I too wonder about the “massive increase” remark.
If every one of the 4,500 distracted drivers resulting in death were sentenced to one year or less in prison, the prison population would increase by less than one-half of one percent.
Off hand, I’m hard pressed to come up with any circumstance of a 1/3 of one percent increase I would consider massive.
I am in favor of banning the use of cellphones while driving. I’ve observed too many people who did dangerous stupid things because they were yakking or dialing. These are the same sort of people who would read a newspaper, do their makeup, eat a sandwich etc while driving. They are doing everything except paying attention. The person in the OP should be charged with reckless endagerment, criminal negligence and maybe even manslaughter and /or vehicular homicide. Not paying attention is not an excuse. At the very least, she should have her drivers license permanently revoked. Apparently her driving skills are unacceptably poor, or she just has contempt for the safety and lives of other people. Either way, get her off the road.
No, it is quite clear it means 11% of all traffic fatalities are due to inattention. Your guess was off by nearly a full order of magnitude.
Which is irrelevant. My statistic is quoted to show the number of potential prosecutions under your proposal.
Perhaps taken as a percentage, ‘massive’ was hyperbolic, but the OP’s proposal could easily cost billions of dollars in new prosecution and incarceration charges. In the words of Senator Everett Dirksen, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money”.
It’s a ridiculous claim that 4500 additional defendants and prison costs would increase the annual costs by billions.
To get ONE billion would mean the average individual would cost over $222,000 per year.
Fear, you should know that the fear of possibly having to raise taxes should never be a deterent to proper law enforcement. If your only arguement is the tax/court cost issues, you may want to reconsider your position.
It may be one aspect of the issue to consider, but it could never be the sole reason to drop or change a law.
Proper being the operative word there, and we are back to the debate. In light of the enormous stress our criminal justice system is under already, it is not proper.
I will reconsider, if you will apply the same logic to universal health care. My point is that it always seems that money is no object to conservatives when considering law ‘n’ order, but every nickel of taxpayer money is too much to spend for public health care. It’s about values.
Ack!! I have written out my answers to these four times now, and each time my internet access crashed before I could post. So no explanations this time, I’m sick of writing them.
Sua
Do tell. I promise your connection won’t crash this time.
K.
The issue is whether a person willfully ignores the fact that their actions creates a serious risk of injury or death to another. A reasonable person knows that taking one’s eyes off the road for the time necessary to actually watch a DVD or read a book seriously increases the risk to others. Thus, criminal.
The issue is willful conduct increasing the risk to others. The government has effectively said that “over this amount of booze, and you are a hazard on the road.” The reasonable person can conclude that the government has determined that less than that amount of booze and you aren’t a hazard. No willfulness.
3&4. simply change the victim. Whether certain conduct is criminal in nature is not determined by the results of that conduct. (The result of the conduct will affect the nature of the crime, once the action is determined to be criminal.) If the conduct would not be criminal if the victim was a 50-year old (or a piece of property, or nothing), then it would not be criminal if the victim is a kid, or a pedestrian, or a cute li’l puppy dog.
Sua
Can’t we assume that this girl had taken her eyes off the road to use the phone? She could have been performing any number of tasks while on the phone that could have taken her eyes off the road, such as surfing, looking up a phone number while talking, using the calculator or the notepad feature that most phones have, scrolling through photos, etc.
No-one really knows when they’ve reached their legal limit. Everyone is affected differently by alcohol consumption, -ever hear someone tell you that all it takes is one glass of wine?
I’ll give you that. However, would anything change if it was a hit and run? If the perp was caught, say, two weeks later would the DA be more likely to seek criminal charges? If so, why?
We can assume anything we want; what is relevant is what can be proven to a jury. We cannot charge someone with a crime because we assume they committed the crime, without evidence.
Actually, most people have a pretty good idea. Anyone who’s been through a high school health class has been informed about the equivalence between different types of drinks, the effect of body weight, the time in which the body processes alcohol, etc. Personally, I always do such calculations when I go out for dinner and drinks, to decide how much I should drink and still remain safe and legal to drive.
“Someone” has indeed told me that all it takes is one glass of wine. However, the law has told me different, and the law is what matters. A reasonable person may assume that the government has engaged in tests, etc., to determine at which point alcohol affects a driver to such an extent they create a significant risk on the roads. A reasonable person may also assume that the government has found that amounts less than that do not create a significant risk - otherwise, the legal limit would be lower.
It is all about willfulness. If I, because the government has led me to believe it is so, believe it is safe for me to drive after having had two drinks in a two-hour period, my belief is reasonable, and I am not willfully creating risk for others.
The DA is certainly going to seek criminal charges, but for a completely different crime - that of leaving the scene of an accident. The law - a separate law - requires a person involved in an accident to remain at the scene. If the student had left, she would have been charged with that.
However, fleeing the scene would not retroactively criminalize the accident itself. Whether the accident was criminal or noncriminal is determined on the facts of the accident itself.
Sua
Slight correction to the hit-and-run answer:
Fleeing the scene may be evidence that the original accident was caused by criminal conduct. Fleeing the scene may be considered evidence of a guilty conscience - that you knew what you were doing was criminal. It’s not dispositive, though - it could just be panic.
Sua
Thankyou SuaSponte for your expeditious and informative posts. I look forward to challenging you in the future (and probably loosing 
).
I’m here to learn, like the rest of us, and these exchanges have accomplished that.
One more item if you wish;
In reference to not having her eyes on the road (such as watching a DVD…)-
Couldn’t it be easily argued that she did not see the approaching car (otherwise she would have manuevered to miss it) and therefore did not have her eyes on the road?
Suppose she hit a patch of black ice and that’s what caused her to slide into the other lane. Or a tie rod broke, or a tire blew out, or she was distracted by a loud noise outside the car, or blinded by light reflecting off another car. Any of these things would normally be classified as an “accident”, and it seems that driving on our roadways, for better or worse, you assume some risk that accidents occur.
True, but in this case she admitted that she was on the cell phone, and for whatever reason, was distracted enough that she drifted into oncoming traffic.
There were no natural or mechanical influences in the cars behavior outside of the drivers control.