Why isn't vehicular manslaughter murder?

[Hercules10]

What about an arsonist who sets fire to what he/she believes is an abandoned building. For the sake of argument, say a homeless person was living in the building, but the arsonist didn't know that. The homeless person dies. Wouldn't the arsonist end up being charged with murder in addition to the other charges, regardless of intent?

Manslaughter unless the arsonist knew there was someone inside and knew the fire would kill them.

 

[mickeyboat]

Manslaughter unless the arsonist knew there was someone inside and knew the fire would kill them.

Or felony murder in some jurisdictions. Manslaughter can be brought to the level of murder if it is committed during the course of a listed felony. Often those felonies are those that are expected to cause harm - like rape or arson.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

I'm playing devil's advocate here.

What about an arsonist who sets fire to what he/she believes is an abandoned building. For the sake of argument, say a homeless person was living in the building, but the arsonist didn't know that. The homeless person dies. Wouldn't the arsonist end up being charged with murder in addition to the other charges, regardless of intent?

I agree with your point above, however.

In some states (I don't think this is a federal law), if arson is a felony and someone dies because of the arson it WOULD be considered murder because any death that occurs in the commission of a felony can be charged as murder.

 

[Hercules10]

Or felony murder in some jurisdictions. Manslaughter can be brought to the level of murder if it is committed during the course of a listed felony. Often those felonies are those that are expected to cause harm - like rape or arson.

Correct in common law. And as in most cases it depends on in what jurisdiction a crime takes place in.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

Or felony murder in some jurisdictions. Manslaughter can be brought to the level of murder if it is committed during the course of a listed felony. Often those felonies are those that are expected to cause harm - like rape or arson.

Sorry, mickeyboat...we were posting at the same time. I know robbery is another one that is listed in some places. My dad used to question whether it would be considered murder if a clerk happened to have a heart attack and die when he was robbed. I asked my Criminal Law professor (also a former prosecutor) and was told that it would be and he has also seen cases where an accomplice was killed during the commission of a robbery and the surviving criminal was charged with murder.

 

[C.Ann]

Murder is intentional, manslaughter is usually accidental through (gross)negligence.

I.e. pointing a loaded gun and killing someone vs. cleaning a loaded gun while drunk and accidently killing someone.

Intention definitely needs to play a role in justice. It is unacceptable to inflict the same sanctions on people who do something stupid as we impose on people who intend to cause harm.

Thankfully the laws are changing - and it's long overdue.. Hopefully all states will soon follow suit..

Here is an example of just two people who have been convicted - one of 1st degree murder and one of 2nd degree murder..

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/123325/

 

[manning]

This is why if I am ever on a jury that convicts for drunk driving, (on any level) I will insist on the maximum punishment the law allows. I don't give a rat's hiney if the 11 other jurors want half the sentence I want, I will sit there until hell freezes over before I give an inch. Let them come over to my way of thinking. Pul-leeze. In Texas, if the driver gets 15 years, it would be a miracle if they actually served 5.

The problem, I think, is it is not up to a jury to decide the punishment. It is the judge or a law in which the person is convicted under. The jury may make a recommendation.

 

[FireDancer]

Thats correct but you may end up on the civil jury and sock it to them financially with a big settlement to the victim or victim's family.

This only works if the defendant isn't judgment proof. If he is all this does is punish the rest of us because when the insurance company pays out the settlement they raise our rates.

I do believe there are circumstances where killing someone with a vehicle is charges as murder. Each case should be looked at and judged on the facts of the case instead of having boiler plate justice applied to it.

If you get in your car and aim it at someone with the intent to kill them...murder.

If you get behind the wheel drunk intending no harm but cause it...manslaughter

I think the drinking and driving issue is a bit more complex though. If you already have 3 convictions for a DUI then kill someone on your 4th, a little stricter charges should apply.

Justice isn't always very just.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

Justice isn't always very just.

ITA, although I think it's an understatement.

 

[tazdev3225]

I have 2 points. As far as I know the only time a jury makes a sentence recommendation is in a 1st degree murder trial where the choice of life or death is considered after the conviction. This is according to my DH who has sat in on many trials as a deputy sheriff and is in PA.
I agree that drunk driving should have harsher penalties based on the number of arrests as well as the severity of the injuries. I lost a friend when the car he was in was hit by a drunk driver. They didn't even know he was in the car because of how badly mangled it was. The driver was a really close friend and he was in critical condition for months. The drunk driver didn't have a scratch. However, I also had a very good friend of my DS charged with vehicular manslaughter. He was the driver of the vehicle and was hit head on by a driver who was drunk and high. His one passenger was killed. Her father was a Sgt on the police and forced my DS's friend to be charged with murder. The charges were dropped to vehicular manslaughter. He was hit by the other driver and still served a 12 month sentence because of the girl's father. I don't feel the death should have been ignored but the other driver was the one at fault and should have been the one held accountable. It was not his first accident or arrest for drunk driving. There are many shades of gray in vehicular manslaughter charges. My DS's friend paid a heavy price because the girl's family treated him like a son before the accident and now they won't even acknowledge his existence. I know the death of a child is something that no parent should ever have to experience and feel for anyone who has suffered this. I just think the anger should be directed at the right person.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

tazdev, what you said about the jury recommending a sentence may be true in Pennsylvania but it's definitely not the case in every jurisdiction.

 

[C.Ann]

Here is another 2nd degree murder charge on Long Island for driving while intoxicated..

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/09/n...urder-in-long-island-crash-that-killed-3.html

So we have 1st and 2nd degree murder charges in one state and a 2nd degree murder charge in another state.. The tide is turning - as it should be..

 

[tazdev3225]

I wanted to add another thought. Part of the problem is that even though there are sentence GUIDELINES judges may use their own discretion in their application. Philly had a judge known by most people in law enforcement and the judicial system as "Loopy Lisa". She had a drunk driver in her court. It was his 3rd or 4th arrest and this time he killed someone while drunk. He was charged with driving while intoxicated, vehicular homicide and vehicular homicide while driving intoxicated. She found him guilty of the 1st two charges but not the last as that had a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years (I think). The 1st two guilty verdicts meant the 3rd was automaticaly a guilty verdict. Not to Loopy Lisa, she didn't think he meant to hurt anyone and didn't want his family to be without him that long. She gave him 12 months and let him keep his license. He should have had it revoked. He was arrested the day after he was released for - driving while intoxicated. Part of the problem with the system is that judicial discretion can lessen the sentence. Loopy Lisa had a very large MADD presence in her court from that day on and she went back to family court. Another scary thought but OT.

 

[tazdev3225]

tazdev, what you said about the jury recommending a sentence may be true in Pennsylvania but it's definitely not the case in every jurisdiction.

I agree which is why I stated that it was true in PA as far as I knew based on my DH's statement. The judge can also disregard the recommendation in any state at their discretion.

 

[Cool-Beans]

If someone's mind wanders and they turn when they shouldn't or blow through a red light and kill me, I don't want them punished. They didn't mean to kill me. Accidents happen. And if they're halfway-decent people, they'll be beating themselves up over it for the rest of their life, anyway, which is more than punishment enough.

If someone purposely murders me, they can rot in jail.

Getting into a car when you're drunk and killing me falls somewhere in the middle. It's fine to be a drunk, but it doesn't excuse you from doing what you ought to do. You made the choice. At least be a semi-responsible drunk. But murder? I don't think so. The drunks are irresponsible, but I don't believe they INTEND to cause harm.

Murder implies some intention of harm, IMO.

 

[FireDancer]

As far as I know the only time a jury makes a sentence recommendation is in a 1st degree murder trial where the choice of life or death is considered after the conviction.

This is an oversimplification (what I am writing, not what tazdev wrote) but according to the US Supreme court's ruling in Gregg vs. Georgia the death penalty must be applied via a bifurcated jury who "in the first stage the determination of a defendant's guilt or innocence and, in the second, determination of the sentence after consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances".

Constitutionally, in no other circumstance is a jury mandated to apply a sentence. If a jurisdiction does allow that the jury is still held to the maximum sentence of the charge.

 

[tazdev3225]

This is an oversimplification (what I am writing, not what tazdev wrote) but according to the US Supreme court's ruling in Gregg vs. Georgia the death penalty must be applied via a bifurcated jury. The juries "in the first stage the determination of a defendant's guilt or innocence and, in the second, determination of the sentence after consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances".

Constitutionally, in no other circumstance is a jury mandated to apply a sentence. If a jurisdiction does allow that the jury is still held to the maximum sentence of the charge.

I couldn't cite a case but your response was what I was trying to say. My coffee hasn't gotten all the cobwebs loose yet. I was on a 1st degree murder case years ago and that was the process I went through.

 

[FireDancer]

I couldn't cite a case but your response was what I was trying to say. My coffee hasn't gotten all the cobwebs loose yet. I was on a 1st degree murder case years ago and that was the process I went through.

I'm just glad that for the first time ever the PolySci class I had to take in college had some practical use

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

In other words, only in a murder case is it federally mandated that a jury recommend a sentence but in some other cases and in some jurisdictions, they're also asked to recommend a sentence? I know my mom was involved as a juror in a trial for something other than murder where if the defendant had been found guilty, the jury would have been asked to recommend a sentence (the jury happened to find the defendant innocent in this case.)

 

[bicker]

Manslaughter can be brought to the level of murder if it is committed during the course of a listed felony. Often those felonies are those that are expected to cause harm - like rape or arson.

This is a very key distinction.

Thankfully the laws are changing - and it's long overdue.. Hopefully all states will soon follow suit..
Here is an example of just two people who have been convicted - one of 1st degree murder and one of 2nd degree murder..
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/123325/

I don't really see that as a big change. Malicious intent, followed by death? Sounds like murder to me. And a lot different from drunk driving without malicious intent.