What is your opinion on this judicial case???

Troopers I need help in this case I am participating in. You dont have to know much about law except for what I am going to write here.

So here are the facts. There was this guy who was a proffessional driver (lets call him A). One day he went to a party, drank a lot of alcohol, smoked some Marihuana, got on his pickuptruck, drove over the speed limit, passed a red light, and killed 2 people in other car that was passing trough. As additional fun facts when the guy got off the pick up truck he was worried not about his victims, but about his car, then claimed that he wasnt driving the car and that the car was not his, and then claimed to be the son of the president (he wasnt).

So now the A is on trail and he is getting locked up no matter what because of the overwhealming evidence againt him, but the tribunal is in the middle of this awefully philosophic discussion.

A, can be condemened either by one charge of manslaughter, or a charge of murder. The first would have him serve 18 months in jail while the second one would have him serve 220 months.

The defense claims that A is guilty of manslaughter because when he ran the red light he was confident he wasnt going to crash with anybody. After all he was a professional car driver, and it was 4 am and the streets where almost vacant.

On the other hand, the prosecuter claims A is guilty of murder because when he ran the red light he in his mind must have had realised that his actions could very possibly end with him crashing against another car and possibly killing those on it, and that he did not care and just left the outcome to chance (i.e he was betting with other´s people´s lifes).

So, what sentence do you think A deserves?

EDIT:

Ok so I fail to make some clarifications.

First this is not based in US law.

Second this is not decided by jury, but only by a judge.

Third, the corect terms for the possible outcomes are Eventual intent (when the outcome of a crime is left to chance, i.e, throwing a knife through the window and leaving the outcome to chance) and guilt with representation (I imagine the outcome but I am confident said outcome wont come true).

edited 20th Feb '12 7:05:59 AM by Baff

If someone says that the appropriate sentence is torture, I'll lock this thread.

To be first-degree murder and not manslaughter, your intent has to be to kill. Even if running through red light is dangerous, the aim here was to (carelessly) pass through the red light and not to kill.

It would be appropriate to charge manslaughter + improper conduct after drug use (i.e. drunk driving).

The question is whether the Prosecutor can prove intent. If he can, it's murder. If he can't, it's manslaughter.

The appropriate sentence is tortu-USER WAS BANNED-

But yeah. Manslaughter without a doubt. Well some doubt.

If I was on the jury, I don't think I would buy a murder charge. As despicable as his actions were, without him intending to kill someone or know he was about to kill someone and didn't do anything about it, I can't see a murder charge.

I'm ashamed that fellow human beings act like this.

That being said, manslaughter.

If this is set in the US or based on US law, your prosecutor is an ignorant idiot and his decision to prosecute it as Murder with that argument would get the case thrown out or overturned immediately.

As already stated, in the US, at least, Murder requires intent to kill. Unless he can be proven to have deliberately run the light with the intent to hit the other car, he didn't commit murder. And unless the prosecutor has that proof — solid and convincingly — he won't even charge the guy with Murder. The charge would almost certainly be Homicide, possibly Negligent Homicide, which, if I recall correctly, requires that the perpetrator deliberately did something which "a reasonable person" would conclude could result in death.

edited 19th Feb '12 3:59:28 PM by Madrugada

OK, Legal definitions:

• Homicide: The killing of a human being, committed by another.
• Negligent Homicide: The killing of another by an act of irresponsibility or lack of attention to duty, rather than by intentional act.
• Vehicular Homicide: The killing of another by operation of a motor vehicle; generally the driver's acts must be more than just negligent; for example, in a motor vehicle accident arising from the intoxication of the driver, where another is killed.

• Manslaughter: The act of killing another person without malice aforethought.
• Involuntary Manslaughter: The accidental killing of another during the commission of a crime or as a result of criminal negligence.
  • Negligence: The failure to use reasonable care, resulting in harm to another.
  • Criminal Negligence: Negligence so substantial it is grounds for a criminal prosecution.

• Murder: The intentional and malicious killing of a human being. (emphasis added)
• First Degree Murder: Murder that is premeditated, or done during the commission of certain other felonies.
• Second Degree Murder: An unpremeditated murder not committed while carrying out another felony.

Does that help?

He should get second-degree murder, if they have it. He made a conscious choice to drive under the influence of drugs, and can rot in prison as far as I care.

I don't think your choice is fully "conscious" when you're under the influence of alcohol and marijuana at the same time.

Given that he didn't have a sober ride, he obviously didn't prepare for the eventuality that he would be stoned and have to get home. And yet he still got stoned. That's the conscious choice.

Nope, Flyboy. Read the definitions I provided: "Murder: The intentional and malicious killing of a human being. (emphasis added)". You can't just use a murder charge without intent because you think what he did was monumentally stupid or horrible. The law doesn't work that way.

Manslaughter, even assuming he thought could kill someone (and I doubt that) it isn't murder. Murder requires a specific intent to kill another person, unless he got drunk and drove and specifically aimed for the victims, it isn't murder.

I did read the definitions. First-degree murder: a killing done while commissioning a felony.

I presume that, seeing as Baff is either in a South American country (last I checked, it was Colombia), or is in the US, this guy was committing at least one felony (possession of marijuana), if not multiple felonies. I'd be shocked if he wasn't, given how draconian most nations are about drug laws. As such, he fits first-degree murder to a tee, and accordingly can rot.

Edit: I had meant to say first-degree murder in one of my previous posts, rather than second-degree murder.

edited 19th Feb '12 4:32:13 PM by Flyboy

Premeditated and intentional are slightly different. Premeditated means you planned to kill all along. Intentional means that because of the circumstances on the spot, you decided to take the bat nearby and attack.

Mm. There is overlap here in the definitions. Such makes things complicated. Bloody legal system.

~shrug~

I think he's a worthless fuckwit who should rot. If I were the prosecutor, I'd be searching for whatever the highest sentence I could get for the bastard. What he did was unbelievably idiotic, and cost two people their lives in the process. That he could walk away after mere months is appalling.

Personal-use quantity of marijuana is usually a misdemeanor. IIRC drunk driving is a misdemeanor as well under most cases, but having killed someone in the process makes it a felony — but then, that basically makes it the same felony and not a different one.

In any case, second-degree murder is for heat-of-the-moment deliberate and malicious killings (like killing someone during a robbery), not any death that happens as a result of random offenses.

Obviously when the person drank and used some recreational drugs, he didn't think that far. And once he used them, he was more prone to having such behavior go out of control than if he didn't.

This is why while drug laws could be handled better, they exist. It's because the secondary effects of drug use is far more than what one could conceive.

@ Mad: Wow, by the definition that you provided he can be charge with ALL OF THOSE except for the murder ones, basically.

It's not murder, by any means. The extent of his intent I'm a poet and I didn't know it was the irresponsible driving under the influence and the running of the red light. Based on the definitions, this is clear cut manslaughter, and the relevant breaches of motor legislation could be thrown in as well on a compound basis, which might increase the sentence.

Murder has to be intentional - stupidity in itself is not a crime, and you have to be very careful in defining the proximate cause of something.

The answer to your question lies in your own principles:

1. You seek to follow the spirit of the law to its fullest which means you choose the option that seems to be the right one according to the law. In short, you follow the letter of law. In this case you consider the law to be supreme moral authority.

or

2. You follow your own judgement and choose the option you consider to be more just. In this case you consider yourself and your own values to be the supreme moral authorities. Should this be the case, do not say it aloud as it might contradict public mores.

edited 19th Feb '12 6:57:43 PM by Scando

Just out of curiosity, Baff, are you on jury duty?

If he was he couldn't/shouldn't be talking to us; at least in American or British/Commonwealth law. That gets you dismissed from the jury.

Two counts of Vehicular Manslaughter, one count of DUI. Case closed.