Driver who ploughed into Michigan cyclists charged with 5 counts of murder (+ video)

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

vonhelmet wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

If you hit a large group of cyclists at speed on a straight section of the road with good visibility what else can it be caused by other than either gross, clear (or whatever the term is) negligence or malicious intent?

Certain situations are so obvious that one cannot come to any other conclusion/explanation and clearly American legal system recognises that.

In the UK the guy would obviously get suspended sentence for careless driving... Blinded by the sun, distracted by the spider etc...

BBB wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

If you hit a large group of cyclists at speed on a straight section of the road with good visibility what else can it be caused by other than either gross, clear (or whatever the term is) negligence or malicious intent?

Stroke. Heart attack. Epileptic seizure. Catastrophic mechanical failure. Driver unlawfully attacked by furious spouse causing a loss of control. Passenger grabbed the wheel or other control .... that is just a start.

Quote:

Certain situations are so obvious that one cannot come to any other conclusion/explanation and clearly American legal system recognises that.

There is still going to be a trial where the driver will be considered innocent until the prosecution prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a jury. Until then, no conclusions can be drawn.

L.Willo wrote:

BBB wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

If you hit a large group of cyclists at speed on a straight section of the road with good visibility what else can it be caused by other than either gross, clear (or whatever the term is) negligence or malicious intent?

Stroke. Heart attack. Epileptic seizure. Catastrophic mechanical failure. Driver unlawfully attacked by furious spouse causing a loss of control. Passenger grabbed the wheel or other control .... that is just a start.

Quote:

Certain situations are so obvious that one cannot come to any other conclusion/explanation and clearly American legal system recognises that.

There is still going to be a trial where the driver will be considered innocent until the prosecution prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a jury. Until then, no conclusions can be drawn.

Obviously duh...

I assume the situation in which the accused is unable to produce any solid explanation of their actions during the trial.

As we've seen in the UK, ridiculous excuses like infamous"blinded by the sun" were enough to get someone acquitted.

vonhelmet wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Say what you like about the Yanks but they hand out some proper sentences. I've always said that when clear negligence can be shown the charge should be manslaughter. If juries aren't convicting then we need better lawyers, better laws, or both.

The point is that it's very hard to show "clear negligence" such that a jury will accept it beyond reasonable doubt. If you could fix that you'd be a genius.

All you have to do is clearly define negligence in this instance.

For example:

Driving a car when you know you are not licensed to do so.

Driving at a speed that is 20mph above the legal limit.

Driving a car that you are aware is not roadworthy.

All these are objective measures that easily could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I would also add;

Driving a vehicle when a reasonable person would realise they were physically incapable of doing so safely.

That would be harder to prove but would cover drink drivers and those who continue to drive despite knowing they have poor eyesight etc.

Christopher TR1 wrote:

Death penalty would also be acceptable.

Albert Camus from "Reflections on the Guillotine" wrote:

“But what then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated it may be, can be compared?

For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months.

Such a monster is not encountered in private life.”

unconstituted wrote:

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

The reason we have our death by dangerous/careless driving charges is because juries wouldn't convict on manslaughter charges, which this is the American equivalent of.  Of course now our juries don't convict on those charges either, so you can't win.

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

The reason we have our death by dangerous/careless driving charges is because juries wouldn't convict on manslaughter charges, which this is the American equivalent of.  Of course now our juries don't convict on those charges either, so you can't win.

Which is either an argument for even weaker charges, or getting rid of juries.

oldstrath wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

The reason we have our death by dangerous/careless driving charges is because juries wouldn't convict on manslaughter charges, which this is the American equivalent of.  Of course now our juries don't convict on those charges either, so you can't win.

Which is either an argument for even weaker charges, or getting rid of juries.

The latter is sounding more attractive to me as time goes on for cases like these. It should be the wrong thing to do, but increasingly i'm not so sure....

oldstrath wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Our reckless driving killings here should be handled like this. What's so special about driving that it gives you a free pass to carry out the most abhorrent crime imaginable - taking the life of another person.

The reason we have our death by dangerous/careless driving charges is because juries wouldn't convict on manslaughter charges, which this is the American equivalent of.  Of course now our juries don't convict on those charges either, so you can't win.

Which is either an argument for even weaker charges, or getting rid of juries.

Or vetting them to ensure they don't consist largely of people who see the world only through a windscreen? If its a driving-offence it should at least include a number of non-drivers, and possibly cyclists.