Jamie_L

What I find interesting about this whole scenario is the notion that this person who caused the accident could have been in the same exact accident, with the same negligence/intent, and would be charged completey differently depending on whether or not the other driver dies. Is it moral to tie criminal punishment to the result of the crime?

Suppose two people cause accidents by running a stop light under similar circumstances. In one case the victim is in a Geo metro and gets killed. In the other case, the victim is in a Hummer H2 and suffers only a few scrapes and buises. Is it right to charge the first driver with a much more severe crime than the latter, when the crime the committed is otherwise exactly the same?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that question.

Jamie

brighid

Yes, it is right to charge each accordingly. Both drivers will recieve punishment for running a red light and whatever applicable sentence goes with that, but the driver that ran a red light and the result was death of another person will be charged with vehicular homicide/manslaugther, etc. It makes no sense to charge the driver whose actions did not result in as much damage for a more severe crime, while charging a drivers whose actions resulted in homicide for a lesser crime simply because they both broke the same laws/took identical action.

It is unfortunate that all cars aren't designed with appropriate safety features to limit damage in an accident and mostly the well off can afford cars with excellent crash rating and safety features.

Brighid

Loren Pechtel

When you do something reckless you take a chance with the injuries that might result.

MollyMac

Thanks for the links njhartsh.

I hadn't checked the legal definition of manslaughter before posting, I was simply basing it on my own experience of having sat through some 50 murder trials and seeing some people charged with murder found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Here are a few that stand out in my mind:

One guy set fire to a house knowing there were people inside it - two women died. The jury were directed that if they believed he deliberately started the fire but not with the express intention of killing, he should be found guilty of manslaughter not murder. He was.

Another was a guy who, having been held up at knife point behind the counter of his store, then followed the offender out of the shop. He jumped into his car and ran the offender down admitting quite openly that he had wanted to injure - but not kill him. Charged with murder, found guilty of manslaugher.

Finally, a guy got hold of a gun - and shot another guy dead. The jury were directed to find him guilty of murder - they found him guilty of manslaughter. A very controversial case which received enormous media coverage with most people applauding the jury's decision. The reason? The dead man had been banned from driving for life - nevertheless he had got into a car, driven recklessly and killed a twelve year old boy. He was shot dead by the boy's father.

I'm not a lawyer - I was attending court supporting the families of the victims - so I don't really know how these cases square with the law as it's written. I've never attended a case involving 'involuntary manslaugher', which appears to be something quite different.

Vylo

Perhaps I should clarify the reason for my earlier desire for a law that would disolve the responsibilty of the driver at fault towards the lives of people not taking legal safety precautions. My motive is to create a situation in which more people will wear safety belts (and put children in car seats, wear bike helmets etc.). If you knew you could be crippled by another driver who was at fault, and recieve nothing from them for your injuries just because you failed to take those precious 3 seconds to buckle your seat belt, Wouldn't you be slightly more inclined to buckle up? If you knew a family member could be killed in a similar situation, and the other driver would suffer no penalty (other then vehicular and property damage), would you not push them a bit harder to try to remember to put their safety belt on? If more people wore their seat belts there would be less vehicular deaths to begin with. I know many may have trouble sacrificing the rights of people such as the victim in this story, but realize they they are not totally innocent in their fate, and that a law such as this would be for the greater good. In my opnion the rights of a careless driver who breaks the law by not buckling up pales in comparison to the potential lives that could be saved by a law such as this.

Jamie_L

brighid and Loren:

Really? You don't see anything remotely odd about that scenario? That someone should receive dramatically different legal punishments for circumstances beyond their control. Certainly in a civil litigation where the issue is compensation for loss, the results are a key element. But in prosecuting criminal behavior, although my first instinct is to agree with you, on deeper consideration I start to wonder.

What is the purpose of the additional criminal punishment for the driver who hits the Geo Metro? Or, from he flip side: Why does the person who hits the H2 deserve less punishment for exercising the exact same negligence/recklessnes? Is he being rewarded for his good luck?

Obviously our legal system is set up this way. But should it be?

Jamie

brighid

Because the outcomes are different even if the action is the same! They will both be charged for running a red light, but both won't be charged for vehicular manslaughter/homicide if someone doesn't die.

I do think the penalties for running a red light and thereby causing an accident should be much higher then they are, but I cannot agree that an accident that causes a death should be punished less, or one that doesn't cause a death should be punished more. One cannot control for the negligence/circumstances of the other drivers car. It is unfortunate that some people cannot afford to buy anything more then the death trap Geo and others can afford to buy cars fortified like the Hummer. That is not the result of the person causing the accident.

I can understand your point, but imagine yourself in the same situation and you hit the Hummer should you be charged for a crime you didn't commit? No, you should be charged appropriately and if your neglegent action caused anothers death you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter/homicide.

Perhaps, in your defense, an attorney could bring up the fact that a person driving a Geo puts himself in danger by driving this death trap and therefore this will somehow mitigate your guilt in some part.

It is no more the drivers fault that the accident victim wasn't wearing his seat belt, then it is he/she may have been driving a Geo or a Hummer. One should only be held accountable for things that one can control for. I don't see how anything else would be fair or ethical. That is why the legal standards generally revolve around the ideas of what a reasonable person could be expected to foresee. Although I would say that a reasonable person could foresee that running a red light and striking a Geo would very likely cause grevious harm/or death and therefore one shouldn't EVER run a red light (that seems like common sense), but one cannot predict that the car one might strike WILL be a Geo or a Hummer.

Brighid

Vylo

There is no legal requirement to drive a hummer or not drive a geo. There is a legal requirement to take proper safety precautions, such as a seat belt. The victim failed to do this, and is partially responsible for their own demise.

njhartsh

This is, indeed, a conundrum that criminal law classes can't avoid dealing with.

There's at least one other scenario that presents the same issue: attempted murder. If I intentionally shoot someone in the chest and he's taken to the hospital, my sentence may well depend upon the talents of the surgeons. Let's say that the injury is such that the hospital's median surgeon won't be able to prevent death but the hospital's best surgeon will be able to save the victim; then, the crime I'm guilty of depends directly on ER happenstance. Which seems really bizarre--the very same act and intent on my part can be one crime in one surgical situation but a considerably more serious crime in another.

In the end, I agree (as do most, but not all, legal scholars) with brighid and Loren, but I for one do see the "odd"ity of the situation.

I guess the question for Jamie is: what's our alternative? Should we reduce all sentences for crimes to the sentences for the attempted crimes? (Or, for something like reckless driving, cite a vehicular manslaughterer for mere speeding/running a red light/DUI/etc.?) That outcome doesn't seem right for me either.

- Nathan

brighid

I would say that the luck of the draw is unfair, but cannot be controlled for and therefore almost irrelevant to a case at hand (but not entirely, depending on the case.)

I would think these sorts of bizarre circumstances would be a deterant, but most people committing felonies aren't generally abiding by the rules of common sense or logic.

I don't know that this dilemma can be solved. Unfortunately we cannot control for stupidity or dumb luck (bad or good.) We can only deal with what is.

Brighid