Murder for $1000 + 6 mos probation

[njcultist]

Used car: $12,000
Fine for vehicular manslaughter: $1000
Daddy's influence with the DA: Priceless

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/woman_is_sentenced_for_bicyclists_death

In case of tl;dr, chick is too busy downloading ImPoRtAnT ringtones rather than driving her car. Ends up that she smears a guy riding his bicycle and makes him a candidate for Ogri^H^H^H^H LiveLeak.

From looking at her MySpace page, not provided for fear of bannage, she seems to be pretty remoseless too!!!

[Revenant Threshold]

I think manslaughter for $1000 and 6 months probation would probably be more accurate, unless you're suggesting she was deliberatly trying to kill him. I don't see any reason to think her parents pulled strings with a DA, either. In the interests of not getting a banning, njcultist, could you email me with her myspace page link? MSN address is in my profile.

Not saying this isn't a horrible thing - just saying you don't really need to embellish it to make it a horrible thing.

[njcultist]

I can't view your profile because I am a lowly guest. Maybe you can be crafty or something or just email me at yahoo? ProTip: my username isn't different.

[D_Odds]

Is there any reason this incident stands out?

It is a horrible thing, but it is a very, very common thing, depressingly so. Men and women of all ages take too lightly the responsibility of moving tons of metal and fiberglass, and all too often the punishment for such irresponsibility is laughable. I applaud the Nassau County jurors who recently convicted a drunk driver of second degree murder for driving the wrong way on a parkway. The justice of that conviction stands out, but is far too rare.

[njcultist]

Chick killed someone. Gets a slap on the wrist that Mumsy and Dodsy can easily pay. Now she can go post about how she loves Jesus on MySpace so much that she sent Matt to meet him first. Outrageous and disgusting. They should've made an example of this twat.

[mhendo]

Is there any reason this incident stands out?

It is a horrible thing, but it is a very, very common thing, depressingly so. Men and women of all ages take too lightly the responsibility of moving tons of metal and fiberglass, and all too often the punishment for such irresponsibility is laughable. I applaud the Nassau County jurors who recently convicted a drunk driver of second degree murder for driving the wrong way on a parkway. The justice of that conviction stands out, but is far too rare.Exactly.

The prevailing attitude seems to be "Well, she's learned a lesson, and the knowledge that she took another person's life with her irresponsible behavior is punishment enough."

That's bullshit. I realize that driving is an inherently dangerous activity, and that some accidents truly are accidents. But in cases like this, when the person is doing something that is clearly counterproductive to the safe operation of the automobile, the punishment should be greater.

[Oakminster]

Maybe somebody from Illinois can help me out. I don't understand this:

State's Attorney Julia Rietz made the call not to lodge any more serious charge than improper lane usage against Stark, saying that the legal definition of recklessness, to sustain reckless homicide or reckless driving, did not fit her actions.

What the fuck? The driver was downloading ringtones to her cellphone, and ran so far off the rode that she hit the victim with the driver's side of her car. How can than that not meet the definition of recklessness? A freakin second year law student oughta be able to figure out some way to charge her with more than "improper lane usage". If I was prosecuting, I'd be tempted to charge Depraved Heart Murder, but would probably accept a plea to vehicular manslaughter, with jail time to serve. If the bitch was dumb enough to go to trial, a jury is going to eat her alive.

[Oakminster]

rode?? Ouch. Double dumbass on Oakie. Been a long week.

[mamboman]

Surely the family has some civil recourse here?

[Oakminster]

A wrongful death suit will probably be filed, and I'd expect the insurance company will eventually offer the policy limits to settle.

[TokyoBayer]

In Japan, they prosecute people for professional neglegence for accidents. She would have easily gotten at least one year in prison.

[Odesio]

Nobody here has ever had a near miss because they're attention was diverted by something silly while driving? I remember fiddling with the radio many years ago and almost plowing into the car in front of me because traffic came to a standstill on the freeway. I had to go onto the shoulder to avoid hitting anyone. People make mistakes and so long as we have millions of people driving every day this will continue to happen.

Marc

[RickJay]

Nobody here has ever had a near miss because they're attention was diverted by something silly while driving? I remember fiddling with the radio many years ago and almost plowing into the car in front of me because traffic came to a standstill on the freeway. I had to go onto the shoulder to avoid hitting anyone. People make mistakes and so long as we have millions of people driving every day this will continue to happen.
That's absoilutely true. I think it's silly to propose execution for people who essentially make mistakes; the sentence in this case was excessively lenient, but there's no point destroying someone's life over it.

What concerns me, however, is not the one mistake, but the three previous serious traffic violations in one year. THREE violations in one year is an astonishing level of irresponsibility. I've been driving for 18 years and in that span of time I have three speeding tickets, all spaced about five or six years apart. I'm not an overly cautious driver or particularly skilled but I seem to be able to avoid getting a huge mess o' tickets. Most people I know get tickets on very rare occasions indeed. To get two speeding tickets and a red light violation in one year you need to be an awful driver.

What this case illustrates, to my mind, is that the penalties for repeat offenses in short periods of time for traffic violations are exceedingly light. One ticket is one thing, but three in a year is a clear indication of reckless behaviour; really, you have to be a genuinely atrocious driver to get caught that often. Penalties for subsequent traffic violations in such a short span of time should become increasingly hefty; a third violation in a year should, frankly, result in very heavy fines and licence suspension.

[magellan01]

To get two speeding tickets and a red light violation in one year you need to be an awful driver.

Or drive an awful lot. When I had a job that caused me to drive 25,000 + miles a year I got three tickets in about two years. When I worked two miles from home I got one tivket in about six or seven years. Maybe we shold look at tickets per mile in addition to tickets per year.

[magellan01]

Oops, forget my question. Does anyone recall an elected official in a orthern state, one of the Dakotas I think, who while driving under the influence hit a gut on a motorcycle and killed him, yet just got probation? I think he may have been a state judge or something.

[mhendo]

That's absoilutely true. I think it's silly to propose execution for people who essentially make mistakes; the sentence in this case was excessively lenient, but there's no point destroying someone's life over it.I think, though, that we also need to do is make clear to people that they need to pay attention when driving, that there are some activities that simply do not mix with guiding an automobile, and that if you have an accident as a result of such activities, you will face a greater penalty.

It may be that we need a different definition of what constitutes a "mistake." Oversteering in a turn, or misapplying the brake and going into a skid, might reasonably constitute mistakes. Failing to notice a red light or a stop sign probably even qualify. But downloading ringtones on a cellphone while driving is not, in the same sense of the word, a mistake. It is negligence, it is a practice which all reasonable people can agree is likely to lead to an accident.

Basically, for me, it's the difference between concentrating on the task (driving) and still making a mistake, on the one hand, and trying to do something else while driving, on the other. If, while in command of the car, you engage in an activity—especially one that uses one of both of your hands, and leads you to take your eye off the road—that is not part of the driving process, then you bear a heavier burden of responsibility for any driving error you make as a result of your divided attention.

I realize that there are some grey areas here. Does holding a cellphone to your ear with one hand increase your liability? Yes, in my opinion. What if you're using a hands-free cellphone? Well, that a bit different, although some studies show that this still reduces attentiveness.

But, while there might be some grey areas, i don't think scrolling through your cellphone menus and downloading ringtones is one of them.What concerns me, however, is not the one mistake, but the three previous serious traffic violations in one year. THREE violations in one year is an astonishing level of irresponsibility. I've been driving for 18 years and in that span of time I have three speeding tickets, all spaced about five or six years apart. I'm not an overly cautious driver or particularly skilled but I seem to be able to avoid getting a huge mess o' tickets. Most people I know get tickets on very rare occasions indeed. To get two speeding tickets and a red light violation in one year you need to be an awful driver.

What this case illustrates, to my mind, is that the penalties for repeat offenses in short periods of time for traffic violations are exceedingly light. One ticket is one thing, but three in a year is a clear indication of reckless behaviour; really, you have to be a genuinely atrocious driver to get caught that often. Penalties for subsequent traffic violations in such a short span of time should become increasingly hefty; a third violation in a year should, frankly, result in very heavy fines and licence suspension.I agree with pretty much all of this.Oops, forget my question. Does anyone recall an elected official in a orthern state, one of the Dakotas I think, who while driving under the influence hit a gut on a motorcycle and killed him, yet just got probation? I think he may have been a state judge or something.You're thinking of Bill Janklow from South Dakota. We discussed his case here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236308).

[RickJay]

Or drive an awful lot. When I had a job that caused me to drive 25,000 + miles a year I got three tickets in about two years. When I worked two miles from home I got one tivket in about six or seven years. Maybe we shold look at tickets per mile in addition to tickets per year.
I drive a whole lot. Eight to ten hour one-way drives are something I do quite often. Sorry, but if you've gotten two tickets, you should be driving a lot slower, and there's no reason to run a red light (as the woman cited in the OP has done.)

My wife puts a solid 15-20,000 miles on the car every year and in the eight years I have known her has gotten one ticket.

If you just got unlucky, well, it happens, but IMHO a third ticket should still carry a very hefty penalty and a license suspension. In your case this might well have sucked and sucked hard, but if you think about it, maybe you'd have been driving more carefully if you knew that was the inevitable penalty. And such a system would hopefully scare a lot of REALLY bad drivers, like the criminal in the OP, into realizing their bad behaviour.

[bienville]

From looking at her MySpace page, not provided for fear of bannage, she seems to be pretty remoseless too!!!
Got a strange result searching for this. I searched her name (first and last name provided in the linked article). There were six pages of users with that name (10? per page).

When I narrowed in down to within 10 miles of 61801 (zip for Urbana, IL), I got the message "MySpace has found 1 Result" followed by "Showing 1 of 1".
However, underneath "Showing 1 of 1" the page was blank- not showing the actual result.

Searching through to six pages of users with that name, there was only one in all of IL, a 31yr old in Chicago. Of the two users who were 19yrs old one was in WV (listing a WV highschool), the other was in TX (listing a TX highschool). Neither said much about Jesus.

Seems she has put some kind of block on her account to be kept out of searches.


As for her father's influence with the DA, it either comes from an uncited source or the OP has pulled it out of his ass.




Also, for my own benefit, is the OP engaging in hip "leet speak", or are there coding problems? I'm confused by:
tl;drandOgri^H^H^H^H LiveLeak.

[njcultist]

That's absoilutely true. I think it's silly to propose execution for people who essentially make mistakes; the sentence in this case was excessively lenient, but there's no point destroying someone's life over it.

So it's okay to destroy someone else's life for $1000? She didn't even get community service! The woman needs to be taught a lesson that will last a lifetime. A lesson that is "Giggle! I'm a girl! I can get away with anything. LOL, learn to drive hippie!"

[njcultist]

The use of ^H^H^H^H is old school. When one would use backspace using raw terminal the character would come out as ^H. It's used to show a correction usually in a humorous context.

tl;dr is hardly "leet speek" as you put it. Too long; didn't read. More of an acronym.

th15 iz l33+ sp33k d@w6

[magellan01]

I drive a whole lot. Eight to ten hour one-way drives are something I do quite often. Sorry, but if you've gotten two tickets, you should be driving a lot slower, and there's no reason to run a red light (as the woman cited in the OP has done.)

My wife puts a solid 15-20,000 miles on the car every year and in the eight years I have known her has gotten one ticket.

If you just got unlucky, well, it happens, but IMHO a third ticket should still carry a very hefty penalty and a license suspension. In your case this might well have sucked and sucked hard, but if you think about it, maybe you'd have been driving more carefully if you knew that was the inevitable penalty. And such a system would hopefully scare a lot of REALLY bad drivers, like the criminal in the OP, into realizing their bad behaviour.

No, I really don't object to the laws the way they are. I do think that todays cars can travel at higher sppeds quite safely on the highways, though. If I were a cop, I'd take into account reckless maneuvers and condition of car in addition to spped. I'm with you though on the red light stuff.

[RickJay]

So it's okay to destroy someone else's life for $1000?
Er, no. Did anyone say it was?

She didn't even get community service!
So would that have made it all okay? I don't think so. I think you really badly missed the point of my post.

[gonzomax]

First,a national law ,no cell phone use in moving cars. I have almost been hit several times walking my dogs across a highway. They go right through the damn light or turn without looking because they had a phone in their face.
second,that is clearly reckless driving. She got a sweet deal . Her longterm remorse is unproven.Today I crossed the busy intersection at a light. Four cars,all drivers on cell phones. The light changed ,they all drove off talking.

[kambuckta]

Here in Aus (at least in Victoria) driving whilst using a cellphone is illegal. Well, illegal as in that it will get you pulled over by the coppers and issued with an [B]On the Spot [/B fine as well as demerit points on your license. It will probably also get you a charge of Culpable Driving if you happen to injure or kill someone in the process....that mostly gets you either a jail term and/or a dose of community service, loss of license and a very nasty fine to boot.

Now, depending on the resources of the rellies and the expertise of the legal counsel, some defendents will come out of the charge with a fine and a suspended sentence. Some will get a jail term and a lesser fine. Some might only lose their license and have to undergo gardening at the local school as punishment.

Y'see, ultimately, it is up to the Magistrate to decide which is the greater penalty for the defendent. They also take into account the nature of the crime and the prospects of the criminal when determining that punishment. And it is only the judge who gets to be privy to such information (at least here in Aus) so it is not for me to decide whether the guilty party has received an 'adequate' punishment or not. I have full trust in my judicial representatives, and I endow them with the insight and the skill to dish out a 'fair' punishment for the crime committed.

Mostly anyway. ;)

[kanicbird]

To get two speeding tickets and a red light violation in one year you need to be an awful driver.

No it does not, anyone driving safely can be pulled over at whim and issues a ticket, because safe driving means exceeding the speed limit. That's right, the law is set up and enforced in a way that normal safe behavior is illegal which allows any of us to be stopped for no good reason and actually have to pay extra taxes. Running a red light is a bit different, but a basically safe driver, because they are human, will occasionally run a red (or pink) light.

[mks57]

No it does not, anyone driving safely can be pulled over at whim and issues a ticket, because safe driving means exceeding the speed limit. That's right, the law is set up and enforced in a way that normal safe behavior is illegal which allows any of us to be stopped for no good reason and actually have to pay extra taxes. Running a red light is a bit different, but a basically safe driver, because they are human, will occasionally run a red (or pink) light.

I've driven for over 25 years and I've never received a speeding ticket or a ticket for a moving violation. Some of that may be luck, but I think I must be doing something right. I've never been in a major accident.

Three tickets in a year indicates a problem.

[M. Meursault]

No it does not, anyone driving safely can be pulled over at whim and issues a ticket, because safe driving means exceeding the speed limit. That's right, the law is set up and enforced in a way that normal safe behavior is illegal which allows any of us to be stopped for no good reason and actually have to pay extra taxes. Running a red light is a bit different, but a basically safe driver, because they are human, will occasionally run a red (or pink) light.


No, safe driving does not mean speeding. Simply because everyone speeds doesn't mean that you should or that it is inherently safer. The law is not set up to penalize safe driving; the law is set up to make driving safer and to penalize those who are operating their vehicles unsafely. People may feel the need to travel faster than the speed limit; this does not mean that it's somehow safer.

And the "extra taxes" you mention? Those aren't taxes, you know; they're penalties for breaking the law. Getting stopped for no good reason? Well, unless you're arguing about "driving while being a minority", no, you were pulled over for a good reason: breaking the law. It doesn't matter if everyone else around you was also speeding. You speed, your liable to receive a ticket.

Regarding the OP: I think that she should have received a heavier penalty as well. But, really, I honestly cannot understand the reasoning that "it was a mistake, so let's not ruin her life." It was a mistake, sure, but someone still died because she didn't properly operate her car. And mistakes result in legal culpability all the time. Just because it was an "accident" doesn't mean that she should escape harsh(er) punishment (she's not escaping punishment in this case, but it still doesn't feel like enough).

[Hello Again]

Maybe somebody from Illinois can help me out. I don't understand this:

State's Attorney Julia Rietz made the call not to lodge any more serious charge than improper lane usage against Stark, saying that the legal definition of recklessness, to sustain reckless homicide or reckless driving, did not fit her actions.

What the fuck? The driver was downloading ringtones to her cellphone, and ran so far off the rode that she hit the victim with the driver's side of her car. How can than that not meet the definition of recklessness? A freakin second year law student oughta be able to figure out some way to charge her with more than "improper lane usage". If I was prosecuting, I'd be tempted to charge Depraved Heart Murder, but would probably accept a plea to vehicular manslaughter, with jail time to serve. If the bitch was dumb enough to go to trial, a jury is going to eat her alive.

1st year law student here. :) Reckless usually means "conceptualized the risk and did it anyway" (you don't have KNOW for sure there is a risk). Perhaps the DA didn't feel this could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The lowest culpable mental state (mes rea, remember Legally Blonde?) is Negligence: should have known there was a risk. In most states, she could have been charged with Negligent Homicide, a lesser charge. However, the statute in Illinois merges the required mental states of Negligence and Recklessness in relation to Homicide; Recklessness is minimum required culpability for ANY homicide. In other words, they have eliminated the idea of Homicide which is merely negligent.

[scr4]

1Reckless usually means "conceptualized the risk and did it anyway" ... Perhaps the DA didn't feel this could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
What if they could prove she was using a cell phone when the accident happened? Would that be enough, or would they have to prove she knew this was a risky behavior?

In other words, is ignorance of risk a valid excuse? What of people (like some on this thread) who believe speeding is actually safer than obeying the speed limit?

[Monty]

In Japan, they prosecute people for professional neglegence for accidents.

That's because Japan considers everyone licensed to drive a professional driver. South Korea does also. Actually, I kind of like the concept. When I lived in Japan, though, the driving age was 20 (age of majority). Has it been lowered any?

She would have easily gotten at least one year in prison.
Or less, depending on how much "gomen" money she paid to the family. For a number of crimes, Japan is pretty lenient when it comes to prison time ordered.

Regarding the case in the OP's link: the judge certainly deemed the act to merit more than the charges brought by the prosecutor; however, his hands were tied.

[D_Odds]

1st year law student here. :) If memory serves (at it doesn't always), Oakminster is a lawyer.

[eleanorigby]

I thought using a cell phone while driving was illegal in IL. I am not sure, but I think it is.


Should she have been punished more severly? Sure-if it can be proven that she was using her cell. I would think suspending her license or making her go to driving school (hey, I had to go when I blew a stop sign waaay back when I was 18) would be more appropriate.



Too bad about the guy.

[Sailboat]

First,a national law ,no cell phone use in moving cars.

How about making Faraday cages into the frames of cars? When the car is under power, the cage would be electrified, and if properly designed, should prevent cell calls in/out. Whne the car is turned off, the calls should go through.

Sailboat

[mks57]

How about making Faraday cages into the frames of cars? When the car is under power, the cage would be electrified, and if properly designed, should prevent cell calls in/out. Whne the car is turned off, the calls should go through.


That's not the way a Faraday cage works. It doesn't use power.

Simple workaround: open a window

[M. Meursault]

How about making Faraday cages into the frames of cars? When the car is under power, the cage would be electrified, and if properly designed, should prevent cell calls in/out. Whne the car is turned off, the calls should go through.

Sailboat

But what about emergencies, like if Ted Bundy resurrects and kidnaps you and ties you up in the backseat but you can reach your cell phone? You wouldn't be able to call for help. A Faraday cage would then become your cage!

[Hello Again]

What if they could prove she was using a cell phone when the accident happened? Would that be enough, or would they have to prove she knew this was a risky behavior?

In other words, is ignorance of risk a valid excuse? What of people (like some on this thread) who believe speeding is actually safer than obeying the speed limit?

Typically, to prove Recklessness, state must prove (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, natch) that she "averred to the risk." Cognition of the risk is pretty important to proving the crime where Recklessness is required.

Ok, so every crime has two parts: the culpable Act and the culpable Mental State. For the most part, both must be present to form a crime. The Act alone, without the culpable mental state, is not necessarily a crime. Statutes which define laws generally posit a required mental state for each type of crime. For example, the charge of Murder generally requires Purpose, the most culpable mental state. A few types of crimes require no culpable mental state at all -- this is called Strict Liability -- but these never rise above the level of misdemeanors and often are restricted to Violations payable by a fine. The speed limit is a Violation and is a strict liability offense, so mental state is irrelevant.

The four levels of culpable mental states, from most to least, are Purpose (called Intent in some states), Knowledge, Recklessness and Negligence. Ignorance of the risk IS a complete defense if the required mental state of the crime is Knowledge. If the State fails to prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt that you knew something you were required to know, you are Not Guilty of THAT crime (you may well be guilty of another crime). Ignorance of the law itself is generally not a defense, UNLESS the statute specifically requires that knowledge.

The law in Illionois (as I read it, and I am a complete n00b) appears to follow the idea, enshrined in the Model Penal Code, that Recklessness is the minimum mental state to constitute a crime. Under this theory, an act which is merely Negligent (reasonable people would not have done it) is not a crime at all -- just a civil harm (and by the way it is MUCH easier to prove liability in civil court than criminal court). It may seem pretty unfair, but its the way the Illinois legislature in its wisdom has chosen to define the crime of vehicular Homicide.

Clear as mud, eh?

[Hilarity N. Suze]

I've driven for over 25 years and I've never received a speeding ticket or a ticket for a moving violation. Some of that may be luck, but I think I must be doing something right. I've never been in a major accident.

Three tickets in a year indicates a problem.

In my experience (which of course is different from all other people's experiences) the tickets tended to clump together. As in, I got three or four within a couple of years, close enough to threaten my total point count. And yet my driving habits had not and did not change.* I do speed; I don't usually get stopped. But in this period, for whatever reason, I did.

Never been in a major accident, and the only minor ones (2, in 40 years) were on icy roads.

*Yeah, well, they did for awhile after I got the last two tickets. I slowed to a crawl. Got over it though.

[TokyoBayer]

That's because Japan considers everyone licensed to drive a professional driver. South Korea does also. Actually, I kind of like the concept. When I lived in Japan, though, the driving age was 20 (age of majority). Has it been lowered any?Hate to constantly be quibbling with you Monty, :p but it's 18 and my service tech said it was 18 when he got his license 20+ years ago.

Or less, depending on how much "gomen" money she paid to the family. For a number of crimes, Japan is pretty lenient when it comes to prison time ordered.When I just went to renew my license, they showed a short film (based on a true story) about a guy who killed a young kid and injured his sister, and then fled because he had been drinking. He turned himself in, but they convicted him and sentenced him to 3 years in prison. He was hit was a civil case, lost the case and his wife was forced to sell the house and move. Things went downhill from there.

IANAL, and especially IANALATTJB, but it's my understanding that the prosecution does not need the cooperation of the victims for traffic accidents. They have started cracking down more on fatal traffic accidents in general and specifically drunk driving which causes fatalities. It's now a mandatory one year in prison for that, for which a heartily applaud.

[Monty]

No quibble, TP. I just recalled it as 18. Perhaps it was just for the USFJ personnel who wished to drive off-base. After all, they were licensed by the USFJ.

I must be tired. It took me a full two minutes to figure out that IANALATTJB = I am not a lawyer admitted to the Japanese Bar.

[TokyoBayer]

Don't worry, I was just giving you are hard time, so that we don't get soft on each other. ;)

[Big_Norse]

I thought using a cell phone while driving was illegal in IL. I am not sure, but I think it is.I'm not positive about this, but I think the law is just Chicago, and it's not illegal to use a cell phone if you're "hands free".

And on double checking, it's illegal for kids under 18 to use a cell phone while driving in Illinois link (http://www.dot.state.il.us/press/cellban.html)