This country wants to ban cell phones while driving, yet wont punish the ones who kill others while doing it…
I think the girl should be charged with at least criminal negligence, but apparently this wont even get a chance to go in front of a jury.
But White’s behavior showed no criminal intent and no criminal negligence, such as driving while intoxicated or driving recklessly, Staples said.
“Basically, she wasn’t paying attention to what she was doing,” he said.
No kidding, when you’re behind the wheel of a car the only thing you should be doing is paying attention. If this doesn’t rise to the level of some sort of criminal negligent homicide then what does? And isn’t crossing the center line while other cars are coming reckless? It wasn’t intentional, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t reckless and the driver should be penalized more than the $400 fine(s) that she is recieving. Some of you will say, “but it was an accident”. Doesn’t matter, her accident killed another person because she chose to use her cell phone while driving. Cripes, at least let a jury decide.
There is a tendency among some, and I am afraid that our friend Uncommon may be one of them, to try to turn every failure to exercise due care, every fault, into a criminal offense. Many of these people look at the consequence of the neglect rather than the intent, motive, social result of the behavior isolated from the result. Thus every fatal traffic accident is turned into a criminal homicide. Many jurisdictions have a vehicular homicide statute, often good for ten years or more in the big house, but so far as I know they all require some already dangerous and prohibited behavior as a prerequisite to the imposition of a criminal sanction – for instance reckless driving (wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and property of others) or driving while under the influence of one thing or another.
The extension of this sort of approach to the ordinary and accepted risks of life necessarily means that, for instance, the surgeon that by neglect causes a patient to die will not have to worry about the cost of his malpractice premium. Instead he will have to worry about being dragged out of the OR in handcuffs. The employer whose employee dies because there was no guard on a hammer forge will be looking at hard time instead of a workers comp claim.
It may satisfy the passion of the moment to chest pound, point with alarm and perceive with dismay but it is not a practical way to deal with the exigencies of life. What our friend advocates is a change in the Pottery Barn rule from “you break it, you pay for it” to “you break it, you go to jail.” Not reasonable, not fair, self defeating, irrational and rejected by European jurisprudence about the time of the construction of London Bridge.
The District Attorney stated: "But he said a criminal negligence charge requires evidence of a “high degree” of negligence and a person realizing that their conduct “creates substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm.”
Now, I admit that talking on a cell phone while driving is stupid, idiotic, and quite possibly reckless. But given that millions of people do it every day without killing someone indicates to me that it does not “create a substantial or unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm.”
Of course, the victim’s family should sue the heck out her, but I see no benefit to charging her criminally.
What about listening to the radio? Talking with a passenger? Thinking about life?
I talk on my cell every day while driving to work without a problem. Without the distraction I would probably daydream and crash. I think that each person has an obligation to drive in a safe manner which can differ from individual to individual. There are people who cannot drive safely no matter how they behave and they should not be behind the wheel ever.
No, just the ones in which people choose to participate in something that substantially distracts them from the task at hand, driving. I take every case on it’s own merit and do not wish to lump every cell phone accident together.
Being so distracted that you don’t realise that you’re in the other lane and that there are other cars coming isn’t reckless disregard?
We have laws to protect surgeon and employer from such actions.
Correct, I would like to see a jury deliberate.
In this case it’s, “She breaks it He pays for it”. Not exaclty fair is it?
Look, I’m not asking for her head. I just think a slap on the wrist is insufficient deterrent. I feel the same way about parents who don’t seat belt their kids in and then get in an accident in which the child dies.
Explain in 250 words or less how the negligence of the surgeon who nicks a major blood vessel, or the plant owner who removes the guard from a hammer forge is any less culpable than the driver who uses a cell phone when the result of each dereliction is the death of an other person? How about if the surgeon is drunk? How about when the guard is removed because it allows three more units to be produced each shift?
Should it be criminal to use a cell phone when driving or only to kill someone when driving while using a cell phone? How about inadvertently running a stop sign resulting in a fatal collision? How about inadvertently running a stop sign while changing CDs?
Should the negligent surgeon be immune from criminal liability simply because he is subject to civil liability for damages? Should the surgeon’s civil liability be limited?
I would be in favor of states banning the use of cell phones while driving. I believe they are inherently dangerous and their usefulness compared to the potential danger not close to a reasonable tradeoff.
However, IMO, the tragic event does not rise to the level of a criminal action as described in the news report. There were things in the article stated or could be inferred that show care rather than recklessness – she did not have a driving record, she had her seatbelt on, she wasn’t on drugs or drunk or speeding. She also apparently acknowledged her phone use to police rather than “lawyering up”.
I don’t know how one could punish her appropriately in such a situation, but given the options, the fine was better than what seems to be the next higher charge.
Look, I agree, talking on a cellphone and allowing yourself to become distracted to the point of wandering out of your traffic lane is, indeed, stupid and reckless. Yes, I have a cellphone, yes, I have on ocassion spoken on it AND driven at the same time - and other times I’ve just let it ring or, if talking and a situation came up, dropped it on the floor to deal with traffic and make apologies later. Cellphones are not inherently dangerous, but safe use requires judgement. Judgement this young woman wasn’t old enough or experienced enough to have. Fact is, a new driver at any age is more of a risk than an experienced driver, but in order for people to become experienced drivers they must pass through that novice phase where they can be a hazard to others.
I could also argue that the deceased driver was stupid and reckless for not wearing his seatbelt, which might have prevented fatal injuries. Does he share none of the blame? If not, why not? I mean, he did not take every precaution to ensure his own safety, did he? If he had had a seat belt on he might have escaped with minor or no injuries.
Punishment… well, how much money does the girl have? $400 might not be much to you, but it might be all the money she has right now. If the punishment was not described as $400 but rather as “all the money she owns” would that make it OK? When I was 17 $400 might have been all the money I had over the course of an entire year - is a year’s salary sufficient penalty?
Bring her up on criminal charges, huh? How does that improve matters? This did not arise out of malicious intent, after all, but rather her inexperience and youth. If we convicted her of a felony and dumped her in jail for ten years how does that benefit society? Her? Her victims? (The man she killed has a widow and child) It screws up her life, too, and cuts her off from many careers and opportunities. In the long run is that what’s best for everyone?
And what if a jury acquitted her? Would that lead to howls of outrage about “soft” jurors?
When I was in high school my next door neighbor - also in my class - hit and killed a motorcycle rider. The deceased man’s family was upset, of course, and howled for blood (actually, they demanded he be sent to Jackson and implied that he should be put in with bigger, hardened criminals to be repeatedly raped - only they were more explicit than that - it got really, really ugly). But, you know, it was dark and the weather was bad and the kid had only been driving a year and it was an accident. The kid was truly upset and remorseful, spent hours crying on his back porch (this was over 20 years ago, when male crying was less tolerated), lost about 40 lbs because he was too upset to eat – he took it way seriously. So tell me - would throwing this kid in jail have done anyone any good? To what purpose? To “teach him a lesson”? I think he’d already learned the lesson, that’s why he was sick with grief and remorse. Would screwing up his life have done anyone any good?
I get a similar feeling from this situation. We don’t hear anything about the girl - what’s her reaction? The widow, although upset, doesn’t seem to support going after the girl even if she has been harmed by the girl’s actions, why should I?
I don’t assume the girl has “gotten away with” anything here - obviously she’s been financially punished, she’s got a mark on her driving record that’s going to make her life more difficult, and for all I know she’s making herself sick with regret and is truly sorry for being so careless. In which case the lesson has been learned and punishing her further is of limited use at best. If the principal surviving victim (the widow) and the local authorities who are familar with the particulars of this event, more so than I can be through a news story, do not feel a need for revenge why should I?
Interesting position, but if you think a cell phone is distracting, what do you think of a single parent driving with a infant or toddler in the back seat? On the scale of distracting to the driver and being unable to ignore the stimulus, I think the child is going to be far more distracting.
So, do we outlaw that, now, too? Make it illegal for an adult to drive alone with a toddler because of the potential distraction? I don’t think it’s a reasonable law to enact, and I’m not so certain that the laws against cell phone use while driving are any less ridiculous. (Certainly NY’s is a whitened sepulchre - hands free is okay? The problem isn’t the hand holding the cellphone.)
In regard to the OP, I don’t have any quick answer. Yes, $400 seems insufficient somehow. On the other hand, I have to agree with the DA’s assessment that there isn’t proof of reckless endangerment. And, like Broomstick points out, there are other punishments than just the ones imposed by the state. I’ve met someone who drives dump trucks for a living, and he’d had the horrible experience of being cut off by a young woman pulling out in front of him, and watching her face just before she disappeared under the front of the truck. For most people knowing that one is at fault for someone’s death is a terrible thing.
We can’t know, from the news article, how this girl is going to respond. There’s not enough data to guess. But, I think it’s fair to suggest that there’s at least the possibility that she’s going to be experiencing a great deal of punishment in the days, weeks, and years to come.
Broomstick, Otakuloki, I sympathise with your assesment of the ‘remorse’ aspect and personal suffering that someone goes through after accidentily killing someone. I too, feel that in most cases that is punishment enough.
But, - that is nothing that can be regulated or controlled or turn on or turned off. Each person deals with it differently. Some take it WAY harder than others. While one person may be sufficiently recovered from the emotional stress after a few weeks, it may take years or a lifetime for the next person to regroup.
This is why I think it should at least go to a trial and then the jury can determine the amount of pain the girl has gone through. Testimony from her friends and family and possibly herself could persuade the jury to acquit.
If she comes off as an emotionless hard-ass (unlikely) then the jury can go the other way.
This would give her a bit of time to stew over what she did and allow the jury and others to observe her level of grief.
It would also bring a level of closure to the vicitms family.
It just doesn’t seem right that the fines she recieved are equivolent to a couple of speeding tickets.
Legally, I think that when your actions directly result in the death of another that there should be more to it than just a citation.
I see your point, and I’m not philosophically opposed. I just think that legally, you can’t set things up the way you’re describing - after all, sentencing is when a perpetrator’s remorse is considered, not during the determination of guilt. And for a number of reasons, having someone adjudged of, say, reckless endangerment getting off with fines, probation, and their own remorse will offened at least as many people as are upset by the situation now.
No great solutions here, just left thinking that given the facts as in that article, I can’t say that the DA made the wrong choice. :dubious:
You may be right but we already have various laws, such a requiring a child to be straped in. Passing as law that young children can not be distracting is of no use and passing a law that requires two adults if a child is present is not reasonable.
Banning phone calls while driving is a completely different thing than banning children.
Here’s the rub. Uncommon, have you ever inadvertantly - that is to say, negligently - crossed the center line (I’m not talking about crossing for legitimate reasons)? I know I have, and I don’t think it is irrational to assume that the large majority of drivers have done the same at least once in their driving careers. The reason this occurred is, for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant - the point is that just about everyone has acted in this negligent matter at least once in their lives.
And what is the result for the large majority of that large majority? Absolutely nothing. You say “oh shit,” or your equvalent thereof, swerve your car back over the line, then you quickly scan for cops, praying - or your equivalent thereof - that you weren’t seen and won’t get a ticket.
And it’s not just driving. We have all done things, negligent and stupid things, that, had circumstances been different, could conceivably have resulted in injury or death to another. Is that criminal?
Your argument is that circumstance, not intent or conduct, should determine criminality. The odds are that, if the student had crossed the center line five seconds earlier or five second later than she did, nothing would have happened. But her negligence occurred within one particular and random ten-second period, and a death resulted.
So, the question is - should the results of neglience determine criminality, or intent?
Should the student’s conduct be equally punished without regard to whether she killed someone?
Should the fact that her negligence occurred during an unpredictable ten-second window be the basis for criminal sanction? or
Should we treat neligent conduct, in situations where experience teaches us that it is very unlikely to result in injury or death to another, as the type of non-criminal conduct that we all engage in, though we shouldn’t, and not punish it criminally because of the unforeseeable result of that negligence?
This idea is a really bad one. Again, we try to bring a level of rationality to the criminal justice system - we establish standards to determine whether a crime occurred, and whether the defendant is guilty of that crime. To tell a jury that they are not to weigh facts, but instead discern emotion, is just screaming out for arbitrariness and abuse. The best actors will be acquitted, not the innocent.
I’m a bit conflicted. The guy wasn’t wearing a seat belt, so I wonder if his own negligence turned what would have been a minor accident into a tragedy.
Still, I think cases like this are why they invented the pillory.
If nothing else, the girl should be allowed to drive nothing bigger than a mini-Cooper for the rest of her life. *That* will focus her attention on the road.
Right, and autos are made to transport you and your family.
We got along fine for a hundred years without cell phones in cars. They are not a necessity.
Sua, I think you’re correct. There is one thing that still bothers me. It’s not just that she allowed the car to cross the centerline, and like you said, most of the time it wouldn’t result in any occurrance, but there was an oncoming auto. One that didn’t just jump out from around the corner. That oncoming car had to be within her sigts for quite some time. It wasn’t just a ten second lapse of attention (try driving for 10 seconds without looking at the road, it seems like 30 seconds). It was a general lack of attentiveness combined with the cell phone use.
Oh, I agree that the fact there was oncoming traffic is a factor that must be considered - the determination of criminal negligence must take into account all issues that affect the likelihood of injury or death to another. If you are on a stretch of country road in Alaska at 2:00 am, I would argue that you could deliberately drive on the left side of the road and still not be acting criminally, but if you are on a narrow two-lane road during the heaviest of rush hour, your duty of care is commensurately higher.
But the question still remains - how much higher? Even with oncoming traffic, the odds of causing another’s death by crossing the centerline is probably still low.
Oh, and I think you misunderstood my use of a hypothetical ten-second window. I wasn’t saying anything about how long the student was distracted. Instead I was saying that her distraction caused her to cross the centerline within a random ten-second window was the only (or one of very few) windows of time in which a death would result from he distraction, while almost all other ten-second windows would not result in any injury.
Did that explanation actually explain anything?
Isn’t this like arguing that I go to the bar every night, have a pitcher of beer, and then drive home with no problem, so therefore alcohol blood level limits should be removed? Just because you haven’t had any accidents yet (knock on wood) doesn’t mean that the activity is safe.
To me, it seems there needs to be something between the $400-rap on the knuckles and a manslaughter charge.
And yes, engaging in behavior that has been shown to increase accident rates should be considered reckless endangerment. If ice on my sidewalk or a swimming pool in my backyard can be considered dangerous, so can a cellphone in a car.
Sua, I understood your 10 second thing the first time. I was just using it in a way that would benefit my arguement.
What are your thoughts regarding the victim not wearing the seatbelt?
But there’s a difference between criminal charges and civil liability. What you’re talking about with your two other examples are from civil liability cases, not criminal charges.
As Hamlet suggested, this girl is still wide open to a civil wrongful death suit.
She can be found guilty of (insert charge here) and then just be forced to pay monies to the vicitms family, correct?
If she is found guilty in a civil court would that in any way weigh on the original decision not to press charges?
