Accidental manslaughter on a death row convict

[Whiskey_Dickens]

@Artemis_Tardis

(snip) E. Veel Dud flies over the car with a gracious double back flip and falls into the asphault, smashing his skull open on a messy brainy bloody splatter. (snip)

I’m picturing E. Veel Dud yelling “THHHAAANNK YOUUUUU!” as he spins through the air.

Unless the term you were looking for was “graceful?”

[Rachellelogram]

If anyone else had been crossing the street instead of Evil Dude, they would have been struck and they would have died. It doesn’t matter if the victim was scheduled to die anyway. The driver was still negligent, still committed a crime, and should be charged.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Little_Nemo

But Dud was already sentenced to be executed a few hours later. So how much companionship would he have potentially provided if he hadn’t been killed by the car?

We don’t know. He might have had an appeal pending or received a last-minute pardon/commutation. Now, if there was no pending request for such then his execution would be less speculative - but the OP didn’t give us that information.

[Velocity]

Jack Ruby was charged with murder for shooting Oswald, was he not?

Yes, Oswald hadn’t been convicted of murder, but this sounds similar.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, not really. Oswald had only been charged. Assuming he would have been convicted (much less executed) is pure speculation.

[Artemis_Tardis]

ok, first of all… sorry for my terrible grammar. English, unfortunately, is not my first language. One final variant for the case: Police is hunting Mr E., and they have a sniper on him. One second before he pulls the trigger the convict is hit by the car and dies. What now? His dead was really imminent and inevitable.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That might make a difference in the criminal case against the driver. In a civil case it’s highly unlikely that the information would ever come out.

[pulykamell]

@Rachellelogram

If anyone else had been crossing the street instead of Evil Dude, they would have been struck and they would have died. It doesn’t matter if the victim was scheduled to die anyway. The driver was still negligent, still committed a crime, and should be charged.

Exactly. Both legally and morally, I don’t see why there should be a difference whether there happened to be a condemned criminal crossing the street or an innocent child.

[Shodan]

@Little_Nemo

In addition, the defense will be able to argue that Dud himself was partially responsible for denying his family that opportunity by his escape so any award would be reduced.

I wouldn’t even say “partially” - the state took all reasonable steps to ensure he made his date with Sparky. Wouldn’t the family have to show some kind of neglilgence allowing Dud to escape?

Regards,
Shodan

[kayaker]

@Artemis_Tardis

ok, first of all… sorry for my terrible grammar. English, unfortunately, is not my first language.

Sorry for my snarky reply.

[LSLGuy]

@Little_Nemo

But Dud was already sentenced to be executed a few hours later. So how much companionship would he have potentially provided if he hadn’t been killed by the car? …

You skipped the part where he had just successfully escaped from prison. But for our texting driver he may have been able to provide companionship from his hide-out for years.

Now if he had never escaped I’d agree with your reasoning.

And yes, the whole hypothetical is a silly and trivial example from Philosophy / Ethics 101

[74westy]

@BigT

From a legal perspective, I believe you are correct. But I think the intent issue does change it morally. The person who was trying to kill someone else definitely still committed murder, as it’s the intent that counts. But the whole point of accidental manslaughter is the lack of intent–it’s just about the results. And I cannot argue that the results here are equally bad to if he had killed an innocent person. The actual action by the driver is the same action many people do all the time.

I actually see the legal principle as being more of a deterrent-based punishment. By punishing the guy who does kill someone, you are trying to scare other people into thinking they might kill someone too. The actual proper punishment for the action is somewhere in between the nothing most people get (or the small fine they get if caught) and the sentence for accidental homicide that those who do kill someone get.

The driver absolutely intended to play with his/her phone while driving.

[Little_Nemo]

@LSLGuy

You skipped the part where he had just successfully escaped from prison. But for our texting driver he may have been able to provide companionship from his hide-out for years.

Now if he had never escaped I’d agree with your reasoning.

And yes, the whole hypothetical is a silly and trivial example from Philosophy / Ethics 101

Wouldn’t work. I used to do this for a living. If you escape from prison, one of the first things we do is put surveillance on your family. So Dud would have either avoided his family or gone back to them and been recaptured and executed. Either way his family would have been lacking the value of his company.

Here - as a bonus - are Nemo’s handy tips for escaping from prison:

1. Plan ahead. Escaping is the easiest part. Staying out is what’s difficult.
2. Don’t escape from the prison. Arrange to get out of the prison first for something like a medical trip.
3. Get some outside help.
4. Avoid your family and friends. Stay out of your old neighbourhood. We’ll be watching them.
5. Cross a state line as quickly as possible.
6. Don’t ever get arrested again.

[JimSC]

@BigT

From a legal perspective, I believe you are correct. But I think the intent issue does change it morally. The person who was trying to kill someone else definitely still committed murder, as it’s the intent that counts. But the whole point of accidental manslaughter is the lack of intent–it’s just about the results. And I cannot argue that the results here are equally bad to if he had killed an innocent person. The actual action by the driver is the same action many people do all the time.

I actually see the legal principle as being more of a deterrent-based punishment. By punishing the guy who does kill someone, you are trying to scare other people into thinking they might kill someone too. The actual proper punishment for the action is somewhere in between the nothing most people get (or the small fine they get if caught) and the sentence for accidental homicide that those who do kill someone get.

I agree that the driver’s negligence deserves punishment. But what if the driver is placed on trial for manslaughter and his defense is that he was not negligent. He testifies that he recognized the convict from the media coverage of his escape, and he intentionally ran him over?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Then he’s a murderer, not just an accidental killer.

[Little_Nemo]

@JimSC

I agree that the driver’s negligence deserves punishment. But what if the driver is placed on trial for manslaughter and his defense is that he was not negligent. He testifies that he recognized the convict from the media coverage of his escape, and he intentionally ran him over?

It’s going to depend on jurisdiction but I don’t think there are too many places that allow a citizen’s execution.

As for a citizen’s arrest, by his own admission he was trying to kill Dud not arrest him. The next possibility is self-defense but the driver can’t argue he was defending himself or some third party who was being directly threatened by Dud. And Dud was out on a public street so there’s no castle doctrine involved.

So the final argument is the driver killed Dud in order to prevent Dud from committing a serious crime - ie being an escapee from prison. Now it’s possible that there may be some jurisdiction where that’s legal but it’s not usual. The more usual standard is that merely being a prison escapee is not considered an immediate enough threat to justify a shoot on sight rule.

[Morgenstern]

Apprehending an escaped felon?

I’m betting if he offered to clean up the messy brainy bloody splatter they’d look the other way.

[The_Joker_and_the_Thief]

@Little_Nemo

Wouldn’t work. I used to do this for a living. If you escape from prison, one of the first things we do is put surveillance on your family. So Dud would have either avoided his family or gone back to them and been recaptured and executed. Either way his family would have been lacking the value of his company.

Here - as a bonus - are Nemo’s handy tips for escaping from prison:

1. Plan ahead. Escaping is the easiest part. Staying out is what’s difficult.
2. Don’t escape from the prison. Arrange to get out of the prison first for something like a medical trip.
3. Get some outside help.
4. Avoid your family and friends. Stay out of your old neighbourhood. We’ll be watching them.
5. Cross a state line as quickly as possible.
6. Don’t ever get arrested again.

I take it that prison guards can not normally cross state lines, then?

[Colibri]

@The_Joker_and_the_Thief

I take it that prison guards can not normally cross state lines, then?

Obviously Little Nemo is using “we” in the sense of law enforcement in general, not just prison guards. The prison guards are not the people who are going to be surveilling the escapee’s family.

[Schnitte]

@Artemis_Tardis

One final variant for the case: Police is hunting Mr E., and they have a sniper on him.

The police wouldn’t hunt down an escaped death row inmate and have a sniper on him; they would make every effort to arrest him alive, and return him to prison, where he may or may not be executed in the future. Sentencing someone to death doesn’t mean it becomes official policy to kill the convict by whatever means it takes. Rather, an execution is a procedure provided for and regulated by law, and law enforcement officials have a responsibility to ensure that the execution is carried out in accordance with these provisions. In the U.S., in particular, this is not least a result of the Eighth Amendment, since an execution carried out improperly can count as cruel and unusual punishment even where the convict was sentenced to die anyway. That’s why even death row inmates still receive healthcare, for instance.