Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

[Rick]

I didn't say that Joe and you know it. I am only talking about this case.

In THIS case, as I stated before, I'm comfortable.

[Scooter]

You evade the question because you recognize your reasoning is crap.

So let's rephrase - exactly same facts, but it was not the father, but some distant relation or a neighbour, that got distracted and allowed the child to get turned into hamburger. What say you then? Criminally responsible, because it wasn't their kid?

[Rick]

No, arguing it here won't change the out come.

That's the facts...

[Scooter]

Gee, I guess that puts a period to pretty much every thread that has ever been opened here. No point in discussing anything, because what we say here won't change a thing.

[Rick]

I'm not inferring that all instances in which someone looses a life because of a momentary lapse of reason should not be persecuted.

Per BSG the drunk that killed his son sure, this behavior usually involves some history.

The drunk that is paralyzed? I'm on the fence if he was the only one that was affected what is to be gained?

In this case, again I think there is nothing the courts can do to make this a better situation.

If everyone learned from the trials of others we would have stopped after the 1st.

That will not answer you satisfactorily but that's where I'm at on this one.

Where do we draw the line? Sometimes we have to rely on common sense even though someone else might not have...

[Joe Guy]

No, arguing it here won't change the out come.

That's the facts...

The fact is there can be no argument with you because you've chosen not to support your opinion based on anything other than what you believe should happen as the result of this one tragic accident.

The legal question is much larger than that.

I'd like to read how your opinion can be supported legally.

I'm gone for the night.

If you want to respond to me, take your time.

thanks.

[Rick]

In CT "Reckless endangerment" (per BSG criminal endangerment) is either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.

In THIS case what would the persecutor gain by going to trial?

Certainly not friends

If this was a DIFFERENT case negligent homicide (as in a DUI) might even be on the table, but this is not another case.

[Sean]

I would suggest that a prosecutor whose chief concern is making or losing friends through his professional actions has no business being a prosecutor.

[Rick]

I would suggest that a prosecutor whose chief concern is making or losing friends through his professional actions has no business being a prosecutor.

Most prosecutors rely on votes for their positions, this case would NOT be a vote getter.

[rubato]

If he allowed the child to be in the area then he should be prosecuted. Those tools are much too dangerous to allow a child to even be near one when it is operating. Experienced adults are killed or lose limbs in them. A local man who had worked with them for decades was killed in 2010.


---------------------------
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_15248907

County worker dies in wood chipper
By GENEVIEVE BOOKWALTER
Posted: 06/08/2010 01:30:29 AM PDT

WATSONVILLE -- A longtime county worker died Monday morning after becoming entangled in a wood chipper while clearing brush along Paulson Road.

"He got ... caught up in it and he's deceased," Sgt. Bill Gazza of the county Sheriff's Office said shortly after the accident.

The worker's name was not released pending notification of his family.

The accident happened about 9:15 a.m. A county Public Works crew of four was clearing brush when the man got caught in the machine, Gazza said. The worker died at the scene, and an ambulance and fire crew were canceled before they arrived.

County spokeswoman Dinah Phillips said staffers were "pretty shaken" by the death. The man had worked for the county since 1969.

"He'd been here a long time," she said.
...
___________________________________-

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Fortunately, the authorities were able to find a shred of evidence to identify the worker.

Sadly, the employee had recently expressed that he was torn between keeping his job or retiring. His coworkers recently starting seeing him getting ripped at the local bar.

"He was usually a chipper guy but lately he was starting to get real flakey," said one of his long time friends, Rip Torn.

His family has requested anyone wanting to send donations to please split them among five hundred or so charities.

[Andrew D]

We have another [case] where man drives drunk, wrecks and is paralyzed. Some folks say he shouldn't be prosecuted because his paralysis is punishment enough.

I think the cases are comparable because they also involve criminal negligence.

What is the message this approach would send except; if you do enough damage to yourself or others, you get a free pass on your criminal act?

What purpose would be served by prosecuting someone whose allegedly "criminal act" injured only him?

Sure, one could say that his allegedly "criminal act" harmed others -- the spouse and children who depend on him, etc. -- but how would prosecuting him alleviate any of that harm?

How would justice be served by prosecuting someone who has paralyzed himself?

[Scooter]

Because his actions could just as easily have paralyzed someone else, and so that his prosecution would serve as a deterrent to others who would drive drunk. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that he be prosecuted for the harm he caused to himself, but only for the act of driving drunk, which is prosecutable regardless of whether injury was caused to anyone.

[dgs49]

I think I'm with Andrew on this one. What is the purpose of the criminal justice system?

To protect the citizens and deter future crimes.

Prosecuting this guy serves no legitimate purpose.

We all do stupid shit, involving both ourselves and our families. Ever give a child a ride as a passenger on a motorcycle? What if he turns to wave at someone and falls off?

Usually we are lucky and no one gets hurt. Sometimes...

[Big RR]

I agree, tempering justice with mercy does not equate to a lack of justice.

[Sue U]

I'm not so sure. The state's interest is in consistently upholding and applying its laws, not in making a decision whether someone has "suffered enough." In the OP, for example, what if this dad simply didn't care about the kid? What if it was not his kid, but his nephew, or a neighbor's kid? Should the degee of relationship and/or the amount of personal remorse he may or may not be feeling dictate whether he is prosecuted for what is otherwise clearly a violation of law? It seems to me that these may be mitigating factors for the court to consider in sentencing, but probably should not be the prosecutor's concern in filing charges.

[Crackpot]

I'd say it depends on the injured party. if the law breaker is injured and is injured to the point of not being able or renedered extremely unlikly to repeat the crime why waste the resourses?

[BoSoxGal]

Exactly, Sue U.

Montana has the highest rate of DUI fatalities, twice the national average. The culture of drinking and driving here is deadly, and cannot be addressed by law enforcement turning a blind eye to those who drive drunk in violation of the law and as a result damage themselves profoundly and permanently.

In my jurisdiction we have a repeat DUI offender who is paralyzed, and drives his vehicle by use of hand controls. Drunk.

The notion that paralysis removes the potential for future DUI offenses is absurd. A person not prosecuted for DUI gets his/her license returned, unblemished. That person is then free to take to the ways of the state, open to the public, under the influence of alcohol such that it diminishes his/her ability to operate a motor vehicle (a deadly weapon) safely.

What of the law abiding sober citizens - mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters - driving on those same roads? Do they have no right to travel in reasonable safety on the public highways?

I feel sympathy for the paralyzed defendant who has removed the primary source of income for his several young children and faces a lifetime of health-related consequences; when I watch him wheel himself into court, however, I can't help thinking of the innocent sober citizen who might end up in the same condition by no fault of his/her own.

It would be wrong for a prosecutor to refuse to pursue a DUI prosecution because the defendant killed someone dear to him/her, or paralyzed him/herself. It is right for such a prosecutor to consider that mitigation in fashioning a plea offer that still requires the defendant to be accountable for his/her acts.

The penalties for DUI in Montana are not severe, even at the felony level. Offenders don't get sentenced to a significant stint of prison time until they have multiple convictions AND have killed somebody. In that respect prosecution doesn't serve as much of a deterrent, except considering the cost via fines/fees and increased auto insurance costs; however, the deadly DUI culture here will never change without LE taking the first step of consistent, impartial prosecution.

We do have a specific statute that prohibits deferring prosecution of a DUI, no doubt tailored to address the 'good ol' boy' mentality that allowed turning a blind eye to some peoples' DUI offenses.

I am very pro-prosecution of DUI, and was not excited about defending them as a defense attorney. Perhaps that's because I saw several friends die in DUIs back in HS.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Surely he was violating the law simply by using under-age labour in a commercial business. Regardless of whether he looked away for a moment (and had he been 'supervising' the same thing may easily have happened - watching doesn't stop a branch from twisting and catching someone in a split second).... regardless of "supervision", the child should never have been engaged by the father in the activity. It is not legal and he is therefore totally responsible for the tragedy - no excuse

The father placed the child in the place of danger, knowing that he should not do so. I have great sympathy for the poor man and his children - and the mother who will have to live with the husband and without the son. But I don't know if jailing the man serves a purpose - the family loses a son and a father? Does the mother go on welfare and the kids on ADC?

It doesn't appear a simple issue to me at all. Probably if I were a judge, it would be whatever the penalty is for using under-age labour plus the public shame of probation (not 6 months either) and community service - taking into account what the mother of the boy might say. If she said she'd kill the man and never let him darken her door etc. maybe a term in jail would be a life-saver

Maybe I'm all wet on this
Meade

[BoSoxGal]

I can't say what would likely happen in CT, but if he were in Montana and was charged with felony Criminal Endangerment, assuming it was a first time felony, he'd get probation with the possibility to have the conviction removed from his record if a period of probation (3 years on a deferred imp) was successfully completed. Society sends the message that the act is criminal, while providing the opportunity to preserve the family and its livelihood.