, they must prove either intent to commit serious crime e.g. serious bodily harm, serious damage to property etc, or self-defence.

The only time a driver is convicted of murer or manslaughter is if it can be proved that the offender got into the car and drove it with the specific purpose of killing or injuring the victim.

njhartsh

The issue of legal causation is endlessly confusing and can pose conundrums far sillier than most of the ones in this thread.

Consider:[list=1][*]A and B are arsonists who know nothing of one another. A decides to burn down Townhouse 1. B independently decides to burn down Townhouse 2, next door. C is a firefighter who is sent to fight the fire in Townhouse 1. Once inside 1, C finds that he is hemmed in on three sides by flames. He heads for the exit of 1 but is struck by a flaming girder falling from 2 and killed. Both A and B are tried for felony murder. What results?
[*]Thug D shoots pedestrian E in the chest, such that E will (to a medical certainty) die 60 minutes later. 59 minutes after the first shot, thug F happens by and shoots E in the head, killing him instantly. What result at D's trial?
[*]G fires a gun at her husband H, intending to kill him. She misses; he gets mad, divorces her, moves back in with his parents on their farm and then falls off a horse and dies. At G's trial for murder, what result?
[*]J shoots passerby K. Ambulance 1 picks K up and heads toward the hospital. Crazed maniac L, driving his own car, runs Ambulance 1 off the road; it hits a tree. Ambulance 2 picks K up and heads toward the hospital. Crazed maniac M, driving his own car, runs Ambulance 2 off the road; it hits a tree. Ambulance 3 picks K up and heads toward the hospital. Crazed maniac N.... Eventually, K dies from the gunshot wounds in Ambulance 14. At J's trial, J proves beyond a reasonable doubt that K would have survived had medical care not been so delayed. What result?
[*]O steals a car and screams off down the freeway with police in hot pursuit. Several television networks send news helicpoters to film the chase. Two of the helicopters collide, killing four people. At O's trial for felony murder, what result?
[*]P, a pedestrian in Hong Kong who has not read any books about chaos theory, sees a lever on the side of a building marked "EXTREME DANGER--DO NOT PULL." He pulls it anyway. The lever starts a contraption that pushes a nearby butterfly off of a platform, and the butterfly's flapping (provably) causes an enormous hurricane to hit Miami, killing 400 people. What result at P's murder trial?
[*]Q, angry at fellow bus rider R, shoots R in the thigh from a range of 6 inches. R, bleeding profusely, decides to pray for healing rather than go to a hospital. R bleeds to death from the entirely reparable wound. What result at Q's murder trial?
[*]Doofuses S, T and U decide to play Russian Roulette. They load a revolver with one cartridge. S puts it to his head and pulls the trigger; nothing happens. Then T does the same; nothing. Finally, U follows suit, the gun goes off and U dies. What result at the trial of S and T?
[*]V is a famous explorer about to set out on a solo expedition in the desert. W, X and Y all want V dead but are entirely unaware of each other. W puts quick-acting poison into the water in V's sole canteen. Minutes later, X empties the canteen and fills it partway with sand to fool V with the weight. Shortly afterward, Y drills a hole in the bottom of the canteen so that water will leak out. V leaves on the expedition, oblivious to all this, and dies of thirst. What result at W, X and Y's trials?
[*]Annoyed that their criminal law professor, AA, is confusing them with stupid hypotheticals, two law students, Z and ZZ, independently decide to shoot him. At the same instant, Z and ZZ both jump up from their seats, pull out high-powered rifles, and shoot AA in the head. On trial for murder, what results?[/list=1] - Nathan, still dazed eleven months after taking the bar exam

njhartsh

This is correct in every jurisdiction (American, British, Canadian, etc.) that I'm familiar with.

Um... wrong.

At English common law, manslaughter is "the unlawful killing of another without the intention to kill or cause [great bodily harm], the death taking place within a year and a day of the injury" (emphasis added). Intentional homicide is murder in any common-law jurisdiction.

Here are some UK manslaughter cases:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsper...736514,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/health...432943,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...413415,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsa...590166,00.html

American legal systems have inherited the English definition of manslaughter (among many other things), though as this thread indicates, several American jurisdictions have added more specific terms to it.

- Nathan

brighid

From Black's Law dictionary:

Homicide: The killing of one human being by the act of another...Homicide is not necessarily a crime. It is a necessary ingredient of the crimes of murder and manslughter, but there are other cases in which homicide may be committed without criminal intent and without criminal consequenes, as, where it is done in the lawful execution of a judicial sentence, in self-defense, or as the only possible means of arresting an escaping felon. The term "homicide" is neutral; while it describes the act, it pronounces no judgement on its moral or legal quality.
Black's Law Dictionary


MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent...Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m013.htm

It appears that Vehicular Homicide is a felony in Nebraska (do I have the right state?) and defined as: Statutes which allow a homicide charge to be brought against an individual who kills another person through the operation of a motor vehicle, either intentionally or negligently.

http://www3.madd.org/laws/law.cfm?LawID=VEHH


It seems there is a difference between vehicular homicide vs. vehicular manslaughter depending on the state, but it seems I may have terms confused. Murder is homicide, and manslaughter is homicide but manslaughter is a lesser crime ... so I guess it depends on the state ... this is not the area I have much, or any legal experience in ... I find defintions like Vehicular Manslaughter with Gross Negligence being different from Vehicular Manslaughter ... so if vehicular homicide is not the lesser of charges that can be filed against this defendant I would think the contribution of the van drivers own negligence should lessen the charge. I don't know if manslaughter is the lesser of the two charges and meant it only in "general" terms. Does that make sense?

Brighid

Loren Pechtel

I've heard of a real case like this.

scigirl

Hi Nathan, thanks for those crazy cases! So. . . . what are the answers?

OH WOW if I have to do my ER rotation in that town I QUIT!

scigirl