To me this makes no difference. A car can be a deadly weapon. If he was waving a gun and it went off and killed someone most likely he’d do some serious time. This is another example of how people are not held accountable for using cars recklessly. I am sick of hearing of this kind of case referred to as an “accident”. He knew what he was doing, and of the possible consequences. I am glad his career is destroyed, but he should also be punished much more harshly. Maybe people would be more careful on the road if they new they’d be held accountable for the demage they cause.
I should add something else. I believe if you look through those citations, you’ll see that Janklow’s response to the testimony of the woman who claimed his Cadillac nearly took out her family and their minivan is quite interesting:
That means that in his own testimony Janklow conceded that he knew the stopsign was there, and claimed he had obeyed it (flamboyantly) in the past.
And if I may retreat entirely into the realm of rumor, my South Dakota friends and clients have no dearth of stories to tell about the guy–how he used to keep a gumball light in his personal car when he was Attorney General so that he could chase down other speeders, how he liked to blast through the Indian reservations in the state because he knew they had no traffic cops, how he supposedly raped a woman on the Rosebud Sioux reservation and refuses to acknowledge his bastard child, how he once managed to park a horse on top of a bar while riding around drunk. Are they all true? Hell if I know, but there are lots of stories.
This guy had it coming to him, and while it’s not as just as I think it could have been, I’m glad to see he got pinned for it.
Your first link involves a man who beat another man to death with his fists in a fight - not a car accident. It’s certainly appropriate that the sentence there be more serious.
Your second link refers to an abortion doctor whose adult patient bled to death following a botched abortion; the doctor, rather than staying and caring for the bleeding woman, left to keep an appointment at a tailor shop. Again, much more reprehensible conduct than a traffic accident, and the sentence properly much more severe.
Your final link does indeed involve a traffic accident death. But the driver in the case was intoxicated, unlike the case mentioned in the OP, which is certainly a reason for imposing a more serious sentence.
Once again, before you rant about how the case in the OP got off lightly, please provide an example of how others in similar circumstances were punished more heavily. Your links prove only that people who commit more serious crimes than Janklow are punished more severely than Janklow was – which is exactly as it should be.
- Rick
Here’s a similar situation, mentioned right here in The Pit. That person got 3 months in jail and 3 years probation for killing 2 people in an accident. She was supposedly not drunk, though alcohol “played a role”, hungover is my guess. The sentence is also postponed so she can compete in the olympics.
Lets recap:
2 dead vs 1 dead
3 months vs 100 days
3yrs probation vs 3yrs probation
Postponed sentence vs release for community service
Sounds comparable to me.
http://www.santaclara-da.org/content/0,4745,sid%3D12602%26chid%3D16055%26ccid%3D401567,00.html
http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/011304b.htm
There are hundreds more if you want to sort through them, and I didn’t even include the ones that mentioned alcohol. I can’t believe you think this is an appropriate punishment Bricker.
My thanks to others for providing “appropriate” cites for Bricker’s sensibilities.
What really bothers me about this case is the fact that his record will be expunged after the probation period. What this means is that when he does this again, he will have no prior convictions on his record, which means that he will get away with it again. Look for the arrogant bastard to run for office again in five years or less.
We have a local scumbag politician who was able to get his criminal record expunged; little things like assault with a deadly weapon and DUI convictions. All gone, never happened, and the sumbitch ends up in the state senate.
I don’t think Bricker is saying the sentence is appropriate. He is just asking for someone to find a similar case to compare sentences. Similar meaning, slight speeding, no alcohol or drugs, etc.
The three cases linked above are not similar.
Case 1: Cahrles Spear gets fired from his job, takes a handful of pills, and then drives recklessly until someone dies.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/7349529.htm
Case 2: Isaias Casillas has a suspended liscense. Drives 100 mph in a 35. Kills someone and hurts three others, and then flees the scene.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/10/06/backpage/10_5_0321_40_05.txt (halfway down page)
Case 3: Eric Jimenez has a driving record that even makes Janklow’s look good. 17 months, 5 accidents, two hit and runs. He also had six beers in him at the time of this accident. These details were in the link you provided.
Again, all of these are more serious crimes than that of Janklow. Find me a case where a sober driver killed someone because they were speeding a little an/or ran a stop sign and killed someone. What sentence did that person get? That’s the only way we can tell if Janklow’s sentence was to light.
Here’s one where a seventeen year old girl ran a stop sign and killed someone and no charges were filed.
Lance Turbo is right on the money.
The case seems to hinge on the difference between “negligent” manslaughter and “reckless” manslaughter, both of which are 2nd degree manslaughter.
In the cite I gave earlier, Reckless manslaughter
Although a layman such as myself can tell himself that Janklow, that scum, should have known the risk he was taking, under the law he was negligent, not reckless.
I posted some bad information here a day or two ago. Vehicular Homicide gets you 10 years in Iowa, 25 years if the driver was impaired by alcohol or drugs. Congressman J would have been doing up to 10 years at the pleasure of the Parole Board in this State. There is not much doubt in my mind that the Congressman would have caught it in the neck if charged under the Iowa statute’s reckless driving provision.
There was one posted way up top that no one seems to have said anything about.
And it happened in South Dakota. He was speeding, even less then dickhead, and veared off into the lane the two people he killed were working in. It seems all it took was about 1 second, a one second mistake, though a very bad one, costs him twenty years. Knowingly blowing through a stop sign well above the speed limit is IMHO much worse. I’m not saying that killing two by accident is any better, but he got the short end of the stick.
I can say that I’ve been through South Dakota a number of times. And like many other states either you can see the stop signs far enough in advance, or there are signs telling you there is a stop ahead. Even when going above the speed limit, there is no excuse for not being able to stop in time. Janklow got of too easy.
This is closer by far than the other links.
However, there are a number of facts that distinguish the two cases. Most obviously, the quoted case involved two counts of manslaughter and two deaths. Janklow blew past one stop sing. Larson drove into a closed land of traffic, seperated by orange candlestick dividers, and drove in that lane for over 100 feet.
Moreover, Janklow’s reckless inattention to the stop-sign was a split-second of inattention. Larson’s testimony established that:
He had ample warning of both the impending construction zone AND the workers’ presence.
- Rick
This is an assumption that was not in evidence. Janklow claims he doesn’t remember anything about the accident:
For all we know, he did it intentionally and with malice. There is no evidence to support either conclusion; Randy Scott sure isn’t talking.
You are straining at a gnat now, Bricker; the differences betwen this case and Janklow’s are vanishingly small, and the relative sentences (even if only one count of manslaughter in the previous case is considered) are vastly inequitable: 10 years as opposed to 100 days. Even you must admit there is a disparity that can only be explained by privilege and position.
Well, whatever else anyone thinks about the case, Fear Itself’s quote from the Washington Post demonstrates that Janklow has at least one thing in common with so many powerful figures who end in the witness box–an inability to remember the circumstances that got him into the predicament. The “I don’t recall” defence did sturdy work during the Iran-Contra hearings, and it’s good ( :rolleyes: ) to see that it’s still around.
Of course, it’s possible that Janklow is telling the truth when he says he doesn’t remember, but the sorry history of this type of excuse tends to encourage skepticism, from me at least.
Not really. Janklow was convicted of negligent manslaughter, and the first guy was convicted of reckless manslaughter.
Given Janklow’s driving record, this just proves that the prosecutor was complicit in the injustice by not charging him with the more serious crime when it was clearly warranted.
You don’t seem to know much about criminal law.
Janklow’s driving record has very little to do with the charge. You generally cannot charge someone based on their prior crimes, unless the prior crimes are an element of the offense. Prior bad acts are inadmissible to show that the accused acted in conformity therewith.
In other words, the prosecutor cannot charge someone with recklessness because of their prior driving record. The evidence has to support a charge of recklessness for the instant (the current) offense.
Do you want to try again?
- Rick
Just out of interest, can that prior bad driving record have any bearing on the case whatsoever? Surely it demonstrates a pattern of wilful flouting of the traffic laws, which should, in my opinion at least, be taken into account when determining the punishment for an act such as this.
In fact, it might even help a jury make a decision. For example, if i were a juror confronted with such a case, and i knew the guy had a record of dangerous driving, i’d be less likely to believe that his speeding and running the stop sign on this particular occasion was simply a matter of momentary inattention.
Is it only the case that the prosecutor cannot charge based on prior acts? Can the jury take prior acts into account when determining likely culpability? And i assume a judge can take priors into account; after all, that’s what stuff like the “three strikes” laws are based on.
Excellent questions.
Prior bad acts, even uncharged ones, can be considered for sentencing purposes. But Fear Itself said that the prosecutor was “complicit” for not charging charging Janklow with the more serious crime based on Janklow’s past record. This is impermissible.
Can a jury hear about prior bad acts to determine guilt? In general, no, because the state is obligated to prove each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The danger in presenting prior bad acts to the jury is that they will conclude that because he did it once, he was likely to do it again, and that’s not fair – the prosecution has to prove THIS crime, not merely show that previous crimes happened.
However, prior bad acts are admissible to prove a common plan, scheme, or absence of mistake of fact. A shoplifter who claims he inadvertantly left the store without paying may be impeached with evidence of his prior shoplifting convictions, because the jury is entitled to conclude that someone with a prior shoplifting conviction is much more unlikely to 'forget" to pay.
But “mistake” doesnt’ apply here, since recklessness is a general intent crime. I suppose if Janklow had some defense about not knowing the speed limit, his prior speeding might become relevant, but not as a general proposition. And certainly if he were accused of DELIBERATELY running the stop sign, and had a record of previously deliberately running stop signs, then that might be admissible as a common plan or motive.
Clearly, the facts here don’t even begin to support such an accusation.
When a prior offense is an element of the instant offense, such as a three-strikes law, obviously the fact of the prior conviction is taken into account at some point. Even then, many jurisdiction do a “bifurcated” trial, where the jury hears only the elements of the current offense, and, if and only if they find the accused guilty, do they then hear evidence of the prior offenses and reach a finding of guilty as to the three-strikes law.
Even if a prior bad act has some minimal relevance as to guilt, the overarching test asked by the judge making an evidentiary ruling is: does the probative value outweigh the prejudicial value? In other words, does whatever slight proof the prior act might add to the case outweigh the prejudice that the jury would have learning about the prior bad act?
Generally speaking, the answer is ‘no.’
- Rick
One point that has been left unexamined in this thread but which is clearly implied by previous posts is this: it has been pointed out that Janklow’s speeding citations all occurred during a period when he was not in political office – after he got back in office, the citations miraculously stopped, although we have every reason to believe that Janklow’s speeding continued unabated.
The obvious assumption is that Janklow got a free pass for speeding because he was governor, and that if he had not gotten that free pass, his speeding record would be about a mile long.
And if, as has been suggested, speeding is commonplace in South Dakota, one has to wonder what sort of speeder Janklow must have been to garner a slew of citations during his years out of political office.
All the evidence points clearly to the notion that Janklow is a total speed freak who probably would have been well served by a few arrests for his outrageous driving. As it was, an innocent cyclist paid the price for Janklow’s recklesnness.
The court has a duty to deal with the facts as presented, but in the court of public opinion we are free to make inferences, and this one is a clear and obvious one: Janklow was a speed maniac who got away with one hell of a lot before he killed that guy, and should have been nailed to the wall for what was undoubtedly reckless driving leading to the death of an innocent. As a rich white Republican officeholder, he got what was very nearly a complete whitewash.
Kinda makes you wonder what the REAL story was on Laura Bush’s “accident” in which she ran a stop sign and killed an innocent motorist. It’s amazing how these things get covered up when the wealthy and powerful are involved.