1
   

Negligence supports second-degree murder charge?

 
 
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 03:59 pm
Have you observed a trend wherein the laws are being manipulated to support harsher charges against persons accused of criminal wrong-doing?

Here's a case in point:

Murder by DVD Distraction

When a pickup truck crossed the double yellow line along Seward Highway and killed two occupants of a Jeep Grand Cherokee, police initially thought the accident was another tragic mistake by a momentarily distracted driver.

Then they spotted the dashboard DVD player.

In what may be the first trial of its kind in the nation, prosecutors have accused the pickup truck’s driver of second-degree murder for watching a movie instead of the road when he crashed head-on into the Jeep. . . .

While no Alaska law prohibits operating a DVD player in view of a driver, prosecutor June Stein said the facts warranted charging Petterson under one of two theories: that he knew his conduct was substantially certain to cause death or that he knowingly engaged in conduct showing extreme indifference to human life.

Click on link to view entire article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5529317/

********

Discussion:

First, we need to put things into perspective.

If you handle a loaded gun, deliberately point the gun at another person's head, and intentionally pull the trigger, then, most definitely, you are engaging in conduct that you know is substantially certain to cause death or you are knowingly engaging in conduct that shows extreme indifference to human life.

If you beat someone so bad that the person dies--even though you did not intend to cause that person's death--your actions of deliberately and repeatedly applying your fists or a weapon to another person's body would support a charge of second-degree murder because you engaged in conduct (inflicting injuries) that you know is substantially certain to cause that person's death or you knowingly engaged in conduct that shows extreme indifference to human life.

But, if you are distracted by DVD and you plow your vehicle into another vehicle, has your level of culpability risen to the same level of culpability as someone who knowingly shoots another person or someone who beats another person to death?

There are different degrees of homicide based on the culpability of the accused. Our criminal laws are specifically graded so that individuals with the greatest culpability are punished more severely than individuals with lesser levels of culpability.

If a person engages in negligent conduct and that negligence results in the death of another, that person's culpability would support a negligent homicide charge.

If a person engages in reckless conduct and that recklessness results in the death of another, that person's culpability would support a manslaughter charge.

Both negligent homicide and manslaughter are serious charges, but the accused simply does not knowingly or intentionally cause the death of another. IMHO, murder charges should be reserved for those who are truly guilty of murder.

If you dig a deep hole in your yard to bury your new septic tank and this hole attracts a curious neighborhood child who falls in and dies--are you suddenly a murderer? Shouldn't you have known that your conduct in digging that hole would attract a child and cause his death?

I am troubled when the law is manipulated to turn people who are merely negligent or reckless into convicted murderers. Are our nation's "tough on crime" prosecutors blurring the lines of culpability upon which criminal laws are based?

It seems the entire purpose of defining crimes by law and grading them in accordance with culpability is being washed away through manipulation.

What are your views?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,352 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 04:08 pm
Hmm I imagine the DVD negligence thing is just a newer version of distracted driving and/or grossly negligent conduct.

Is this a state wherein grossly negligent conduct can already be used to prove a 2nd degree murder charge? If so, then the DVD issue is just new clothing for an older offense.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 06:18 pm
(a) A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if
...
(2) the person knowingly engages in conduct that results in the death of another person under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life...

Source: Alaska Criminal Code

Watching a movie while driving? Sounds to me like circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 06:54 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
(a) A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if
...
(2) the person knowingly engages in conduct that results in the death of another person under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life...

Source: Alaska Criminal Code

Watching a movie while driving? Sounds to me like circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.


Take a step back for a moment and review criminal negligence:

AS 11.41.130. Criminally Negligent Homicide.

(a) A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide if, with criminal negligence, the person causes the death of another person.

(b) Criminally negligent homicide is a class B felony.

In criminal negligence, a person acts with the requisite culpable mental state when such person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the act in question will cause the statutorily described result. In the context of criminally negligent homicide, criminal negligence analysis focuses on the actor's awareness of the risk that death will result from the act, not whether the underlying act is intentional.

The man did not intentionally plow his vehicle into another vehicle manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

Certainly, any time a driver takes his eyes off the road, momentarily or otherwise, there is a risk of an accident. The vast majority of the people do not perceive or foresee that death WILL RESULT from their negligent acts, but the law punishes them nevertheless because they should have foreseen the deadly consequences.

Foreseeability in the context of negligence requires that a reasonable person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which may be reasonably foreseen as likely to injure another person. The injured person must be in the zone of danger that is created by the defendant's carelessness and the injury must be a type that is likely (not merely possible) to occur in the circumstances.

Certainly, it is always POSSIBLE that a distracted driver will kill someone, but is it more LIKELY than not that he will kill someone?

The man wasn't keeping his eyes on the road and for that he was negligent at most But, he didn't intentionally ram his vehicle into another vehicle; he didn't shoot someone with a gun; he didn't intentionally stab someone with a knife; and I find it troubling that we can place him in the same category as people who are true murderers.

Aren't we trying to mold pure negligence into something more sinister than it really is? It is possible for the human brain to perceive every negligent or reckless act as a "manifestation of extreme indifference to the value of human life" and therefore completely nullify the purpose for having negligent homicide and manslaughter on the books.

Just my thoughts--but I'm thinking like a criminal defense attorney--and you might be thinking like a prosecutor.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 08:12 pm
I agree with Joe. When I saw this in the paper today, I was almost glad. I think it's outrageous for drivers to be watching movies and using laptops while commanding a 'deadly weapon".
It would probably be better to actually make it against the law first, though.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 07:45 am
Debra_Law wrote:
The man wasn't keeping his eyes on the road and for that he was negligent at most But, he didn't intentionally ram his vehicle into another vehicle; he didn't shoot someone with a gun; he didn't intentionally stab someone with a knife; and I find it troubling that we can place him in the same category as people who are true murderers.


He didn't intentionally ram another vehicle but he did intentionally drive his vehicle on a public roadway and he did intentionally operate his DVD machine while driving. Take your gun example and make it a situation where a person fires it into a crowd. Does the charge get reduced because the person that pulled the trigger didn't intend to kill that person? Seems like there is a fine line in there.

But if I were a prosecutor I'd probably charge him with the most serious charge possible too. It's up to the prosecutor to make his/her case and the jury often has the option of finding finding the accused guilty of the lesser offense. If the prosecutor charges him with negligent homicide the jury doesn't have the option of finding him guilty of the more serious offense.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 07:49 am
Same thing as drunk driving, IMO.
No plan in the works to kill anyone, but...
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 08:23 am
Debra_Law wrote:
In criminal negligence, a person acts with the requisite culpable mental state when such person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the act in question will cause the statutorily described result. In the context of criminally negligent homicide, criminal negligence analysis focuses on the actor's awareness of the risk that death will result from the act, not whether the underlying act is intentional.

OK, I'm with you so far.

Debra_Law wrote:
The man did not intentionally plow his vehicle into another vehicle manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

You lost me. As you cogently pointed out above, the intent necessary to form the basis of criminal negligence is the intent to engage in the risky behavior, not the intent to cause the injury. From what I can gather, the driver did not intend to hit the other car, but it is beyond question that he intentionally drove his vehicle while watching a movie. That is, as far as I can tell, enough intent for second degree murder in Alaska.

Debra_Law wrote:
Certainly, it is always POSSIBLE that a distracted driver will kill someone, but is it more LIKELY than not that he will kill someone?

When did a "more likely than not" standard enter into the picture? The law does not punish someone who takes a stupid risk, it punishes someone who takes an unjustifiable risk.

Debra_Law wrote:
The man wasn't keeping his eyes on the road and for that he was negligent at most But, he didn't intentionally ram his vehicle into another vehicle; he didn't shoot someone with a gun; he didn't intentionally stab someone with a knife; and I find it troubling that we can place him in the same category as people who are true murderers.

That's why he was charged with second-degree murder, not with first-degree murder.

Debra_Law wrote:
Aren't we trying to mold pure negligence into something more sinister than it really is? It is possible for the human brain to perceive every negligent or reckless act as a "manifestation of extreme indifference to the value of human life" and therefore completely nullify the purpose for having negligent homicide and manslaughter on the books.

That's why we have juries. And, as fishin' points out, prosecutors will often charge at a higher level as a means of getting a conviction (or a plea agreement) on a lesser-included offense.

Debra_Law wrote:
Just my thoughts--but I'm thinking like a criminal defense attorney--and you might be thinking like a prosecutor.

No, I'm thinking like a lawyer who has had very little contact with criminal law since I had to study for the bar exam.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 09:15 am
Are stupidity and wilful stupidity separate sins or separate crimes?
0 Replies
 
Vikram10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 03:48 pm
Hi every one,

I found this discussion very intersting. I feel punishing for negligence which caused a death is acceptable. But how do you define how much negligence is negligence....I have a friend who's been charged with negligence and waiting his trial in a no fault state of michigan. I was with him at the time of accident and it was a clean sunny day , we were going at a speed of 55 mph in a 2 way lane in buick SUV. Another friend of mine was sitting in the back seat. A momentry loss of concentration seeing a clear road and vehicle moved to the side of the road. He tried to break the vehicle but in panic pressed gas and after that over corrected the vehicle which made the suv to topple to the other side of the road. I was saved because I had my belts on while the other friend sitting in back side of the vehicle was thrown out and he succumbed to the injuries. Now I know this person for years. He never drinks or hardly a careless kind but he has to face the charges of negligent homicide and in no fault state of michingan his chances of getting out of this charge looks impossible
So the whole point is this charge has been used to make some one look as felon for a mistake which could have happened to any one and the punishment he will get will be for a normal human behaviour !!
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 05:08 pm
Vikram--

Welcome to A2K.

Frequently fatal accidents are taken to court by the DA's office to provide either media fodder or Horrid Examples for the rest of the drivers on the road.

I find it sad that had your friend been wearing a seat belt...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Negligence supports second-degree murder charge?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/21/2024 at 02:24:00