Accidental murder

[ChubbyChecker]

I heard some time ago the case of some guy who had fallen asleep at the wheel. Unfortunately while asleep he managed to drive his car onto some train tracks, a train crashed into it and killed 6 people in the process. For some bizarre reason he survived.

I might be remembering it wrong but for the purpose of this thread lets assume I'm correct.

Now, what do you do with a guy like this? Do you lock him up and throw away the key? If so then you should probably do the same to anybody who falls asleep at the wheel and does nothing more than crashing into a tree. Do you revoke his license for 6 months and tell him he's a naughty boy?

[Nodrog]

Its 'manslaughter', not 'accidental murder' btw.

I've never personally managed to resolve this to my satisfaction. There seems to be something wrong with giving 2 people different punishments for performing the same act in the same situation, just because one happened to have consequences that were out of the control of the actor. A similar situation involves drunk driving - 2 people drive home while way over the alcohol limit, but only the first person hits and kills a pedestrian. Why is his crime 'worse' than the person who arrived home safely - the intentions and internal motivations are the same in both cases.

I suppose it depends on whether you take more of an intentional, or consequentialist view of ethics. I tend to straddle both camps, and I'd imagine most people are the same.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Why is his crime 'worse' than the person who arrived home safely - the intentions and internal motivations are the same in both cases.

While both should be punished, we live in a society where results matter, hence the criminal law should punish those who kill more severely.

[Nodrog]

Yes, but why? Do you think this is just a 'there are no ultimate justifications of our social practices' thing, or are there good supporting reasons for the current system.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by lokken

While both should be punished, we live in a society where results matter, hence the criminal law should punish those who kill more severely.

well what the guy at the car was being punished for was falling asleep in the wrong place.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

well what the guy at the car was being punished for was falling asleep in the wrong place.

someone who causes death by their stupidity is far more blameworthy than someone who got home, simply because he killed people as a result of his actions.

if i ran the london marathon and finished it in 5 hours no one would care, but if i won then a lot of people would care - that's why results matter dear.

[roadrunner_0]

different charges though isn't it

causing death by dangerous driving is a different thing to crashing into a tree, in fact, i can't think of anything that you would be charged with if you did that, driving without due care and attention possibly??

yes, in one way it is a bit shit, however, it all comes down to being punished for the consequences of your actions. in the same way that you cannot be punished for thinking of a crime, you also cannot (and imo should not) have people whos actions result in different consequences be punished for the same crime, as the results would just be silly.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Its 'manslaughter', not 'accidental murder' btw.

Yeah, I know. But if I'd called the thread manslaughter then it would be implying that I thought he should be charged with manslaughter.

[Marilyn Manson]

'Accidental murder' is a contradiction in terms tho. By legal definition, murder is the intentional act of killing.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

different charges though isn't it

causing death by dangerous driving is a different thing to crashing into a tree, in fact, i can't think of anything that you would be charged with if you did that, driving without due care and attention possibly??

accidental tree murder

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

'Accidental murder' is a contradiction in terms tho. By legal definition, murder is the intentional act of killing.

So's your face!

Anyway, some people would consider falling asleep at the wheel and killing someone murder. After all if you're in a state where you might fall asleep at the wheel then you shouldn't be driving. So it could be considered murder even though it was accidental.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

So's your face!

Anyway, some people would consider falling asleep at the wheel and killing someone murder. After all if you're in a state where you might fall asleep at the wheel then you shouldn't be driving. So it could be considered murder even though it was accidental.

no it can't

stop being silly.

[vampire_lestat]

it probably can be in less cultured civilisations.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

no it can't

stop being silly.

I didn't mean a judge would think that, or a lawyer, I meant people in general.

Don't tell me what to think bitch!

[Marilyn Manson]

Who cares what people in general think? We're GD people, not chavs.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

I didn't mean a judge would think that, or a lawyer, I meant people in general.

Don't tell me what to think bitch!

people in general are stupid

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

I didn't mean a judge would think that, or a lawyer, I meant people in general.

Don't tell me what to think bitch!

i was asking you to think ...

[Kurashima]

It is monumentally stupid to attempt to drive 3 tons of metal at high speed if you can barely keep your eyes open to concentrate on what youre doing.

Similarly, its stupidity beyond belief to drive whilst having imbibed a substance that removes your ability to think coherently and concentrate on a task that requires great concentration.

[JamMak]

One drunk person crashes into one person and kills them.
One drunk person crashes into two person and kills them.

Just because one driver 'only' killed one person, by your theory he 'could' have killed two, or three, or twenty.
So what sentence do we give the driver? One proportianate to murder, or to double murder? Or triple etc.?

You can't sentence people on what 'hypothetically' could happen, because most things are hypothetically possible. You'd end up sentancing a kid who stole an apple to triple murder etc.

[dda]

First, the only case such as the one this tread starts off with is one in southern California where a man drove his car upon the tracks on which a commuter train was coming. He claimes that he was trying to commit suicide. However, he chickened out and left his suv on the tracks and fled. The train was derailed and 12 or so people were killed and a number of individuals were injured. He has been charged with 12 counts (or however many dead), train wrecking and the special circumstances of multiple murder and murder in the commission of train wrecking. Should he be convicted of all of these crimes, he will spend the rest of his life in jail. The jury would then decide whether the state should attemp to shorten his life expectancy.

In a situation of someone falling asleep and unintentionally killing 6 people. In the California, the maximum sentence would be 6 years for the first death with one additonal year for each additional death or a total of 11 years maximum. With time of for working in prison and for being good as well, he could reduce the time actually incarcerated to about 1/2 of that. The judge could also decide to give him local jail time of up to one year and put him on probation. All with healthy fines and loss of driving privilege.

The theory is that the more harm you cause, the more serious the punishment should be. The hope is that it will deter people from embarking on a particular course of action. In practice, most people drive like shit at least occasionally and society understands that often someone who's bad driving kills someone hasn't done much more than your average individual. In such cases where the negligence is real but of a common nature, most people get very little, if any, jail time and are put on probation. Recently, a friend of a friend was killed when he was run off the road and over an embankment by a young man trying to pass him while merging onto a freeway. He got no jail time at all.

[vampire_lestat]

so once you've 'accidentally' killed 6 people, you might as well get your times worth and take as many out as possible.

[dda]

Extra year for each one divided by two.

[vampire_lestat]

11 years max in CA apparently though.

[1-X]

More details of the case ChubbyChecker was referring to...

Gary Hart, up all night on the phone to a woman he met on an internet dating agency (though married with children), falls asleep at the wheel, drives into a train killing 10, injuring 70 and causing £10 million damage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1754336.stm

He got 5 years, and served approx. half of it. From the interview below, he still seems to feel sorry for himself more than his victims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3954733.stm

[dda]

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

11 years max in CA apparently though.

No. 1= 6 years; 2= 6+1; 3= 6+2; 10= 6+9; etc.

[vampire_lestat]

Originally Posted by dda

In the California, the maximum sentence would be 6 years for the first death with one additonal year for each additional death or a total of 11 years maximum.

o rly?

[hyfe]

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

11 years max in CA apparently though.

Originally Posted by dda

No. 1= 6 years; 2= 6+1; 3= 6+2; 10= 6+9; etc.

Originally Posted by dda

In the California, the maximum sentence would be 6 years for the first death with one additonal year for each additional death or a total of 11 years maximum.

[Cooling]

It was for the purpose of illustration you fool.

People will tire of explaining things if you are going to be overly pedantic.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by lokken

someone who causes death by their stupidity is far more blameworthy than someone who got home, simply because he killed people as a result of his actions.

why are they actually more blameworthy? I could probably accept the point if it was "driving whilst incapable next to a train track is more stupid than driving whilst incapable along a long empty country road" but in this case, I fail to see why someone is "more blameworthy" just because of the location that they fell asleep in.

if i ran the london marathon and finished it in 5 hours no one would care, but if i won then a lot of people would care - that's why results matter dear.

I don't care whether people care. I wasn't aware that the legal system was there to sate the public desire for revenge. perhaps we should just do away with the legal system and run a poll of daily mail readers to see what we should do to the guilty.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I don't care whether people care. I wasn't aware that the legal system was there to sate the public desire for revenge. perhaps we should just do away with the legal system and run a poll of daily mail readers to see what we should do to the guilty.

we could make that poll national. we could ask everyone over 18 to pick by offering them several versions of justice. we could make sure that the options they were offered had been specifically tailoured to meet their mood and opinion and then use that to determine the laws.

we could call it democracy.


you really don't think do you.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

we could make that poll national. we could ask everyone over 18 to pick by offering them several versions of justice. we could make sure that the options they were offered had been specifically tailoured to meet their mood and opinion and then use that to determine the laws.

we could call it democracy.


you really don't think do you.

I see what you are saying, but I don't feel it is entirely in context. I got the impression from what lokken was saying, that larger punishments should befall those who hit the headlines more than others, regardless of the crime itself, and the punishment should be weighted more on "how many people care" rather than a balanced look at the actual crime commited.

Since you are posting here, I would be interested in your justification as to why someone falling asleep and then ending up on a train track, derailing a train and killing a load of people should be sentenced more harshly than someone who falls asleep at the wheel and runs into a tree. what is the actual difference between the thing that the person has done, in terms of their actual responsibility and intent. I don't see any difference other than one was unfortunate enough to fall asleep in a bad place to be honest, though I am more than ready to admit that I might be missing something.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

why are they actually more blameworthy? I could probably accept the point if it was "driving whilst incapable next to a train track is more stupid than driving whilst incapable along a long empty country road" but in this case, I fail to see why someone is "more blameworthy" just because of the location that they fell asleep in.

I don't care whether people care. I wasn't aware that the legal system was there to sate the public desire for revenge. perhaps we should just do away with the legal system and run a poll of daily mail readers to see what we should do to the guilty.

Well no one cared for the person who caused no harm and return home safely - they care far more that someone's recklessness by driving incapable caused a person's death and preferably want people who cause death to be dealt with. If you cause harm, you must be more blameworthy, simply because causing harm unlawfully is wrong. The fact is that it wasn't 'bad luck', you should never have got into the car in the first place and take the risk that you might cause harm. If you cause that harm, you accepted the risk (the wrong of all drunk/tired drivers) and caused harm (more blameworthy).

And yes, the criminal law does satisfy some revenge - from a victim's point of view, would it be 'fair' for someone to face a penalty of a drink driver who did not kill? Not to mention the gross injustice that would befall someone who was sentenced to years imprisonment for merely drink driving and not harming anyone. This is why the criminal law sees things in degrees of blame, so the punishment fits the crime.

[All Systems Go]

that man will have to live for the rest of his live with the fact that he killed those people? Does the law not consider this enough? His licence should be revoked and I can see a revenge aspect of putting him in jail but in no way does it serve the public good. I think it's highly unlikely that he'll ever be in that situation again so putting him in jail is costing the taxpayers £30,000 a year to satisfy some draconian lust we have for vengence.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by lokken

Well no one cared for the person who caused no harm and return home safely - they care far more that someone's recklessness by driving incapable caused a person's death and preferably want people who cause death to be dealt with.

I know that, but ultimately this results in people getting punished just because they were doing the wrong thing in the wrong place and the wrong time. I can accept the law punishing people for doing the wrong thing, but why is their sentence magnified for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

If you cause harm, you must be more blameworthy, simply because causing harm unlawfully is wrong. The fact is that it wasn't 'bad luck', you should never have got into the car in the first place and take the risk that you might cause harm. If you cause that harm, you accepted the risk (the wrong of all drunk/tired drivers) and caused harm (more blameworthy).

blameworthy because of where he fell asleep and say, slumping to the right instead of the left? that seems nonsensical to me. In this case we are punishing him for what happened because of what he did, not punishing him for what he did. who knows what the ramifications of his actions have actually been. perhaps because of this an even larger disaster was averted, perhaps there were some terrorists on the train who were planning to blow up the tube, who knows? but we will never know that. these things are things that have happened because of what he did, just as much as the deaths on the train.

And yes, the criminal law does satisfy some revenge - from a victim's point of view, would it be 'fair' for someone to face a penalty of a drink driver who did not kill? Not to mention the gross injustice that would befall someone who was sentenced to years imprisonment for merely drink driving and not harming anyone. This is why the criminal law sees things in degrees of blame, so the punishment fits the crime.

the crime is driving while incapable of driving. the punishment is for the coice of route home.

[lokken]

the facts are dear:

he killed

he knew he was taking a risk of causing death to himself and others by driving.

he is to blame for not only taking that risk, but killing as a result. By making such a poor decision he literally put his life into his own hands, and paid the price. So what if it was 'bad luck' as you put it - it was his choice to go down this perilous route of driving incapable - he made his own luck. You talk of different consequences potentially in the future - we have no potential consequence here, but a result -unlawful death of another.

Who is at fault for killing? - he is. Did he mean to kill? No. Is that manslaughter? Yes it most certainly is. I'd say he's far more blameworthy than the chap who caused no harm at all.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

the crime is driving while incapable of driving. the punishment is for the coice of route home.

Exactly. If he chose a safer route then no-one would have been killed.

Also, he could still have driven slower, got a little bit of sleep (even if he's still dangerously sleepy), or just have concentrated harder.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

Since you are posting here, I would be interested in your justification as to why someone falling asleep and then ending up on a train track, derailing a train and killing a load of people should be sentenced more harshly than someone who falls asleep at the wheel and runs into a tree. what is the actual difference between the thing that the person has done, in terms of their actual responsibility and intent. I don't see any difference other than one was unfortunate enough to fall asleep in a bad place to be honest, though I am more than ready to admit that I might be missing something.

since you asked, i'm still working on it. I'm afraid it is a question that has obsessed me since i first learned about criminal damage. (ie. if i accidentally knock my glass to the floor while making a dramatic gesture and it breaks = crime. if i accidentally knock my glass to the floor while making a dramatic gesture and it does not break = no crime)

I have been thinking about it a lot.

At the moment it is my opinion that law is used as a stop gap. we are called upon to plug the failings of other aspects of society. ideally to me nothing would be a crime that wasn't 'intended'.

It seems to me that justice is stretched. it is a fact that if all crimes required intention a lot of stupid people would be let off. but why are they stupid?

why are they ignorant?

my beautiful justice is tarnished by the necessity to 'fill in' for the failings of other sectors of society. most obviously education.

[dda]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

ideally to me nothing would be a crime that wasn't 'intended'.

The problem with this would be to determine what had to be intended, the act or the outcome? I intend to drink until I am shit faced. I intend to get into my car. I intend to drive. I don't intend to plow mu SUV into the side of a school bus so I haven't committed any crime by killing the 17 children who were in the bus when it went over the cliff. I am only guilty of drulnk driving? I intentionally shoot into a house only intending to scare the people inside. Unfortunately, one of the children in the house has the bad manners to place their head in the path of my bullet. I didn't intend to damage anyone. Only guilty of some gun charges and vandalism? A person who is incapable of staying awake but who intentionally gets behind the wheel bears the responsibility of the consequences of the act, not the possible consequences of the act. Seems reasonable to me.