Carthage Student Won't Be Charged

[goofyfish]

I think she should be.

Authorities said Tuesday they will not seek criminal charges against a Carthage College student who admitted that talking on her cell phone distracted her moments before a traffic accident that killed a Racine man.

Many states in this country want to ban cell phones while driving, but won’t punish those who kill others while doing it. I think the girl should be charged with criminal negligence at a minimum. Apparently this won’t even get a chance to go in front of a jury.

The 19-year-old Gurnee resident admitted to investigators that she was talking with a friend in Texas on Jan. 6 when her car crossed the center line on Sheridan Road and struck a car being driven by 25-year-old Marlon Lahori, Staples said...

"Basically, she wasn't paying attention to what she was doing," he said. (Full text here, registration required)

No shit. When you're behind the wheel of a car, the only thing you should be doing is paying attention. If this doesn't rise to the level of some sort of criminal negligent homicide, then what does? And isn't crossing the centerline while other cars are coming reckless? It wasn't intentional, but that doesn't mean it wasn't reckless and the driver should be penalized more than the $361 in fines that she is receiving. Some will say, "It was an accident." I don’t think that matters; her accident was caused because she chose to take her attention away from driving to use her cell phone, and someone else died.

Is the punishment enough?

:m: Peace.

 

[Xerxes]

I agree, it was reckless. But what good would charging more her do? Set a precedent? Prevent her from doing it again? I think having to live with the fact that you killed somebody with stupidity is punishment enough. Putting her behind bars will only spread bad karma.

Also, I know many responsible drivers with the ability to multitask.

 

[pragmathen]

See, my gut reaction in these circumstances is to say to myself, "How would I be feeling if the person she killed was related to me? What would I want to happen to her?"

It's pretty difficult to say. If I was driving 25mph through a residential neighborhood and reached down to grab a fallen CD, then suddenly hit and killed a 3-yr old going after his ball, what should happen to me?

If the Carthage gal got a ludicrous-sounding penalty--say, no longer able to carry the cell phone with her in the car--and she breaks down in the middle of nowhere ... then what?

Do we (as a society) wait until she messes up again? Perhaps she wouldn't because she may feel the sting of murdering remorse on her conscience. But since she's managed to do it once, it's hard to put it past her that it won't happen ever again. At the very least, she should be putting in some serious community service, perhaps required to give speeches about how stupid it is to drive while you use your cell-phone. She should be rather inconvenienced in her punishment (her victim was inconvenienced by death, after all).

 

[Ophiolite]

Manslaughter. Pure and simple. There are no driving accidents. And Pragmathen, if you don't understand the danger's of reaching down for that CD (Which I think you do), either way an irresponsible, thoughtless act that results in a death cannot be casually brushed aside. Same charge.

 

[Tiassa]

If there's no law against it, it's hard to charge her. It's just another reason for a law against it.

From France, 1998: "French driver saves Tamagotchi, kills cyclist"

 

[pragmathen]

Ophiolite,

Though it wasn't exactly a trick question, I do agree with you. When it comes to murder, there should not be a second chance. If I was testing out my new katana in a day-care center and accidentally lopped off one of the kids' heads, I should still go to jail for the rest of my life (or die), regardless of my intentions. When it's a situation where my actions directly affect the life of another individual, then society's response should equal that direct relationship.

If I stole a car that someone was planning on using to drive themself to the hospital for an emergency appendectomy ... is it involuntary manslaughter?

 

[§outh§tar]

Some will say, "It was an accident." I don’t think that matters; her accident was caused because she chose to take her attention away from driving to use her cell phone, and someone else died.

An accident is an accident is an accident. If you punish her for what is an accident, you have a very skewed dictionary.

 

[one_raven]

Yes.
Setting precedent is reason enough.

People need to understand the repurcussions of their actions and accept accountability for the results.
It is exceedingly easy to kill behind the wheel of a car.
If someone is doing something to take their attention off that -whether it be talking on the phone, reading the newspaper, putting on make up or playing a Game Boy- they are guilty of negligence at best.

Regardless how well you think someone drives while "multi-tasking" the more they ave taking their attention away from the road the more thay are putting others at risk.
If so many people have the ability to muti-task why are there so many damned accidents on the road?
It's not just people who swerve into oncoming traffic.
If you lokk down at your cell for two seconds to select a name from your address book, and don't even swerve from you lane, it is still taking a big risk because it DRASTICALLY cuts your reaction time if the person in front of you has to stop suddenly, or if someone swerves into your lane to avoid another accident, or if a deer jumps in front of you.

Driving at 60 MPH, you travel 176 feet in 2 second, then there is your reaction time AFTER you look up then there is the breaking distance of your car.
It is easy enough to kill someone in your car if you ARE paying attention.

People need to realize the gravity of what it is possible to do while behind the wheel of a car.

Her conscience?
Why bother punishing anyone who breaks the law then?
"Well, maybe she will feel bad about it, and that's enough punishment."
Bullshit.
What if I kill someone intentionally, then show remorse and contrition?

Count me as another vote for a manslaughter indictment.

 

[one_raven]

An accident is an accident is an accident. If you punish her for what is an accident, you have a very skewed dictionary.

Most "accidents" can easily be avoided.
Accidents, when referring to cars crashing into each other, should be limited to "unforseen or unforseeable events", when caused by stupidity or irresponsible behavior, they should be considered "reckless, negligent endangerment".

 

[§outh§tar]

Why so?

 

[Xerxes]

one_raven,

Setting precedent is reason enough.

So what about people who listen to distracting music while they drive? When you're in a car, you must accept the fact that others and yourself are prone to get distracted. She probably used the cellphone responsibly many times before then. AFAIK, she wasn't doing anything illegal.

Her conscience?
Why bother punishing anyone who breaks the law then?

Main reasons:
-keep them seperated from the rest of society
-deter them from doing it again

By punishing her, you get don't get the benefit of either thing. She's not more dangerous than any other moron on the road. And if she's a normal person, she'll learn from it and be extra-cautious in the future.

I can understand maybe taking her license away for a year..but throwing her in jail? Seems absurd to me

 

[one_raven]

Why so?

Because of everything I just said, not the least of which being:

Most "accidents" can easily be avoided.

and

People need to understand the repurcussions of their actions and accept accountability for the results.
It is exceedingly easy to kill behind the wheel of a car.
If someone is doing something to take their attention off that -whether it be talking on the phone, reading the newspaper, putting on make up or playing a Game Boy- they are guilty of negligence at best.

 

[one_raven]

Main reasons:
-keep them seperated from the rest of society
-deter them from doing it again

There is a lot more to it than that.
Two of the glaringly obvious reasons you missed:
-to deter OTHERS from doing the same
-to set legal precedents

Revoking her licence should be a given.
Perhaps if people apreciated and respected the gravity and seriousness of taking another's life while driving, they would be a little more careful.

 

[§outh§tar]

Most "accidents" can easily be avoided.

How do you distinguish between an accident that can "easily be avoided" and one that cannot?

If someone is doing something to take their attention off that -whether it be talking on the phone, reading the newspaper, putting on make up or playing a Game Boy- they are guilty of negligence at best.

Why, is negligence a crime?

 

[Xerxes]

-to deter OTHERS from doing the same
-to set legal precedents

No. You missed one glaring fact:
What she did-talking on the cellphone- was not illegal. Its like in the early 90's when there weren't many laws against crackers.

If you want precedent, create a law with defined penalties and enforce it.

 

[one_raven]

If you have a specific written law, precedent is unnecessary.
That's the point.

There are no laws specifically against applying lipstick while driving either, but there are laws against reckless endangerment, careless driving and vehicular manslaughter.

It is impossible to forsee the cause of every accident, the point of setting a precedent is defining what is and is not covered under an existing law.
There is no law specifically aginst sending email while driving or playing a video game while driving or writing a letter while driving...
Laws are meant to be interpreted by the judicial brances of government to decide what is and is not included in the laws as unforseen situations arise.
If someone were to lay their driver's seat down and drivw while lying down unable to see the road, that would be rexkless endangerment, even though the law says nothing about driving while lying down being illegal.

 

[Xerxes]

Yes, one_raven, but the problem is that way too many people talk on their cells while driving, as opposed to laying their seats down flat (which I'm pretty sure is illegal.) Unless they're willing to legislate specifically against cellphones, then its no different from other distractions like loud music or lipstick. So you have to treat them the same way.

 

[one_raven]

Why, is negligence a crime?

Yes, actually. It IS.
When injury or death is caused due to negligence it is a crime.
Negligence, in fact, is the basis for MANY, if not MOST, civil cases brought to court and quite a few criminal cases.
When a corporation is sued because their drug caused harm to people that took it and the position is that the corporation is responsible (due to not enough medical trials, or whatever reason is given) what do you think the crime is? It's negligence.
Look it up.

Xerxes,
Do you understand what "setting a legal precedent" means?
Do you understand what the purpose of a legal precedent is?
Judging by your statement "If you want precedent, create a law with defined penalties and enforce it." you really don't seem to.

You should both probably do just a little research before arguing with and against legal terms. Especially if you don't have a valid comprehension of what those terms mean.

 

[one_raven]

its no different from other distractions like loud music or lipstick. So you have to treat them the same way.

I agree completely.
If some moron kills someone while applying lipstick while behind the wheel that moron should be charged with criminal reckless endangerment.

 

[one_raven]

How do you distinguish between an accident that can "easily be avoided" and one that cannot?

Let's see...
If the driver was under the influence of drugs or alchohol...
If the driver was speeding...
If the driver was asleep at the wheel...
If the driver admits to talking on her cell phone when she veered over the center divider line...
If the driver was driving an unsafe vehicle...

There are lots of situations in which is it quite obvious that the "accident" could have been avoided if it weren't for the recklessness, carelessness or negligence of one of the drivers.
In those cases, the driver at fault should be held responsible for the outcome of thier actions.