# Carthage student won't be charged in fatal crash, I think she should be. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 20, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759 "2005-01-20T18:16:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/21 "2005-01-21T22:22:58Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > **Sua** , I understood your 10 second thing the first time. I was just using it in a way that would benefit my arguement. šŸ˜‰ A time-honored debating technique. šŸ˜ƒ > [@](#): > > What are your thoughts regarding the victim not wearing the seatbelt? A pretty question. It doesnā€™t affect the criminality or noncriminality of the studentā€™s conduct, _per se_ - as I argued above, the **result** of the conduct is not determinative of whether the conduct was criminal. However, assuming criminality, it may have an effect on what the crime is. (Similarly, it may have an effect on civil liability, as well). Iā€™m sure the question has been already answered in the jurisdiction, but the issue is a conflict between the precept that you take your victim as you find him, and the precept that if the victim acted illegally, and that illegal conduct contributed to or exacerbated his injury, the studentā€™s liability is thereby diminished. Iā€™m really not sure of the answer. It may come down to an issue of fact. If the impact was such that the seatbelt wouldnā€™t have saved the victim anyway, the student would likely be fully liable for the death regardless. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/22 "2005-01-21T22:26:53Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > If she is found guilty in a civil court would that in any way weigh on the original decision not to press charges? Nope, for two reasons. _First,_ the level of proof is different in civil cases - preponderance of evidence v. beyond a reasonable doubt. _Second,_ the elements are different. For criminal negligence, you need to demonstrate the heightened level the prosecutor discussed - you knew or should have known that your negligent conduct presented an unacceptable risk to others. In civil negligence terms, you merely need show that the defendant acted negligently, and that negligent conduct caused injury to another. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/23 "2005-01-22T00:19:51Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > 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 surgeonā€™s civil liability be limited? If the surgeon does this while yakking on his cell phone, he is negligent. If he does this accidentally, itā€™s a tragic accident. If the plant manager removes the guard, regardless of prodctivity gains ,he is guilty of neglicence. What does this have to do with the OP? As for the running a stop sign while changing CDs etc., thatā€™s simple negligence. No law can cover every specific action, but when common dangerous are recognised, then specific laws are written. Thatā€™s why there are speed limits, no overtaking zones, drunk driving laws, even the law requiring you to take a test before driving. The fact that the use of cell phones slow reaction times is [well](http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/Cell_Phone_Use_Study.pdf) [documented](http://www.nsc.org/news/nr012703.htm). The most disturbing one is [this one](http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf), which shows that youā€™re worse off on a phone than if youā€™re a drunk driver. Hereā€™s a [list](http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/) of countries and states where in car cell phone use has already been banned. In addition to those listed, several major corporations have banned their employees using cell phones in cars. Hereā€™s the statements from [ExxonMolbil](http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/individual%20news%20articles/x_040804_exxonmobil-cellphone-initiative.htm) and [BP](http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2011549&contentId=2016980). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/24 "2005-01-22T04:17:41Z")
Although the cell phone may have contributed to the accident it was the direct result of the driverā€™s inattention that caused the accident. She should absolutely be charged for the death that resulted in her failure to control her car. I canā€™t imagine the logic behind the decision not to bring charges. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/25 "2005-01-22T04:34:49Z")
> [@Tapioca Dextrin](#): > > The fact that the use of cell phones slow reaction times is [well](http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/Cell_Phone_Use_Study.pdf) [documented](http://www.nsc.org/news/nr012703.htm). The most disturbing one is [this one](http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf), which shows that youā€™re worse off on a phone than if youā€™re a drunk driver. > > Hereā€™s a [list](http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/) of countries and states where in car cell phone use has already been banned. In addition to those listed, several major corporations have banned their employees using cell phones in cars. Hereā€™s the statements from [ExxonMolbil](http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/individual%20news%20articles/x_040804_exxonmobil-cellphone-initiative.htm) and [BP](http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2011549&contentId=2016980). The problem I have is that many of those laws are written based on unsupportable assumptions, e.g. that itā€™s using a hand-held cell phone that is the problem. In NY, and the MAD area, the anti-cellphone laws make specific exceptions for cell phones with hands-free attachments. I believe one of those studies youā€™d linked showed that there was no signifigant difference between the impairment with a hand held cell phone and with a hands-free unit. Until, and unless, a cell phone ban actually reflects that reality Iā€™m against such a ban - itā€™s completely cosmetic, and does nothing to actually improve safety on the roads. And, **Uncommon Sense** , I have say that while IANAL that I believe criminal charges and the fines from such are never applied to the victimā€™s family. At least thatā€™s my understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/26 "2005-01-22T13:58:05Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > **Broomstick, Otakuloki** , I sympathise with your assesment of the ā€˜remorseā€™ aspect and personal suffering that someone goes through after accidentily killing someone. I too, feel that in most cases that is punishment enough. Then why donā€™t you think itā€™s enough in this case? > [@](#): > > 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. Why are 12 people randomly selected from the registered voter pool more competant to assess true feelings of remorse than the sheriff and the local district attorney, who deal with accidents and crimes every day as part of their job? I would think the law enforcement guys would have much more experience in distinguishing between true regret and false, true emotion and an act. > [@](#): > > It would also bring a level of closure to the vicitms family. And why do you assume that? When my sister killed herself my family was urged by several well-meaning people to sue her psychiatrist for malpractice for not doing more to prevent it. We refused. Why? Because going through the years required for a trial would only have torn us up MORE. Yes, my sister was dead. Yes, she killed herself. Yes, we were mad as hell. Yes, we would have liked someone else to be responsibleā€¦ but the truth was that _my sister killed herself_ and there really was no one else to blame (in fact, she went to considerable effort to conceal her intentions and prevent anyone from stopping her) Spending years dragging a case through court is expensive, exhausting, and can be emotionally traumatic. For some people it brings closureā€¦ IF they win. For others, it becomes a waking nightmare that prevents them from moving on with their life. As I pointed out, the widow in this case does not seem interested in pursuing charges. That is her choice. The state does not seem interested in pursuing charges. That is up to the district attorney. Both those parties are far more involved with and knowledgable than I am about the circumstances. Itā€™s hard for me to work up enthusiasm for a trial when they arenā€™t much interested. > [@](#): > > It just doesnā€™t seem right that the fines she recieved are equivolent to a couple of speeding tickets. Why not? Because someone died? If the man who had died had lived instead, but had been severely injuredā€¦ letā€™s say, lost the use of his legs - he could have been ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt. Would that be unfair? Isnā€™t becoming paraplegic punishment enough? In which case a fine equivalent to ā€œa couple of speeding ticketsā€ might seem excessive. If all that had happened was that this girl had strayed over the line briefly and no accident occured, no one got hurt, would a $400 fine seem excessive or not enough? And, again - $400 might be a lot to this girl. From a different perspective, letā€™s say both Michael Jordan and I bet $50,000 on a golf game. We both lose. Whatā€™s the difference? Michael Jordan is inconvenienced - I am bankrupt. If I bet $400 on something and this girl bets $400 (which for the moment weā€™ll assume is all the money she has in the world) and we both lose, whatā€™s the difference? Iā€™m inconvenienced - sheā€™s bankrupt. Itā€™s not just the amount of the fine, itā€™s also itā€™s effect on a person. Now, if this girl is filthy rich thatā€™s a different story, but most people her age arenā€™t and to most people her age $400 means more to her than it does to me. Under the Code of Hammaburabi in Ancient Babylon, fines were assesed as a portion of a personā€™s income, so a wealthy man paid a greater absolute value for any offense he committed, but the same porportionate to his overall wealth as a poor man. Arguably, thatā€™s more fair than our current system. > [@](#): > > 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. Why? Certainly, if there is malicious intent there should be penalities - thatā€™s the difference between murder and manslaughter for the most part, intent. But if itā€™s an _accident_ā€¦ why should there be greater penalities? Will that teach you to never, ever have another accident? No - because accidents are to one degree or another unpredictable. You might be more careful in the future, but there is no way to eliminate ever having another accident ever again. If I kill someone in self-defense, should I be punished? Someone is dead, after all, and itā€™s a direct result of my own actions. Are you saying ALL deaths require someone to be punished? And keep in mind there may have been other consequences. The article didnā€™t say, but thereā€™s a very good chance that both cars were destroyed in this accident. So, in addition to $400 this girl has also lost a car, which, if she owned it, was probably her most valuable asset (If she didnā€™t own it, she may be required to replace it for the owner). If it was her sole means of transportation to employment, so that she no longer has a reliable means to get to work, she may well have lost her job because of it. Or maybe not. We donā€™t know, do we? And thatā€™s the problem with news articles - you _never_ get the whole story. Is losing your most valuable asset and your job punishment enough for accidentally killing someone? ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/27 "2005-01-22T14:37:48Z")
Ok, disclaimer: although I did read the entire thread carefully, there are so many points here that I canā€™t be certain of not repeating one or two of them myself - sorry. Hereā€™s may take on the issue(s). Firstly, causing anyoneā€™s death while driving a car should be a crime, unless it is no fault of the driver e.g. a tyre blowout, brake failure (unless the car is poorly maintained), having an inexplicable blackout and swerving into oncoming traffic. Even falling asleep at the wheel can be attributed to the driver being knowingly unfit to drive, therefore it was their fault. The privelege of driving a motor vehicle comes with the responsibility of using it safely, just as when using a chainsaw you shouldnā€™t wave it about near people. So any death caused by bad driving is criminal negligence. Note that this is just my view of what the law should be; Iā€™m not sure about the reality of it, so I wonā€™t comment on whether the correct legal decision was made in this particular case. However, we can comment on the moral decision. The main problem when driving while using a hand-held phone is that in a manual car you need (at least) one hand to steer and the other to change gear. It is not uncommon in the UK to observe such scenarios as a driver with a phone cradled in their shoulder (which restricts your head movement and hence field of vision), changing gear with one hand, smoking a cigarette with the other and steering with their knees (for example)! Clearly one cannot react to any emergency when handicapped in this way, and the same is true if one is simply holding the phone with one hand and steering with the other (because then you have to let go of the wheel to change gear - Iā€™ve done it ā˜¹ ). This is not a situation which occurs with hands-free phones, toddler in the back, chatting with a passenger etc., so these remain legal. Of course in the US, where autos are the norm, this is perhaps less of a problem, but the fact remains you have only one hand and one eye on the road, which is dangerous. Studies that seem to show there is no difference between talking on a hand-held and talking on a hands free are preliminary only and an indicator at best. Arguing that the girlā€™s behaviour _might not_ have killed anyone is stupid and irrelevant. The fact is, she _did_ kill someone through her negligence, which she admitted. So it is manslaughter and she should be charged with such. If she hadnā€™t killed anyone, a ticket to reprimand her and encourage her not to do so again (possibly killing someone next time) would have been sufficient. Yes, she may be remorseful, but that also is irrelevant to the deterrent and punishment aspects of imprisonment. Now any psycho who wants to kill people can swerve across the centre line, claim it was an accident and get off $400 lighter. Taking someoneā€™s life should be punished by the law. If sheā€™s that upset, prison would be a good place to let her reflect on it. Everyone seems to think that the fine is significant as well - it might be her life savings etc. Well Iā€™m sorry but you canā€™t put a price on someoneā€™s _life_. Is that all the dead man is worth? $400? Besides, the fact she was driving a 1999 Ford Explorer suggests she (or her parents) are not exactly badly off, doesnā€™t it? Anyway, sorry for going on - this wasnā€™t meant to be a rant, actually, but it did get a bit extreme. I stand by what I say, butā€¦ Iā€™m not really such a nasty person, honest šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/28 "2005-01-22T15:17:55Z")
> [@Dead Cat](#): > > The main problem when driving while using a hand-held phone is that in a manual car you need (at least) one hand to steer and the other to change gear. It is not uncommon in the UK to observe such scenarios as a driver with a phone cradled in their shoulder (which restricts your head movement and hence field of vision), changing gear with one hand, smoking a cigarette with the other and steering with their knees (for example)! Clearly one cannot react to any emergency when handicapped in this way, and the same is true if one is simply holding the phone with one hand and steering with the other (because then you have to let go of the wheel to change gear - Iā€™ve done it ā˜¹ ). This is not a situation which occurs with hands-free phones, toddler in the back, chatting with a passenger etc., so these remain legal. > > Of course in the US, where autos are the norm, this is perhaps less of a problem, but the fact remains you have only one hand and one eye on the road, which is dangerous. Studies that seem to show there is no difference between talking on a hand-held and talking on a hands free are preliminary only and an indicator at best. First, no need to apologise, I donā€™t think. You were articulate, and to the point. The problem I have with your reasoning is that the studies that point to the hazards of cell phones arenā€™t predicated on manual transmissions, theyā€™re predicated on the distraction effect of the cell phone. Also, youā€™re right, the automatic transmission is the usual transmission for most Americans - some of us are neo-luddites who loves us our manuals, but weā€™re in the distinct minority. So, while I agree that trying to drive a standard with a cell phone in your hand is a hassle, itā€™s not the main concern of the people in the US pushing the laws. And again, at least one of the studies that were posted earlier about the distraction hazard of cell phones made the point that **both** hand held and hands-free cell phones adversely affect reaction times, and IIRC to a similar degree. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/29 "2005-01-22T17:05:42Z")
How do you intend on paying for the massive increase in incarcerations caused by this new law? For someone who has espoused largely conservative views, increasing public debt or raising taxes seems like an odd thing to promote. Please donā€™t pick my pocket to support your need for rigid authoritarianism. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/30 "2005-01-22T17:11:08Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > How do you intend on paying for the massive increase in incarcerations caused by this new law? For someone who has espoused largely conservative views, increasing public debt or raising taxes seems like an odd thing to promote. Please donā€™t pick my pocket to support your need for rigid authoritarianism. Ummā€¦ who is this directed to, please? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/31 "2005-01-22T17:14:54Z")
The OP. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/32 "2005-01-22T17:17:20Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > The OP. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/33 "2005-01-22T17:17:46Z")
> [@Dead Cat](#): > > Ok, disclaimer: although I did read the entire thread carefully, there are so many points here that I canā€™t be certain of not repeating one or two of them myself - sorry. Hereā€™s may take on the issue(s). > > Firstly, causing anyoneā€™s death while driving a car should be a crime, unless it is no fault of the driver e.g. a tyre blowout, brake failure (unless the car is poorly maintained), having an inexplicable blackout and swerving into oncoming traffic. Even falling asleep at the wheel can be attributed to the driver being knowingly unfit to drive, therefore it was their fault. The privelege of driving a motor vehicle comes with the responsibility of using it safely, just as when using a chainsaw you shouldnā€™t wave it about near people. So any death caused by bad driving is criminal negligence. > > Note that this is just my view of what the law should be; Iā€™m not sure about the reality of it, so I wonā€™t comment on whether the correct legal decision was made in this particular case. However, we can comment on the moral decision. > > [snip] > > Arguing that the girlā€™s behaviour _might not_ have killed anyone is stupid and irrelevant. The fact is, she _did_ kill someone through her negligence, which she admitted. So it is manslaughter and she should be charged with such. If she hadnā€™t killed anyone, a ticket to reprimand her and encourage her not to do so again (possibly killing someone next time) would have been sufficient. > > Yes, she may be remorseful, but that also is irrelevant to the deterrent and punishment aspects of imprisonment. Now any psycho who wants to kill people can swerve across the centre line, claim it was an accident and get off $400 lighter. Taking someoneā€™s life should be punished by the law. If sheā€™s that upset, prison would be a good place to let her reflect on it. > > [snip] > > Anyway, sorry for going on - this wasnā€™t meant to be a rant, actually, but it did get a bit extreme. I stand by what I say, butā€¦ Iā€™m not really such a nasty person, honest šŸ™‚ I believe you are a good person. šŸ˜ƒ I also believe you are wrong. šŸ˜ƒ The problem with your approach is that, IMO, _every single person_ has, at one time or another, acted negligently while driving. I strongly suspect that it is physically/neurologically impossible\* for a human being to remain completely alert and properly focused at all times while operative a vehicle.\*\* Whether this inevitable negligence actually causes harm to another is a matter of random chance. So, the question is, do we criminalize human nature? Or, more to the point, do we make criminals out of those poor slobs who have acted the same way all of us have acted in our lives, simply because those poor slobs had the horrible bad luck to roll snake eyes in the crap game of life and have their inevitable negligent conduct happen to occur at a time when that conduct ends up killing someone else? Criminal law recognizes that we are not perfect. To make the test of criminality one that is beyond the ability of humans to meet is to make an absurd law. Every one of us would be acting criminally every day, and a law that makes everyone a criminal is useless. (It is also prone to abuse - leading to selective prosecution). To account for the imperfections of humanity, therefore, we have long ago decided that the test of criminality should be _intent_ - did the person intend to act criminally or, in the case of criminal negiglence, willfully ignore a significant risk to the life and limb of others? Under the intent thesis, the result of the action determines that severity of the crime committed, but **not** whether the action itself was criminal in the first place. The problem with your ā€œif she killed someone, itā€™s manslaughter, and if she didnā€™t, itā€™s a ticketable offenseā€ position is that, in each case, the student **did the same thing**. What she did and why she did it should determine whether she acted in a criminal manner, not the result of the behavior. Letā€™s take the reverse situation: a man randomly shoots a bullet while standing in a park that is regularly frequented by the public. Heā€™s not aiming at anyone in particular, and the bullet hits no one and falls to the ground, spent. No harm, no foul? I mean, the man caused no actual harm, because on that day, he rolled a lucky seven and the bullet didnā€™t actually hit anyone. No, we have decided that that behavior is criminal, because the manā€™s intent was to create a situation where there was a significant risk that someone could have been hurt or killed. Intent, not results, determines criminality. But if intent makes an action criminal even if no harm occurred, the obverse must also be true - _lack_ of intent must make an action non-criminal even if harm does occur. Finally, your fears about the precedent deciding not to prosecute creates is misplaced. First of all, it is not actually a precedent - the decision not to prosecute here has no effect on the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute in other cases. Second, the ā€œprecedentā€ was established long before this case - if there was no criminal intent, there was no crime. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/34 "2005-01-22T17:20:16Z")
- Iā€™m talking in general here, ignoring the issue of the cellphone. \*\* No idea how to research this question online. Any help? ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/35 "2005-01-22T17:36:09Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > So, the question is, do we criminalize human nature? Or, more to the point, do we make criminals out of those poor slobs who have acted the same way all of us have acted in our lives, simply because those poor slobs had the horrible bad luck to roll snake eyes in the crap game of life and have their inevitable negligent conduct happen to occur at a time when that conduct ends up killing someone else? **Sua** , as you may have noticed, in the most part I have shared your opinions on this particular issue. The problem is that I have to take exception to this particular reasoning: This is exactly the same reasoning that kept Drunk Driving an effectively unpunished crime for so many years. Granted the two situations are not parallel. For many years while there were laws against drunk driving they were not often enforced, because of this attitude. Here we have a situation where there is no law, and not really a consensus that there should be one, and in absence of such a law the prosecutor chose not to go for a higher charge than what s/he was certain could be proved. I just canā€™t forget the effort that it took to put in DWI laws with teeth because of that attitude. -Loki btw, your UserName, would it happen to be the school motto of a school you had attended in Concord, MA? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/36 "2005-01-22T17:52:09Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > **Sua** , as you may have noticed, in the most part I have shared your opinions on this particular issue. The problem is that I have to take exception to this particular reasoning: This is exactly the same reasoning that kept Drunk Driving an effectively unpunished crime for so many years. Itā€™s not. There is a world of difference between physical/neurological incapability, which causes negligent conduct, and, for want of a better phrase, ā€œmoral weaknessā€, which causes someone to slug down a few and then get behind the wheel. Have you ever forgotten to check to see if there are any approaching cyclists before you open your car door? Ever step on someoneā€™s heel because you were walking too close behind and didnā€™t look where you were placing your feet? Ever run and jump into a pool without making certain there was no one where you were going to land? All of these actions are negligent, and all can, if the circumstances are against you, cause significant injury, even death, to another. But all of them are the result of human failings that inevitably affect all of us - we forget, we donā€™t think, we assume. Thatā€™s a completely different kettle of fish from excusing the deliberate conduct of a person in consuming booze, then driving. There, an overt and conscious choice was made, and we should bear the consequences of overt choices. We shouldnā€™t bear the consequences, at least criminal consequences, of being a fallible human. The attitude you are talking about is more akin to ā€œboys will be boys,ā€ and I agree it is a bad attitude in the criminal realm. Conduct should not be excused, or considered noncriminal, because we are all _tempted_ to act in a negligent or wrongful manner. Conduct should be excused, or at least considered noncriminal, when we canā€™t completely avoid acting negligently all the time. No, my UserID is a joke from law school, not a school motto. Sua ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/37 "2005-01-22T18:07:28Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > The attitude you are talking about is more akin to ā€œboys will be boys,ā€ and I agree it is a bad attitude in the criminal realm. Conduct should not be excused, or considered noncriminal, because we are all _tempted_ to act in a negligent or wrongful manner. Conduct should be excused, or at least considered noncriminal, when we canā€™t completely avoid acting negligently all the time. > > No, my UserID is a joke from law school, not a school motto. > > Sua I do grant the two behaviors on the part of the authorities are different, and I didnā€™t mean that I particularly disagreed with the reasoning as applied to this case. I just meant to express a measure of (to use a non-technical legal term) ickyness in my reaction to the way youā€™d stated the principle: trying to express a need for caution in that thinking as well as with the idea of criminalizing anything that adversely affects other people. And thanks for the answer to the really minor question. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/38 "2005-01-23T13:47:25Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > How do you intend on paying for the massive increase in incarcerations caused by this new law? For someone who has espoused largely conservative views, increasing public debt or raising taxes seems like an odd thing to promote. Please donā€™t pick my pocket to support your need for rigid authoritarianism. Massive increase? How many deaths are caused each year in this manner? Iā€™m referring to people engaging in an activity that they _know_ hampers their abiblity to drive attentively. Maybe 500 nationwide? I think each state could absorb the costs of ten additional cases each year without the need to raise your taxes a noticeable degree. **questions to all** ; Would most of you feel the same way if the girl had been reading a book, or watching a DVD while driving? What if she was just a bump under the legal limit for alcohol? What if she had strayed into a biking lane and killed a seven year old boy riding home from school? What if she had strayed onto the shoulder of the road and killed someone walking home from work? (just for more discussion value, not trying to make a point, yet. šŸ˜‰ ) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/39 "2005-01-23T15:28:28Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > Massive increase? > How many deaths are caused each year in this manner? Iā€™m referring to people engaging in an activity that they _know_ hampers their abiblity to drive attentively. > Maybe 500 nationwide? I think each state could absorb the costs of ten additional cases each year without the need to raise your taxes a noticeable degree. 500? Does your ass hurt when you extract data like that? I, however, have hard statistics from the [U.S. Department of Transportation (PDF)](http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2001/809-293.pdf): > [@](#): > > Driver distraction as a cause of motor vehicle traffic crashes has become an increasingly important issue. A 1996 study published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that driver distraction in all its various forms probably contributes to between 20 and 30 percent of all crashes. In 1999, data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System revealed that driver distraction was a contributing factor in 11 percent of fatal crashes involving 4,462 fatalities. Additionally, the NASS General Estimates System estimated that various forms of driver distraction contributed to between 25 and 30 percent of injury and property damage-only crashes. Post in haste, retract at leisure. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759/40 "2005-01-23T19:51:45Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > 500? Does your ass hurt when you extract data like that? I, however, have hard statistics from the [U.S. Department of Transportation (PDF)](http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2001/809-293.pdf):Post in haste, retract at leisure. Certainly. Thanks for the data, but like I said earlier, every case should be taken on an individual basis. What your data does not show is how many of those cases go to court and/or how many of them had no charges filed. That one sentence is hard to understand, are they saying that 11% of 4,462 are caused by inattentive driving or is the 4,462 the eleven percent? (If it is 11% of 4,462 then my 500 guess is pretty close.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carthage-student-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-crash-i-think-she-should-be/285759.md?page=3)