$20 fine for crossing yellow line and killing biker...

[Scruit]

Under Ohio law to be charged criminally in the death of another motorist there has to be more than a simple traffic violation. There has to be either a combination of minor offenses or at least one major offense (DUI etc). It can either be vehicular manslaughter (A misdemeanor: no intent to do harm, but more than one minor traffic offense) or vehicular homicide (A felony: Must prove intent, DUI / Street racing etc can be considered intent)

I suspect that state has a similar law.

Not than I'm saying it's ok for the lady to only get a $20 ticket... But western juducial systems punish the intent, not the result. How many of us can say we've never drifted over the double-yellow line, run a stop sign, run red light or exceeded the speed limit in a moment on inattention? (or intentionally?) Should you have gone to jail for that? The level of intent is the same regardless of if there is an accident - the only thing that is different is the result. Again, Western judicial systems punish the intent, not the result.

If someone runs into the road between parked cars and you hit/kill them then are you responsible for their death? It's a horrific result, but did you have the intent? No, you would not be charged. Western judicial systems punish the intent, not the result.

What if you intentionally drive your car at a crowd of people. You wanted to kill someone but they all got out of the way. The result is nobody hurt, but your intent was to kill. Should you be charged? Heck yeah... Western judicial systems punish the intent, not the result.

In this case there is no good outcome, only the least bad.

Flame suit on.

[Scruit]

Anyone who get a traffic ticket for violating a traffic law should be classified into intentional violators (I ran the stop sign because nobody was coming / I pulle dout from the side street because I wanted to get in front of the person on the main road) and accidental violators (I ran the stop sign because I didn't see it / I pulled out from the side street because I didn't see the person on the main road).

Intentional violators should lose their license for 7 days for ANY traffic offense. They should be given 14 days lead-up to the suspension to allow them to make preparations for having no license for 7 days, to ensure they can keep their jobs etc, ie take vacation or arrange rides / work-from home etc.

If the offense resulted in an accident then they should pay triple damages to the victim and there should be a 30 day suspension with no lead-time.

Accidental violators should be suspended immediately and given 30 days to get re-tested. As soon as they pass a re-test they can get their license back. If they don pass a re-test in 30 days they must start the licensing process over again with a fresh learner's packet.

If the violation resulted in an accident they should pay double damages, and they cannot re-test for the first 30 days.

Any person found driving under suspension should be jailed for 7 days. Dobled on all subsequent offenses. (2nd=14days, 3rd=28days etc)

[CollectorDave]

Hummingbird, I couldn't agree with you more. I would go so far as to bump it up to ever 2 years.

Damn shame what happened. My prayers go to the families of those affected.

[redkow97]

Rightfully she should be charged with manslaughter

the definition of manslaughter varies by state. I don't think the definition posted above is complete.

I made a point of forgetting 90% of my crim law stuff after my final, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that Manslaughter still has to be INTENTIONAL.

she didn't INTEND to cross the center line, thus manslaughter isn't an appropriate charge.

Now where these cops/prosecutors are being morons is where they say "there was no negligence." By definition, crossing the center line IS negligence per se. This is precisely the type of accident that the law is designed to prevent, and she should be charged appropriately.

some states have a "criminally negligent homicide" provision (texting anyone?), and some jurisdictions don't. Either way, she's guilty of more than a $20 lane violation.

The fact is, the family can still sue and win for wrongful death and collect a ton of money. That's what happened to OJ.

[Scruit]

@redkow97

A civil suit is almost gauranteed, and they will likely win with ease.

Intent is a dodgy area of law, as there are many subtle variations.

- If you kill someone completely by accident when there was no intent to do harm or anything illegal or stupid then it's an accident - nothing is charged.

Example: Someone runs out between two parked cars and you hit them with your car.

- If you kill someone while doing something stupid but without the intent to harm that person then it's likely to be charged as some form of involuntary manslaughter based upon negligent intent or reckless intent.

Example: You throw a rock in the air and it hits a passer-by and kills them.

- If you kill someone while doing something illegal but without the intent to harm that person then it's likely to be charged as some form of involuntary manslaughter based upon negligent intent or reckless intent.

Example: You fire a gun in the air and the bullet retains a low-arc ballistic trajectory and kills someone 3 miles away. (Thanks mythbusters)

(Negligence is failing to consider a risk that any normal reasonable person would be aware of. Recklessness is knowing that a risk exists but ignoring it)

- If you kill someone while intending to do them harm, but not intending to kill them, then it's going to likely be charged as voluntary manslaughter.

Example: You punch someone in the face and they fall and hit their head and die.

- If you kill someone while intending to kill them then it's murder.

Examle: You shoot someone with the intent to kill them and they die.

- If you kill someone whil intending to harm or kill another person then intent would be established by the doctrine of transferred malice. The malice intended for your intended victim is considered intent for the harm done to the deceased.

Example: You shoot at me, miss, and the bullet hits and kills a bystander.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Scruit

[redkow97]

You're speaking in very general terms though. North Dakota's laws may read differently.

I don't know if ND has adopted the model penal code, stuck with common law, or adopted the degrees approach (as have the majority of states).

It sounds like they've ruled this an "accident," but the fact that she was admittedly breaking the law by crossing the double-yellow complicates things considerably. She WAS negligent.

I can see how they could charge her if they wanted to, but because she's so old, there's little point.

Criminal sentencing has 2 basic functions:

- punish the criminal's bad act

- deter or reform the offender

The fact that this lady killed someone by accident eliminates the need for reformation or deterrence, so the only purpose that remains is to punish her. I think the prosecution will look at the time and money they could spend on punishing her, and decide it's better saved than spent. I'm sure she feels badly enough as it is. Besides, I agree with you that the victim's family will easily win a civil suit, so this lady is far from getting let off the hook. she's going to be broke as a joke in no time flat.

[Scruit]

She was negligent enough for a civil prosecution, but apparently they don't believe she was negligent enough for a criminal prosecution

Had she been speeding too then she would likely have been charged. Sometimes an accident is just an accident though. To be criminally charged the negligence would have to be a substantial departure from the standard of driving that a normal reasonable person would maintain. Everybody makes mistakes, so a single minor driving offense was apparently not deemed by the prosecutor to be such a substantial departure.

[kingpin]

I always said that once someone turns senior citizen they should have to retest for their drivers license at least every other time they renew. Probably wouldnt be a bad idea to retest every ten years anyway although it would be a pain in the butt and I wouldnt want to. I know in Ohio you have to retest every 5 years for your concealed carry permit. Why not manditory retest for drivers license.

Ive also said before that someone will eventually use this lack of justice when killing a motorcyclist to kill someone intentionally. Think about it. A cheating wife, her new boyfriend runs over her husband while he is riding. He gets a slap on the wrist and they live happily ever after with the life insurance. There is a million different ways this could happen.

Edited June 21, 2010 by kingpin