Murder by DVD distraction?

[MMandM]

Have you observed a trend wherein the laws are being manipulated to support harsher charges against person's accused of criminal wrong-doing?

 

Here's a case in point:

 

Murder by DVD Distraction

 

When a pickup truck crossed the double yellow line along Seward Highway and killed two occupants of a Jeep Grand Cherokee, police initially thought the accident was another tragic mistake by a momentarily distracted driver.

 

Then they spotted the dashboard DVD player.

 

In what may be the first trial of its kind in the nation, prosecutors have accused the pickup truck's driver of second-degree murder for watching a movie instead of the road when he crashed head-on into the Jeep.

 

While no Alaska law prohibits operating a DVD player in view of a driver, prosecutor June Stein said the facts warranted charging Petterson under one of two theories: that he knew his conduct was substantially certain to cause death or that he knowingly engaged in conduct showing extreme indifference to human life.

 

Discussion:

 

First, we need to put things into perspective.

 

If you handle a loaded gun, deliberately point the gun at another person's head, and intentionally pull the trigger, then, most definitely, you are engaging in conduct that you know is substantially certain to cause death or you are knowingly engaging in conduct that shows extreme indifference to human life.

 

If you beat someone so bad that the person dies--even though you did not intend to cause that person's death--your actions of deliberately and repeatedly applying your fists or a weapon to another person's body would support a charge of second-degree murder because you engaged in conduct (inflicting injuries) that you know is substantially certain to cause that person's death or you knowingly engaged in conduct that shows extreme indifference to human life.

 

But, if you are distracted by DVD and you plow your vehicle into another vehicle, has your level of culpability risen to the same level of culpability as someone who knowingly shoots another person or someone who beats another person to death?

 

There are different degrees of homicide based on the culpability of the accused. Our criminal laws are specifically graded so that individuals with the greatest culpability are punished more severely than individuals with lesser levels of culpability.

 

If a person engages in negligent conduct and that negligence results in the death of another, that person's culpability would support a negligent homicide charge.

 

If a person engages in reckless conduct and that recklessness results in the death of another, that person's culpability would support a manslaughter charge.

 

Both negligent homicide and manslaughter are serious charges, but the accused simply does not knowingly or intentionally cause the death of another. IMHO, murder charges should be reserved for those who are truly guilty of murder.

 

I am troubled when the law is manipulated to turn people who are merely negligent or reckless into convicted murderers. Are our nation's "tough on crime" prosecutors blurring the lines of culpability upon which criminal laws are based?

 

Do you feel the entire purpose of defining crimes by law and grading them in accordance with culpability is being washed away through manipulation.

 

What are your views?

Edited April 15, 2007 by MarkESQ

[Graeme]

The logic used by the prosecutor could be applied to ANY behaviour that resulted in the driver being distracted. This includes, but is not limited to, holding a conversation, talking on a cellphone, eating, shaving, applying makeup, changing a CD/tape, reading a map or checking the sat-nav system.

 

Negligence or manslaughter charges make sense, but not second-degree murder.

[shadowgod]

The logic used by the prosecutor could be applied to ANY behaviour that resulted in the driver being distracted. This includes, but is not limited to, holding a conversation, talking on a cellphone, eating, shaving, applying makeup, changing a CD/tape, reading a map or checking the sat-nav system.

 

Negligence or manslaughter charges make sense, but not second-degree murder.

 

 

Too bad he couldnt be charge with stupidity... Then again you think there is an over crowding problem now.

 

It's a toss... was the DVD player in operation at the time of the incident? or did they just notice a screen that had the DVD logo? Many nav systems run off a DVD.

[Razor]

You know, this is the same sort of idiocy that makes MY life difficult. You know that if I was in possession of heroin when I got in trouble one year ago I could have it expunged from my record, but because of these freak activists I can't possibly get a DUI expunged? You know that means I'm absolutely screwed on insurance for 3 years? Yeah, I understand that sometimes bad things happen because someone did something stupid. I understand what I did was really stupid.

 

I also know that sometimes people just mess up. These mess ups can be pretty bad... but the growing trend to vengeance instead of lenience really makes me sick. People need to realize that a punishment can't fix what a mistake screwed up.

[MMandM]

First we must take a step back for a moment and review criminal negligence:

 

AS 11.41.130. Criminally Negligent Homicide.

 

(a) A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide if, with criminal negligence, the person causes the death of another person.

 

(Criminally negligent homicide is a class B felony.

 

In criminal negligence, a person acts with the requisite culpable mental state when such person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the act in question will cause the statutorily described result. In the context of criminally negligent homicide, criminal negligence analysis focuses on the actor's awareness of the risk that death will result from the act, not whether the underlying act is intentional.

 

The man did not intentionally plow his vehicle into another vehicle manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

 

Certainly, any time a driver takes his eyes off the road, momentarily or otherwise, there is a risk of an accident. The vast majority of the people do not perceive or foresee that death WILL RESULT from their negligent acts, but the law punishes them nevertheless because they should have foreseen the deadly consequences.

 

Foreseeability in the context of negligence requires that a reasonable person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which may be reasonably foreseen as likely to injure another person. The injured person must be in the zone of danger that is created by the defendant's carelessness and the injury must be a type that is likely (not merely possible) to occur in the circumstances.

 

Certainly, it is always POSSIBLE that a distracted driver will kill someone, but is it more LIKELY than not that he will kill someone?

 

The man wasn't keeping his eyes on the road and for that he was negligent at most But, he didn't intentionally ram his vehicle into another vehicle; he didn't shoot someone with a gun; he didn't intentionally stab someone with a knife; and I find it troubling that we can place him in the same category as people who are true murderers.

 

Aren't we trying to mold pure negligence into something more sinister than it really is? It is possible for the human brain to perceive every negligent or reckless act as a "manifestation of extreme indifference to the value of human life" and therefore completely nullify the purpose for having negligent homicide and manslaughter on the books.

Edited April 16, 2007 by MarkESQ