Can someone settle an argument for me please?
Tuesday, June 10, 2003 by Hus | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Ok, here''s the story. I had an argument with my sister about whether or not you can go to jail for an ''accident''. Involuntary manslaughter. So she said if she were a judge she would not send someone to jail for involuntary manslaughter ONLY IF it were an accident with multiple witnesses. For example, two factory workers are high on a ledge when BY COMPLETE ACCIDENT he knocks his co-worker off the ledge and he falls and dies. Many other workers saw this complete and total accident, is it still involuntary manslaughter? Can you still go to jail for such a bad thing happening? If you were the judge, what would you do?
P.S.: The above story is completely 100% fictional. I don''t even know any factory workers.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
P.S.: The above story is completely 100% fictional. I don''t even know any factory workers.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
bordfryr
Reply #2 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:58 PM
Reply #2 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:58 PM
The law says one is viewed as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter what the situation. At least it's supposed to work that way.
Aqua.
Reply #3 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:00 PM
Reply #3 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:00 PM
Yup, you can go to jail for it, even with multiple witnesses.
Whether you go to prison is another matter entirely and is a matter for the judge and jury to decide on an individual basis. As for the scenario you laid out, he probably wouldn't go to prison.
Whether you go to prison is another matter entirely and is a matter for the judge and jury to decide on an individual basis. As for the scenario you laid out, he probably wouldn't go to prison.
paxx
Reply #4 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:05 PM
Reply #4 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:05 PM
Yes, somebody could go to jail for involuntary manslauther, but it would have to be proved that the defendant did something that was endagering the life of the other one. For example, in your particular case, if there were security measures in place that the defendant did not follow and ended up accidentaly pushing the victim off the ledge. But if all security measures were in place, if there nothing was done "wrong" by the defendant, then he probably would not be found guilty.
Aqua.
Reply #5 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:13 PM
Reply #5 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:13 PM
key word, "supposed"
I was baliff in Maryland for two years, I've seen a lot and I can tell you that innocent until guilty is a phrase only. Juries come in with the mindset that even if the person didn't commit the crime they are accused of, the cops nabbed him/her for some good reason and he/she should be punished for that. I'm sorry if I seem cynical, I've just seen it happen way to many times.
The way the system really works is that they're usually guilty until proven innocent, unless they're a celebrity of some time, have had a lot of positive media exposure, or are filthy rich.
I was baliff in Maryland for two years, I've seen a lot and I can tell you that innocent until guilty is a phrase only. Juries come in with the mindset that even if the person didn't commit the crime they are accused of, the cops nabbed him/her for some good reason and he/she should be punished for that. I'm sorry if I seem cynical, I've just seen it happen way to many times.
The way the system really works is that they're usually guilty until proven innocent, unless they're a celebrity of some time, have had a lot of positive media exposure, or are filthy rich.
Hus
Reply #6 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:14 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:14 PM
Yea, that does sound right. I just read up an article on Encarta explaining this. I didn't think about whether there was recklessness involved. Example is someone running through a redlight and get's hit by a car, it's actually a lesser charge of misdemeanor manslaughter. (I feel that spell-check icon creeping 
) My original point was that it's involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you look at it.
) My original point was that it's involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you look at it.
Hus
Reply #7 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:16 PM
The guilty until proven innocent part I think is true. But look at Martha Stewart, money and fame can't always help you. OJ got lucky.
Reply #7 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:16 PM
| The way the system really works is that they're usually guilty until proven innocent, unless they're a celebrity of some time, have had a lot of positive media exposure, or are filthy rich. |
The guilty until proven innocent part I think is true. But look at Martha Stewart, money and fame can't always help you. OJ got lucky.
Aqua.
Reply #8 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:21 PM
Reply #8 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:21 PM
OJ wasn''t the exception (unfortunately) 
As for Martha Stewart, she has ticked off too much of the population for the past few years for people to presume her innocent.
It''s strange how it works. Cops deliberately target celebrities because by making an example they boost their profile (often resulting in a budget boost), lots of (usually good) publicity, etc. But when they jury comes in, they want the celebrity to keep being a celebrity and so they are predisposed to rule "not-guilty" unless guilt is proven past the farthest shadow of a doubt and then some.
[edit] The only reliable exception to the above rule is when someone has really ticked off the public, such has how the CEOs have. The CEO scandels have greatly increased the vulnerability of any rich person or celebrity that goes to trial for anything related to a corporation, but has little impact outside of that. [/edit]
[Message Edited]
As for Martha Stewart, she has ticked off too much of the population for the past few years for people to presume her innocent.
It''s strange how it works. Cops deliberately target celebrities because by making an example they boost their profile (often resulting in a budget boost), lots of (usually good) publicity, etc. But when they jury comes in, they want the celebrity to keep being a celebrity and so they are predisposed to rule "not-guilty" unless guilt is proven past the farthest shadow of a doubt and then some.
[edit] The only reliable exception to the above rule is when someone has really ticked off the public, such has how the CEOs have. The CEO scandels have greatly increased the vulnerability of any rich person or celebrity that goes to trial for anything related to a corporation, but has little impact outside of that. [/edit]
[Message Edited]
paxx
Reply #10 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:26 PM
Reply #10 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:26 PM
I don't know about that. I find that people are usually much more severe towards celebrities than towards every day people. If your next door neighbour gets caught shoplifting, you'd just shrug "So?", but if a celebrity does it it's a scandal. It's also true for things such as drinking, smoking, taking drugs. Britney Spears smokes and drinks?? OMG! What's the world come to?!!
Koasati
Reply #11 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:36 PM Patric....... my neighbor probably didn't shoplift $5,000 worth.................. 
Reply #11 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:36 PM
Patric....... my neighbor probably didn't shoplift $5,000 worth.................. 
Hus
Reply #12 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:39 PM
Reply #12 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:39 PM
Paxx, in my opinion, the scandal is the punishment, which is why celebs get lesser or no sentence. Wynona Rider will forever be looked down upon for shoplifting, just as OJ will always have the scar on his name. That's worse than going to jail.
Aqua.
Reply #13 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:54 PM
Reply #13 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:54 PM
The public relishes the scandel, but things are different when actually in the court room. The jury tends to let celebrities off with light sentences (which often are not served for one reason or another), or let them off the hook entirely.
Lady_Akasha
Reply #14 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:11 PM
Reply #14 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:11 PM
I think that would there is no simple black and white answer to such a question. In the even of something as you mentioned--it's a tough one. Sure it was an accident--but that guy is DEAD.
Perfect example: And this IS a true story. A few years ago, a fellow co-worker was in the center lane, about to make a left, to turn into the company parking lot. Being in a hury, she decides to make that left at a pretty darn good speed might I add--well she plows into this other woman, in a suburbun who was moving at a decent speed as well. Well, she plowed into the woman in the white suburban pretty damn hard...the impact ejected the driver of the suburban from her seat--through the back seats--and out the back window--out onto the street!!! That women is dead. (I'm leaving a lot of details, so I can condense the story)
Now should my aquaintance/co-worker go to jail?? HELL YEAH! There are two children in this world without a mommy because she didn't want to be two minutes late!
I know that sounds calouse of me--but bottom line is a life was taken--and it could have been prevented by stopping, in the center lane, waiting as the person was supposed to have.
Seeing that body and the wreck that morniing--FOREVER keeps me from driving fast (as I used very badly speed).
Whether she went to jail or not, I never found out, as a few weeks later I moved to Denver. So I don't know what happened.
Perfect example: And this IS a true story. A few years ago, a fellow co-worker was in the center lane, about to make a left, to turn into the company parking lot. Being in a hury, she decides to make that left at a pretty darn good speed might I add--well she plows into this other woman, in a suburbun who was moving at a decent speed as well. Well, she plowed into the woman in the white suburban pretty damn hard...the impact ejected the driver of the suburban from her seat--through the back seats--and out the back window--out onto the street!!! That women is dead. (I'm leaving a lot of details, so I can condense the story)
Now should my aquaintance/co-worker go to jail?? HELL YEAH! There are two children in this world without a mommy because she didn't want to be two minutes late!
I know that sounds calouse of me--but bottom line is a life was taken--and it could have been prevented by stopping, in the center lane, waiting as the person was supposed to have.
Seeing that body and the wreck that morniing--FOREVER keeps me from driving fast (as I used very badly speed).
Whether she went to jail or not, I never found out, as a few weeks later I moved to Denver. So I don't know what happened.
wow my spelling sucked on that post
Aqua.
Reply #16 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:24 PM
Reply #16 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:24 PM
I think that there should be severe punishments for that woman, but not jail since it was an accident.
Good night
I'll pick it back up in the morning.
Good night
I'll pick it back up in the morning.
sig101
Reply #17 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:09 AM
Reply #17 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:09 AM
Ah but there is such a thing as criminal negligence, reckless endangerment and those are criminal charges with criminal penalties. Intent to cause injury or death is not a requirement. Simliarly, some "accidents" simply wouldn't have happened if the person responsible didn't knowingly do something wrong or dangerous to cause the accident, although that person did not intend harm to anyone. Those are the kinds of cases that could result in criminal penalties.
And to Hus: As for your sister's comment about witnesses, that really isn't relevant to the sentencing. Usually there are sentencing guidelines. Whether there are witnesses or no witnesses may or may not be relevant to the case as evidence for a conviction depending upon the circumstances and other evidence in the case.
Here are some links on involuntary manslaughter:
A recent case in the news: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/jun/10/061006523.html
Definition of: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm
Model Jury Instructions: http://www.socialaw.com/Rules/homicide/involmanslaughter.html
And to Hus: As for your sister's comment about witnesses, that really isn't relevant to the sentencing. Usually there are sentencing guidelines. Whether there are witnesses or no witnesses may or may not be relevant to the case as evidence for a conviction depending upon the circumstances and other evidence in the case.
Here are some links on involuntary manslaughter:
A recent case in the news: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/jun/10/061006523.html
Definition of: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm
Model Jury Instructions: http://www.socialaw.com/Rules/homicide/involmanslaughter.html
wulfn1
Reply #18 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:29 AM
Reply #18 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:29 AM
In the past seven years, the emergency medical community stopped labeling car crashes as accidents. Their reasoning being an accident is a random act that could in no way be avoided. Using this reasoning, a good lawyer could possibly sway a jury into believing the defendant in question was negligent in his actions, not utilizing safety measures put into place by the company he worked for, as well as OSHA regulations for safety in the workplace. Therefore, it WAS his fault the victim died and he could possibly go to jail, though probably with a more lenient sentence of say 6 months and some form of instruction in safety in the workplace.
Using this reasoning, many DUI convictions have been enforced, after all, if the person wasn't driving while intoxicated, he would never have put the victim at risk. Again, a good lawyer could point out , the victim should have some responsibility, just by having been in the place of the incident to begin with. all these scenes could have been avoided in some way. Point being, get a good lawyer if ever you are in the position of standing before a judge or jury.
Using this reasoning, many DUI convictions have been enforced, after all, if the person wasn't driving while intoxicated, he would never have put the victim at risk. Again, a good lawyer could point out , the victim should have some responsibility, just by having been in the place of the incident to begin with. all these scenes could have been avoided in some way. Point being, get a good lawyer if ever you are in the position of standing before a judge or jury.
KarmaGirl
Reply #19 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:12 AM
Reply #19 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:12 AM
Involuntary manslaughter (if convicted of) is still manslaughter.
Here is a real life example that happened to a family friend: He was driving his car at night doing the speed limit. As he came over the crest of a hill, he hit a guy who was rollerblading in the middle of the street, facing away from traffic and was wearing all black. He was charged with involuntary vehicular manslaughter and spent 5 years in jail and 5 years on probation. It was a pure accident, but in the end, he did kill guy.
Aqua.
Reply #20 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:54 AM
Reply #20 Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:54 AM
KG, that last case you mentioned was definitely injust. It was purely the rollerblader's fault. Oh well, yet another miscarriage of justice.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:52 PM