Murder for $1000 + 6 mos probation

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=RickJay]
I drive a whole lot. Eight to ten hour one-way drives are something I do quite often. Sorry, but if you’ve gotten two tickets, you should be driving a lot slower, and there’s no reason to run a red light (as the woman cited in the OP has done.)

My wife puts a solid 15-20,000 miles on the car every year and in the eight years I have known her has gotten one ticket.

If you just got unlucky, well, it happens, but IMHO a third ticket should still carry a very hefty penalty and a license suspension. In your case this might well have sucked and sucked hard, but if you think about it, maybe you’d have been driving more carefully if you knew that was the inevitable penalty. And such a system would hopefully scare a lot of REALLY bad drivers, like the criminal in the OP, into realizing their bad behaviour.
[/QUOTE]

No, I really don’t object to the laws the way they are. I do think that todays cars can travel at higher sppeds quite safely on the highways, though. If I were a cop, I’d take into account reckless maneuvers and condition of car in addition to spped. I’m with you though on the red light stuff.

22

[QUOTE=njcultist]
So it’s okay to destroy someone else’s life for $1000?
[/QUOTE]

Er, no. Did anyone say it was?

So would that have made it all okay? I don’t think so. I think you really badly missed the point of my post.

23

First,a national law ,no cell phone use in moving cars. I have almost been hit several times walking my dogs across a highway. They go right through the damn light or turn without looking because they had a phone in their face.
second,that is clearly reckless driving. She got a sweet deal . Her longterm remorse is unproven.Today I crossed the busy intersection at a light. Four cars,all drivers on cell phones. The light changed ,they all drove off talking.

24

Here in Aus (at least in Victoria) driving whilst using a cellphone is illegal. Well, illegal as in that it will get you pulled over by the coppers and issued with an **On the Spot [/B fine as well as demerit points on your license. It will probably also get you a charge of Culpable Driving if you happen to injure or kill someone in the process…that mostly gets you either a jail term and/or a dose of community service, loss of license and a very nasty fine to boot.

Now, depending on the resources of the rellies and the expertise of the legal counsel, some defendents will come out of the charge with a fine and a suspended sentence. Some will get a jail term and a lesser fine. Some might only lose their license and have to undergo gardening at the local school as punishment.

Y’see, ultimately, it is up to the Magistrate to decide which is the greater penalty for the defendent. They also take into account the nature of the crime and the prospects of the criminal when determining that punishment. And it is only the judge who gets to be privy to such information (at least here in Aus) so it is not for me to decide whether the guilty party has received an ‘adequate’ punishment or not. I have full trust in my judicial representatives, and I endow them with the insight and the skill to dish out a ‘fair’ punishment for the crime committed.

Mostly anyway. :wink:

25

[QUOTE=RickJay]

To get two speeding tickets and a red light violation in one year you need to be an awful driver.
[/QUOTE]

No it does not, anyone driving safely can be pulled over at whim and issues a ticket, because safe driving means exceeding the speed limit. That’s right, the law is set up and enforced in a way that normal safe behavior is illegal which allows any of us to be stopped for no good reason and actually have to pay extra taxes. Running a red light is a bit different, but a basically safe driver, because they are human, will occasionally run a red (or pink) light.

26

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
No it does not, anyone driving safely can be pulled over at whim and issues a ticket, because safe driving means exceeding the speed limit. That’s right, the law is set up and enforced in a way that normal safe behavior is illegal which allows any of us to be stopped for no good reason and actually have to pay extra taxes. Running a red light is a bit different, but a basically safe driver, because they are human, will occasionally run a red (or pink) light.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve driven for over 25 years and I’ve never received a speeding ticket or a ticket for a moving violation. Some of that may be luck, but I think I must be doing something right. I’ve never been in a major accident.

Three tickets in a year indicates a problem.

27

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
No it does not, anyone driving safely can be pulled over at whim and issues a ticket, because safe driving means exceeding the speed limit. That’s right, the law is set up and enforced in a way that normal safe behavior is illegal which allows any of us to be stopped for no good reason and actually have to pay extra taxes. Running a red light is a bit different, but a basically safe driver, because they are human, will occasionally run a red (or pink) light.
[/QUOTE]

No, safe driving does not mean speeding. Simply because everyone speeds doesn’t mean that you should or that it is inherently safer. The law is not set up to penalize safe driving; the law is set up to make driving safer and to penalize those who are operating their vehicles unsafely. People may feel the need to travel faster than the speed limit; this does not mean that it’s somehow safer.

And the “extra taxes” you mention? Those aren’t taxes, you know; they’re penalties for breaking the law. Getting stopped for no good reason? Well, unless you’re arguing about “driving while being a minority”, no, you were pulled over for a good reason: breaking the law. It doesn’t matter if everyone else around you was also speeding. You speed, your liable to receive a ticket.

Regarding the OP: I think that she should have received a heavier penalty as well. But, really, I honestly cannot understand the reasoning that “it was a mistake, so let’s not ruin her life.” It was a mistake, sure, but someone still died because she didn’t properly operate her car. And mistakes result in legal culpability all the time. Just because it was an “accident” doesn’t mean that she should escape harsh(er) punishment (she’s not escaping punishment in this case, but it still doesn’t feel like enough).

28

[QUOTE=Oakminster]
Maybe somebody from Illinois can help me out. I don’t understand this:

State’s Attorney Julia Rietz made the call not to lodge any more serious charge than improper lane usage against Stark, saying that the legal definition of recklessness, to sustain reckless homicide or reckless driving, did not fit her actions.

What the fuck? The driver was downloading ringtones to her cellphone, and ran so far off the rode that she hit the victim with the driver’s side of her car. How can than that not meet the definition of recklessness? A freakin second year law student oughta be able to figure out some way to charge her with more than “improper lane usage”. If I was prosecuting, I’d be tempted to charge Depraved Heart Murder, but would probably accept a plea to vehicular manslaughter, with jail time to serve. If the bitch was dumb enough to go to trial, a jury is going to eat her alive.
[/QUOTE]

1st year law student here. :slight_smile: Reckless usually means “conceptualized the risk and did it anyway” (you don’t have KNOW for sure there is a risk). Perhaps the DA didn’t feel this could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The lowest culpable mental state (mes rea, remember Legally Blonde?) is Negligence: should have known there was a risk. In most states, she could have been charged with Negligent Homicide, a lesser charge. However, the statute in Illinois merges the required mental states of Negligence and Recklessness in relation to Homicide; Recklessness is minimum required culpability for ANY homicide. In other words, they have eliminated the idea of Homicide which is merely negligent.

29

[QUOTE=Hello Again]
1Reckless usually means “conceptualized the risk and did it anyway” … Perhaps the DA didn’t feel this could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[/QUOTE]

What if they could prove she was using a cell phone when the accident happened? Would that be enough, or would they have to prove she knew this was a risky behavior?

In other words, is ignorance of risk a valid excuse? What of people (like some on this thread) who believe speeding is actually safer than obeying the speed limit?

30

[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]
In Japan, they prosecute people for professional neglegence for accidents.
[/quote]

That’s because Japan considers everyone licensed to drive a professional driver. South Korea does also. Actually, I kind of like the concept. When I lived in Japan, though, the driving age was 20 (age of majority). Has it been lowered any?

Or less, depending on how much “gomen” money she paid to the family. For a number of crimes, Japan is pretty lenient when it comes to prison time ordered.

Regarding the case in the OP’s link: the judge certainly deemed the act to merit more than the charges brought by the prosecutor; however, his hands were tied.

31

[QUOTE=Hello Again]
1st year law student here. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]
If memory serves (at it doesn’t always), Oakminster is a lawyer.

32

I thought using a cell phone while driving was illegal in IL. I am not sure, but I think it is.
Should she have been punished more severly? Sure-if it can be proven that she was using her cell. I would think suspending her license or making her go to driving school (hey, I had to go when I blew a stop sign waaay back when I was 18) would be more appropriate.

Too bad about the guy.

33

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
First,a national law ,no cell phone use in moving cars.
[/QUOTE]

How about making Faraday cages into the frames of cars? When the car is under power, the cage would be electrified, and if properly designed, should prevent cell calls in/out. Whne the car is turned off, the calls should go through.

Sailboat

34

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
How about making Faraday cages into the frames of cars? When the car is under power, the cage would be electrified, and if properly designed, should prevent cell calls in/out. Whne the car is turned off, the calls should go through.

[/QUOTE]

That’s not the way a Faraday cage works. It doesn’t use power.

Simple workaround: open a window

35

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
How about making Faraday cages into the frames of cars? When the car is under power, the cage would be electrified, and if properly designed, should prevent cell calls in/out. Whne the car is turned off, the calls should go through.

Sailboat
[/QUOTE]

But what about emergencies, like if Ted Bundy resurrects and kidnaps you and ties you up in the backseat but you can reach your cell phone? You wouldn’t be able to call for help. A Faraday cage would then become your cage!

36

[QUOTE=scr4]
What if they could prove she was using a cell phone when the accident happened? Would that be enough, or would they have to prove she knew this was a risky behavior?

In other words, is ignorance of risk a valid excuse? What of people (like some on this thread) who believe speeding is actually safer than obeying the speed limit?
[/QUOTE]

Typically, to prove Recklessness, state must prove (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, natch) that she “averred to the risk.” Cognition of the risk is pretty important to proving the crime where Recklessness is required.

Ok, so every crime has two parts: the culpable Act and the culpable Mental State. For the most part, both must be present to form a crime. The Act alone, without the culpable mental state, is not necessarily a crime. Statutes which define laws generally posit a required mental state for each type of crime. For example, the charge of Murder generally requires Purpose, the most culpable mental state. A few types of crimes require no culpable mental state at all – this is called Strict Liability – but these never rise above the level of misdemeanors and often are restricted to Violations payable by a fine. The speed limit is a Violation and is a strict liability offense, so mental state is irrelevant.

The four levels of culpable mental states, from most to least, are Purpose (called Intent in some states), Knowledge, Recklessness and Negligence. Ignorance of the risk IS a complete defense if the required mental state of the crime is Knowledge. If the State fails to prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt that you knew something you were required to know, you are Not Guilty of THAT crime (you may well be guilty of another crime). Ignorance of the law itself is generally not a defense, UNLESS the statute specifically requires that knowledge.

The law in Illionois (as I read it, and I am a complete n00b) appears to follow the idea, enshrined in the Model Penal Code, that Recklessness is the minimum mental state to constitute a crime. Under this theory, an act which is merely Negligent (reasonable people would not have done it) is not a crime at all – just a civil harm (and by the way it is MUCH easier to prove liability in civil court than criminal court). It may seem pretty unfair, but its the way the Illinois legislature in its wisdom has chosen to define the crime of vehicular Homicide.

Clear as mud, eh?

37

[QUOTE=mks57]
I’ve driven for over 25 years and I’ve never received a speeding ticket or a ticket for a moving violation. Some of that may be luck, but I think I must be doing something right. I’ve never been in a major accident.

Three tickets in a year indicates a problem.
[/QUOTE]

In my experience (which of course is different from all other people’s experiences) the tickets tended to clump together. As in, I got three or four within a couple of years, close enough to threaten my total point count. And yet my driving habits had not and did not change.* I do speed; I don’t usually get stopped. But in this period, for whatever reason, I did.

Never been in a major accident, and the only minor ones (2, in 40 years) were on icy roads.

*Yeah, well, they did for awhile after I got the last two tickets. I slowed to a crawl. Got over it though.

38

[QUOTE=Monty]
That’s because Japan considers everyone licensed to drive a professional driver. South Korea does also. Actually, I kind of like the concept. When I lived in Japan, though, the driving age was 20 (age of majority). Has it been lowered any?
[/quote]
Hate to constantly be quibbling with you Monty, :stuck_out_tongue: but it’s 18 and my service tech said it was 18 when he got his license 20+ years ago.

When I just went to renew my license, they showed a short film (based on a true story) about a guy who killed a young kid and injured his sister, and then fled because he had been drinking. He turned himself in, but they convicted him and sentenced him to 3 years in prison. He was hit was a civil case, lost the case and his wife was forced to sell the house and move. Things went downhill from there.

IANAL, and especially IANALATTJB, but it’s my understanding that the prosecution does not need the cooperation of the victims for traffic accidents. They have started cracking down more on fatal traffic accidents in general and specifically drunk driving which causes fatalities. It’s now a mandatory one year in prison for that, for which a heartily applaud.

39

No quibble, TP. I just recalled it as 18. Perhaps it was just for the USFJ personnel who wished to drive off-base. After all, they were licensed by the USFJ.

I must be tired. It took me a full two minutes to figure out that IANALATTJB = I am not a lawyer admitted to the Japanese Bar.

40

Don’t worry, I was just giving you are hard time, so that we don’t get soft on each other. :wink: