Is This Justice?

[jillian]

Eight miles or so northeast of Los Angeles, the San Gabriel mountains cut across the San Gabriel Valley, separating the greater Los Angeles Area from the High Desert. Now, there are three or four ways to traverse the San Gabriels if you want to drive up, into Northern California. Sixty years ago, there were only a couple of ways to do it.

One of those ways was (and still is) a steep and winding two-lane road called the Angeles Crest Highway. It is very steep going up, in a northerly direction and it is equally steep going down in a southerly direction from the summit into the town of La Canada-Flintridge.

Two years ago, a truck driver by the name of Marcos Costa, was bringing his big rig down the Angeles Crest, headed for La Canada-Flintridge. Somewhere along the way, the brakes went out on his rig. Marcos was unable to stop the huge truck and it ended up hitting a passenger vehicle occupied by Angel Posca and his 12-year-old daughter. They both died in the crash.

Last week, Marcos Costa was sentenced to seven and one-half years in state prison, following his conviction for vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving. Prior to this accident, Marcos Costa had led an exemplary life, never getting into any kind of trouble.

Whenever I read something like this, I want to throw up. One of the first things that is taught to first year criminal law students is the concept of mens rea. Here is how Wiki defines that term:

Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.

Note the last sentence of that quote - strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes do not require a guilty mind. All you have to do to be guilty of a strict liability crime is commit the prohibited act. Once again, Wiki:

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

It should be noted that the vast majority of strict liability crimes do not involve serious offenses or confinement in jail or prison as punishment. Parking tickets are strict liability crimes.

Which brings me to vehicular manslaughter. Any way you want to slice it, a death caused by an automobile accident does not involve mens rea or criminal intent. It is an ACCIDENT. The last thing in the world that Marcos Costa wanted to have happen that day two years ago, was what did happen. Furthermore, once his brakes failed, he was powerless to prevent it and probably did everything he could to stop it from happening.

Yet Marcos now goes off to state prison for seven and one half years. This is not justice.

Of course the deaths were tragic. Of course if Marcos and/or his employer were at fault in any way for the accident, they should be required to pay appropriate damages to the injured family of the people who died by way of a CIVIL action in a CIVIL court.

Think on this - vehicular manslaughter is the only crime I know of where your wife can get in her car, go to the store, and wind up in state prison without ever being allowed to return to the family home until she has served her sentence.

What are we doing here?

p.s. - I am aware that the brakes on the truck failed, which was the primary cause of the accident. I am also aware that that should not have happened and whoever allowed it to happen is at fault for what took place because of their negligence in not keeping the brakes in good shape. That does not mean that this was done with any criminal intent, however and, unless criminal intent is proven, this case belongs only in a civil court, not a criminal court.

i'm kind of surprised by your assessment. mens rea doesn't require that you *intend* to have an accident. it requires that you allow your braks to be so dangerous that you can't stop a truck. a reasonable person could anticipate that failure to stop driving on bad brakes could lead to a dangerous situation. and if it does, in fact, lead to a dangerous situation, then there is intent.

if the person ACTUALLY intended a death, it wouldn't be manslaughter, it would be homicide. also, his attempt to stop the accident AFTER his brakes failed is irrelevant if he ignored the fact that his brakes were worn and should have known they were worn and dangerous.

don't worty, though... he'll be out in less than 4 years.... which is more than we can say for Angel Posca and his little girl.

 

[Harry Dresden]

the guy being a "professional" truck driver proceeded knowing his breaks were burning up.....i call the guy a Dumbass.....you call it in....trucks brakes are shot,cannot proceed.....

 

[jillian]

Criminal intent, as I understand it, is the intent to do something against the law.

Not quite.

Criminal intent means the intent to do something wrong or forbidden by law.

Criminal Intent Law & Legal Definition

you know he's an attorney, right?

or do you want to tell an attorney what mens rea is

you know, to go with you telling black people how they feel about affirmative action...

 

[Tank]

you know he's an attorney, right?

or do you want to tell an attorney what mens rea is

I wouldn't hire him, his OP is full of lies.

 

[jillian]

you know he's an attorney, right?

or do you want to tell an attorney what mens rea is

I wouldn't hire him, his OP is full of lies.

doesn't matter. you couldn't afford him.

 

[Tank]

you know he's an attorney, right?

or do you want to tell an attorney what mens rea is

I wouldn't hire him, his OP is full of lies.

doesn't matter. you couldn't afford him.

You know he lives near me, I'd like to meet him.

 

[whitehall]

Where do you get this stuff georgie? Do you expect us to make a legal decision based on two or three lines you submit in a post? Hopefully the criminal justice system still works and jurors get a little bit more information when they decide a case.

 

[Wicked Jester]

the guy being a "professional" truck driver proceeded knowing his breaks were burning up.....i call the guy a Dumbass.....you call it in....trucks brakes are shot,cannot proceed.....

If he's a long haul trucker, once he takes that truck off the companies lot, he is fully responsible for any maintenance issues along the way.

Sounds like the idiot got what he deserved.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Not quite.

Criminal intent means the intent to do something wrong or forbidden by law.

Criminal Intent Law & Legal Definition

you know he's an attorney, right?

or do you want to tell an attorney what mens rea is

you know, to go with you telling black people how they feel about affirmative action...

My wife's a court reporter.....She can tell of you of many crappy attorneys who have made their way through her courtroom.

Her brother, a judge, and also the judge she works for, can both tell of many more crappy attorneys running around practicing law.

Crappy attorney's parade through L.A.'s CCB on daily basis.

 

[jillian]

Criminal Intent Law & Legal Definition

you know he's an attorney, right?

or do you want to tell an attorney what mens rea is

you know, to go with you telling black people how they feel about affirmative action...

My wife's a court reporter.....She can tell of you of many crappy attorneys who have made their way through her courtroom.

Her brother, a judge, and also the judge she works for, can both tell of many more crappy attorneys running around practicing law.

Crappy attorney's parade through L.A.'s CCB on daily basis.

alll true. but george isn't a crappy lawyer. i've had enough conversations with him where i know how smart he is. i think he just feels badly for the driver. his heart's in the right place.

 

[midcan5]

While I feel like I have been wearing my cynical hat too often lately, Marcos has a few problems in our legal system, he ain't rich and he cannot hide behind a corporate shield of anonymity. I mentioned Stanley Fish in another reply, everyone should read him if only to realize law, like everything, is community based. Negligence that is criminal is a hard task to show, how does anyone here know the man's situation or his mind during what may have been a stupid act of positive effort. I know one lawyer with deep pocket clients who will actually tell you that plaintiffs in big money cases get screwed. Most lawyers - and I know lots - will stick to rigid legalize or just keep quiet which is often necessary. You know, six degrees of separation. Is it justice? What is justice anyway?

 

[Tank]

alll true. but george isn't a crappy lawyer. i've had enough conversations with him where i know how smart he is. i think he just feels badly for the driver. his heart's in the right place.

In his OP he lied about what had happen.

 

[Wicked Jester]

While I feel like I have been wearing my cynical hat too often lately, Marcos has a few problems in our legal system, he ain't rich and he cannot hide behind a corporate shield of anonymity. I mentioned Stanley Fish in another reply, everyone should read him if only to realize law, like everything, is community based. Negligence that is criminal is a hard task to show, how does anyone here know the man's situation or his mind during what may have been a stupid act of positive effort. I know one lawyer with deep pocket clients who will actually tell you that plaintiffs in big money cases get screwed. Most lawyers - and I know lots - will stick to rigid legalize or just keep quiet which is often necessary. You know, six degrees of separation. Is it justice? What is justice anyway?

The man knew his brakes were toast. Once he took that truck off the lot, it's his full responsiblity......I've driven that road, it's asinine to even think about driving any vehicle with failing brakes, particularly a multi-ton big rig with failing brakes on that road.

Justice was fully served....Obviously, a jury of his peers saw all the evidence, and made their decision accordingly. The system worked as it should have.

 

[midcan5]

Justice was fully served....Obviously, a jury of his peers saw all the evidence, and made their decision accordingly. The system worked as it should have.

Did the OJ and Casey Anthony cases work too? Or could it be that sometimes it doesn't work? Nothing is perfect in this world with the exception of me.

"I say it to you now, knowing full well that you will agree with me (that is, understand) only if you already agree with me." Stanley Fish

 

[Wicked Jester]

Justice was fully served....Obviously, a jury of his peers saw all the evidence, and made their decision accordingly. The system worked as it should have.

Did the OJ and Casey Anthony cases work too? Or could it be that sometimes it doesn't work? Nothing is perfect in this world with the exception of me.

"I say it to you now, knowing full well that you will agree with me (that is, understand) only if you already agree with me." Stanley Fish

The system worked in this case. The evidence proves it.

The OJ jury was never going to convict from day one. It was filled with a bunch of star struck morons, and was presided over by a star struck judge, who never had control of the courtrom.

In the Casey Anthoney case, and I believe she's guilty, there was sure enough reasonable doubt to not convict.

In the above case, the evidence clearly shows he knew his brakes were toast, but CHOSE to continue on.......He got what he deserved, PERIOD!

 

[George Costanza]

As usual, no link is provided.

What do you mean, "as usual"? I always try to provide links whenever I can. The article on this came to me this morning in a throwaway paper called the Valley Sun out of La Canada/Flintridge. I didn't think to provide a link because I didn't think they even had a Web site. Turns out they do. Here is the link:

Family is happy Costa trial is over - LA Canada

.he was told to take the Freeway around to were he was going and ignored all that and did it anyway.....and what i heard on the news, he had stopped and poured water on his smoking breaks.....instead of just stopping and calling the company and tell them the brakes are going i cant go any further i am on a hill.....he kept on going.....how sorry can you feel for this guy?......he saw his breaks were not doing the job....

The Associated Press: Runaway big rig driver gets prison in deadly crash

Ponder this . . . thirty years ago, I represented a truck driver who killed a young boy. The driver was making a right turn on a red light at a city intersection. He had made a full stop and was looking to his left, to make sure no traffic was coming. None was. He began making his right turn. (It is legal to make a right turn on a red light in California, provided you make a full stop first and that no traffic is coming from your left.)

As he was making his right turn, there was a small boy coming at him on a bicycle. The boy was going against traffic, in violation of existing laws which required bicycle riders to go with traffic when riding on a street. The driver was still looking to his left (for oncoming traffic) as he started his right turn.

The kid rode right under the front, right wheel of the big rig and was killed instantly. The truck was not going faster than 5 mph at the time.

The driver was prosecuted for vehiclar manslaughter, convicted and required to do one year in the county jail.

Do you see that as justice? I don't. I see it as a tragic, almost unavoidable accident involving a truck driver performing a totally legal turning maneuver, and a boy coming from out of nowhere, going against traffic in violation of the vehicle code.

Vehicular manslaughter statutes should be stricken from our criminal justice system. You simply don't send people to jail or state prison because of accidents.

 

[George Costanza]

If he's a long haul trucker, once he takes that truck off the companies lot, he is fully responsible for any maintenance issues along the way.

Sounds like the idiot got what he deserved.

Yes - he is civilly responsible for any and all harm that he causes due to maintenance issues or for any other reasons, along the way. That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about imposing criminal responsibility for what is, or should be, a civil matter.

 

[Wicked Jester]

If he's a long haul trucker, once he takes that truck off the companies lot, he is fully responsible for any maintenance issues along the way.

Sounds like the idiot got what he deserved.

Yes - he is civilly responsible for any and all harm that he causes due to maintenance issues or for any other reasons, along the way. That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about imposing criminal responsibility for what is, or should be, a civil matter.

No, he is criminally responsible......Once he knew his brakes were toast, and made the decision to continue on, he took it to the criminally negligent level.

Driving is a priviledge. Along with that priviledge comes responsibilty under the law. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to drive. Being a professional driver, he damn sure knew that his truck, without brakes, was a rolling weapon that had the definite potential to injure or kill. Particularly on that road, which I have driven many times.

He got what he deserved.......And hopefully the family goes after him in civil court, also.

 

[Big Black Dog]

You could ask the people that were killed if it is justice. What do you think they would say? "That's ok, sir. I was ready to die anyway?"

 

[Wicked Jester]

What do you mean, "as usual"? I always try to provide links whenever I can. The article on this came to me this morning in a throwaway paper called the Valley Sun out of La Canada/Flintridge. I didn't think to provide a link because I didn't think they even had a Web site. Turns out they do. Here is the link:

Family is happy Costa trial is over - LA Canada

.he was told to take the Freeway around to were he was going and ignored all that and did it anyway.....and what i heard on the news, he had stopped and poured water on his smoking breaks.....instead of just stopping and calling the company and tell them the brakes are going i cant go any further i am on a hill.....he kept on going.....how sorry can you feel for this guy?......he saw his breaks were not doing the job....

The Associated Press: Runaway big rig driver gets prison in deadly crash

Ponder this . . . thirty years ago, I represented a truck driver who killed a young boy. The driver was making a right turn on a red light at a city intersection. He had made a full stop and was looking to his left, to make sure no traffic was coming. None was. He began making his right turn. (It is legal to make a right turn on a red light in California, provided you make a full stop first and that no traffic is coming from your left.)

As he was making his right turn, there was a small boy coming at him on a bicycle. The boy was going against traffic, in violation of existing laws which required bicycle riders to go with traffic when riding on a street. The driver was still looking to his left (for oncoming traffic) as he started his right turn.

The kid rode right under the front, right wheel of the big rig and was killed instantly. The truck was not going faster than 5 mph at the time.

The driver was prosecuted for vehiclar manslaughter, convicted and required to do one year in the county jail.

Do you see that as justice? I don't. I see it as a tragic, almost unavoidable accident involving a truck driver performing a totally legal turning maneuver, and a boy coming from out of nowhere, going against traffic in violation of the vehicle code.

Vehicular manslaughter statutes should be stricken from our criminal justice system. You simply don't send people to jail or state prison because of accidents.

I do...You stated he only looked left, and didn't look right, while executing a right turn.....That's driving 101.