Girl Dies on Cold Walk; Dad Charged With Murder
- Thread starter Snaploud
- Start date
Yeah, that could be, I suppose.
I think there are a lot of parents who don't think of something twice except when it comes to the idea that they could be arrested (which they think is stupid, but usually makes them hesitate). Sometimes it seems society is too protective now, but if it prevents some idiot from doing something like this, than maybe that's not too bad.
Since most cases (something like 90%) don't go to trial, the odds are this guy will plead to a manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide charge. If they do go to trial, the prosecutor will likely include those options as well and the jury will find him guilty of something. As pointed out earlier, the fact that the guy drove away and never looked for them could be construed as depraved indifference (even if I think the guy was too dumb to ever realize the risks and really is only criminally negligent).
Couldn't agree more.
Charging him with murder is patently ridiculous. There's no intent here, nor a 'callous disregard'. Just plain stupidity. You can't murder through stupidity.
Involuntary Manslaughter is the charge they're looking for, what we over the pond call 'gross negligence manslaughter' - criminal neglect of a duty of care resulting in death.
The bloodthirsty nature of society should not be the master of the justice system. The law doesn't agree with the charge, so if they only charge that, he should walk free - he is innocent of the charges so indicted.
ETA:
See to me that's a horrible, unjust way to run a justice system. You shouldn't charge with 'negotiating room', you should charge with what you believe them to be guilty of. *shakes head* this is why 'plea bargaining' is such a f-d up system.
^^ Well, that's politics for you.
I agree; if this were a case of somebody handcuffing their kid to a radiator or withholding life-saving medical treatment, it might be a deterrent. But you can't deter stupidity or mental illness. It's just kind of there.
I believe that he actually was the one who had custody of the children and he was taking them to visit their mother.
Think about it this way. I wish I had reasonably concrete numbers, but I don't, so these numbers are made up (but they're not drastically different). Take an average judge. There's what? 52 or so weekends in a year. Typically both Saturday and Sunday are off and Fridays are for arguing motions. So that's 156 days off (let's not forget holidays and things like that too). Since these numbers are made up, I'll just round everything and say that the Court is in session 200 days (I think it's closer to 150). Typically, the number of defendants being charged are similar to the number of free days (let's just say 100 people, meaning they get 2 days per person).
Now suppose a guy shoplifts. If he is offered a plea that is the same as the time he could face in jail, he'll take his chances with a jury. Even if it's a simple trial, it'll probably take close to a week. That means that judge is three or four days behind schedule for the rest of the defendants he has to handle. Now suppose the next case is a murder trial where the person doesn't plead. That could take a month. After this, he's hopelessly behind schedule. Most defendants are indigent and can't afford bail, so they have to wait in jail. How are they going to feel about sitting in jail an extra six months to a year because every single defendant took a case to trial?
Plea bargaining has to happen because nothing else would work.
A simple shoplifting trial shouldn't take a week. No more than about 5 hours, tops. But if the system is really that backed up, perhaps you need more judges?! Are minor offences (what we call 'summary' offences, I believe the term is 'misdemeanor' in the US) decided by a full jury trial as a matter of course in the US?
The incentive to plead guilty shouldn't be a lesser conviction, it should be leniency in sentencing. Across the Western justice systems, judges will usually give reduced sentences to those who act regretful and sorry, those who plead guilty, stick their hands up and apologise. Why should, say, a murderer not get a conviction for murder but manslaughter because he saved a bit of court time?
And worse in this case, if flamingliberal is correct and they are charging higher than is actually just to get him to plead guilty to what is, I see that as flagrant dishonesty from the very system supposed to uphold honesty and justice. That a prosecutor can charge murder because he wants a solid position for a manslaughter plea is fundamentally unjust.
You charge what you beleive the party is guilty of.
Without meaning this to sound as arrogant as it probably does, I would submit the UK system as proof of the opposite. Plea bargaining is illegal in England & Wales. As is 'malicious prosecution', deliberately charging something you know is innacurate. Our system has yet to fall apart from the overwhelming pressure.
Couldn't agree more. They just want the guy to plea out for a lesser charge/sentence which is just disgusting. They're hoping the guy is cheap enough, unwilling enough, or unambitious enough to fight for his rights and a proper sentence and will plea-out for a lesser charge which may result in some months or years worth of jail time.
Disgusting. I hope the DA he gets will be willing to fight tooth-and-nail against these charges and get the guy off. What the guy did was wrong and disgusting but it isn't murder and he shouldn't be charged for it.
Not usually, but they can be if a defendant asks for one. It's a constitutionally protected right (both in the United States constitution and in all 50 state constitutions).
The problem with leniency is that plea bargains happen, offering reduced time or a prisoner gets out early for good behavior and then commits another crime. The public gets outraged and demands stiffer penalties and mandatory sentences. Then your hands are tied as a prosecutor.
Even though I don't think this qualifies as murder 2nd degree, it's possible to make that argument depending on the statute. If it weren't, the judge would dismiss the charges (either before the trial at a preliminary hearing or after the prosecutor presents his side if he failed to prove the case). I think they could plea bargain him to a fair sentence if the guy is willing to go along with it. Otherwise, the inflated sentence, while strict, might still technically be a correct interpretation of the law.
You also have less crime (certainly less homicides). Also, I typed in google "plea bargaining britain" and found a couple of abstracts claiming that it's practiced unofficially, even if not legally sanctioned and the move is being made to sanction it (also in France, iirc). Some jurisdictions in the United States had no plea bargains (once again, the irate public thing). In those cases, they simply agreed on the plea before the arrest, then arrested the person and only charged with what the agreement was).
Certainly no pleas are agreed before arrest, it would be basically impossible under our system, the CPS (prosecutor) has no input until the charging stage, which follows arrest and police interview. As for 'unofficial' plea bargaining, that does, no doubt, occur on rare occasion. Overzealous CPS lawyers under pressure for a win may sadly say things 'off the record' to their defendants that are, not to beat around the bush, illegal and unethical.
I certainly hope plea bargaining doesn't gain any official standing in England & Wales. I find the whole concept unjust and unethical, and our system simply doesn't need it. We get along just fine as we are. Because our bail system isn't based on money, only those offenders who pose a genuine risk to society or a major flight risk would be held in jail until their trials, probably the same lot who would be remanded in the US anyway, so I don't think there's a habeas corpus issue, and so I really can't see a decent argument for installing plea bargains into our system.
A lot of people(Americans) don't walk that much. Many people camp less than 50 feet from their car on the average, with huge coolers, those tents you put on the back of the truck, and fancy grills.
It depends on your footwear too. Unless you're planning for a hike, you probably aren't wearing shoes/boots that will handle 5+ miles. Sore feet, blisters, bleeding, the farther you go the worse it gets.
Even if the kids were presumably wearing winter boots, they are probably "playground" snow boots, not properly fitted winter hiking boots.
