Crime and punishment

Great Debates
1

I’ve been discussing this subject on another board and was wondering what your take on it was.

We were discussing a case where a couple of teenagers stole a Stop sign. There was a traffic accident the next day as a result in which one person died. The teenagers were caught and charged with manslaughter as a result. However what if there hadn’t been a car accident? What if some traffic cop had reported the sign missing and the sign was replaced or a diversion set up before there was an accident? Should the kids who stole that stop sign be charged with the same offence as those whose theft caused a fatal accident? Shouldn’t everybody who steals a Stop sign be punished equally?
Sure, it is very sad that those people died. But if justice is meant to be a deterrent, shouldn’t the punishment for stealing a stop sign (with no accident) be more severe? Is manslaughter over the top for the other guys? The threat of a few hours’ community service (and the unlikelihood of being caught) is hardly a deterrent for a kid who thinks a stop sign would look cool in his bedroom.

Any action could potentially result in a loss of life if you split hairs about it. Should I go to jail for manslaughter if I drop a candy bar wrapper which someone slips on and cracks their skull?

Basically the question I’m working my way round to asking is this. Should we punish according to crime or consequence? Your thoughts?

2

from the Court TV website:

THE FACTS OF THE CASE
At a busy 4-way intersection in Tampa, Florida in February 1996, some individual or individuals removed a stop sign. Three young men driving in a car, Keith Farr, Randall White and Brian Hernandez, died instantly when a large truck hit their vehicle as they proceeded through the intersection.

The missing stop sign was the cause of the tragic accident.
Three teens, Christopher Cole, Nissa Baille and Thomas Miller, were accused of first-degree manslaughter and put on trial. The jury unanimously reached a guilty verdict for all three defendants. After listening to impassioned pleas from parents and friends of both the defendants and the victims, the judge sentenced each of the defendants – Cole, Baille and Miller --** to 30 years in prison, suspending 15 years, resulting in prison terms of 15 years plus 5 years probation for each defendant.**

If I understand the question, I believe the punishment for doing something like stealing a stop sign should be severe- same for dropping rocks off overpasses and other reckless acts that could easily lead to injury or death. I do not know what someone is charged with if they steal a stop sign (I looked, but could not find the charge), but you can’t charge them with manslaughter if no one is killed.

In your post, you state that justice is meant to be a deterrent. I don’t believe that’s the purpose. I believe the purpose of our justice system is to punish the person for committing an illegal act, bring some closure to the victim or victims family, and hopefully deter others from commiting the same crime.
Zette

3

I suppose that stealing a stop sign could result in a charge ranging from vandalism to a more serious theft charge, depending on the cost of the sign. Really.

Sorry, but this is a little different than dropping a banana peel on the sidewalk and having someone trip on it. Is there a reasonable expectation that the removal of a traffic regulation device could result in an accident? Yep.

And right now, I tend to fall on the “punishment” side of the fence rather than the “deterrent” side.

Don’t forget that related acts can really get you. In CA, if someone has a HEART ATTACK while I am committing a bank robbery, I can be charged with causing that person’s death, resulting in an enhancement to my charge which could mean the death penalty.

4

I suspect that the OP is trying to get at this:

Do we, as a society, through our justice system, wish to try our people based on what did happen or based on the worst case scenario of what ** could ** happen.

In the case cited, the theft of the traffic sign can be argued to have been a precipitating cause for the accident (it is certain that the failure to stop was the direct cause, but even with a stop sign, people have been known to ignore them). The resultant deaths involved was charged to the theives, and they were tried, convicted and punished by the severity of the actual events.

We already do this sort of thing (in many states) anyhow. For example - any death that happens during the commition of another felony, automatically makes it more severely charged (including the speculated heart attack situations). If you drive while drunk you get one set of charges, if some one is seriously hurt or dies (at least in my state), there’s specific charges for each of those, and the punishment is greater.

I have no problem with that. however, to extrapolate from that to punish people not for what did happen, but what could have isn’t quite the answer either. (this is not the "assault with intent to kill type of thing, obviously if the real intent is to kill, then the charge should reflect that)

After all, any set of actions can produce many results. Consider: Some one stealing a purse, the person who has their purse stolen has a heart attack and dies, yes, they get charged (death occuring during the commition of another felony). However, do you now, because this ** could** happen, charge and penalize all purse snatchers as if they’d caused a death? I would argue that it does not serve our society well to lock people up for the rest of their lives for a realively minor theft (yea, all crime deplorable, etc. but since I’m not in favor of the huge increases in our corrections budgets that this action would cause, I’d say, let’s try and deal with minor criminals in ways other than locking them up for the rest of their lives).

Please note, that in the OP, the crime involved did lead to deaths, so they (IMHO) were correctly charged.

5

If that scenario occurred in the UK the thieves would be charged with theft only, though there might be the possibility of charging them under health and safety legislation and this might get you a few years but it would have to be pretty exceptional.
If it could be proved that there was an intention to cause an accident, for instance someone overhearing the participants discussing how cool it would be to see someone die in a car wreck then manslaughter might be charged.The difficulty of actually laying a succesful manslaughter charge is obvious.

If I were driving my car and I hit another vehicle in similar circumstances without being killed I would be charged with ‘driving without due care and attention’.This is a catch-all and covers 50/50 fender benders, losing control etc .If it could be proved that there was intention to do something stupid such as ,say, racing another car then it would be ‘dangerous driving’ which can get you lots of jail depending on the case itself.

A junction such as the one described would have a sign but it would also have road markings to indicate that the driver must stop even if there appears to be no traffic coming.There would also be stop signs on both sides of the road and something like 20-50yards before those there would be signs warning of a road junction and likely indicating the priorities.

It has to be said that our fatal road incident laws are deplorable.If I wanted to kill someone deliberately my least risk way would be to do it with a car, I’d be looking at maybe five years for dangerous driving, if I was drunk and did it probably not much more.

I had a good friend killed whilst in a cycle race, an impatient 70 year old decided to overtake the cars following the race, which included a safety car with flashing orange beacons and dayglo signs , on a bend at high speed with little forward vision.He swerved into the bunch when another car approached on its own side if the road in the opposite direction.

The silly old bastard was only charged with driving without due care and attention and lost his licence for a couple of years.

We have tightened up but much needs to be done.

You can start here

http://www.madd.org/aboutmad/default.shtml

I thought this site would be more appropriate for US Dopers.

6

Not my balliwick, but here goes.

I think the liability is due to their actions being deemed the proximate, rather than direct, cause of the injury. Here’s another example - law books are full of them. Let’s say you have your car parked on the street with a trunk full of dynamite. Well, if you get caught without any accident happening, then you get charged with some unlawful transport offense. But what if someone tries to park behind you, nudges your bumper, and the dynamite explodes, killing him. Who do you charge with what? The dead guy for destroying your car? Then there’s the Pfalsgraf case. Oh the horror!

Another arguably relevant concept you may wish to toss into your bull sessions is the eggshell plaintiff. Which basically means, you take your plaintiffs as you find them. Literally, lets say I barely bump uyou on the head. Normally no one would be hurt, but you happen to have an eggshell-thin skull and you die. Hey, I bear the consequences of my actions upon that particular individual, not an “average” person. Another example: I intentionally scare you, but I don’t know you have a weak heart, and you die. What, if anything, am I guilty of?