I think she should be.Authorities said Tuesday they will not seek criminal charges against a Carthage College student who admitted that talking on her cell phone distracted her moments before a traffic accident that killed a Racine man.

Many states in this country want to ban cell phones while driving, but won’t punish those who kill others while doing it. I think the girl should be charged with criminal negligence at a minimum. Apparently this won’t even get a chance to go in front of a jury.The 19-year-old Gurnee resident admitted to investigators that she was talking with a friend in Texas on Jan. 6 when her car crossed the center line on Sheridan Road and struck a car being driven by 25-year-old Marlon Lahori, Staples said...

"Basically, she wasn't paying attention to what she was doing," he said. (Full text here (http://www.jsonline.com/news/racine/jan05/294266.asp), registration required)

No shit. When you're behind the wheel of a car, the only thing you should be doing is paying attention. If this doesn't rise to the level of some sort of criminal negligent homicide, then what does? And isn't crossing the centerline while other cars are coming reckless? It wasn't intentional, but that doesn't mean it wasn't reckless and the driver should be penalized more than the $361 in fines that she is receiving. Some will say, "It was an accident." I don’t think that matters; her accident was caused because she chose to take her attention away from driving to use her cell phone, and someone else died.

Is the punishment enough?

:m: Peace.

I agree, it was reckless. But what good would charging more her do? Set a precedent? Prevent her from doing it again? I think having to live with the fact that you killed somebody with stupidity is punishment enough. Putting her behind bars will only spread bad karma.

Also, I know many responsible drivers with the ability to multitask.

See, my gut reaction in these circumstances is to say to myself, "How would I be feeling if the person she killed was related to me? What would I want to happen to her?"

It's pretty difficult to say. If I was driving 25mph through a residential neighborhood and reached down to grab a fallen CD, then suddenly hit and killed a 3-yr old going after his ball, what should happen to me?

If the Carthage gal got a ludicrous-sounding penalty--say, no longer able to carry the cell phone with her in the car--and she breaks down in the middle of nowhere ... then what?

Do we (as a society) wait until she messes up again? Perhaps she wouldn't because she may feel the sting of murdering remorse on her conscience. But since she's managed to do it once, it's hard to put it past her that it won't happen ever again. At the very least, she should be putting in some serious community service, perhaps required to give speeches about how stupid it is to drive while you use your cell-phone. She should be rather inconvenienced in her punishment (her victim was inconvenienced by death, after all).

Manslaughter. Pure and simple. There are no driving accidents. And Pragmathen, if you don't understand the danger's of reaching down for that CD (Which I think you do), either way an irresponsible, thoughtless act that results in a death cannot be casually brushed aside. Same charge.

If there's no law against it, it's hard to charge her. It's just another reason for a law against it.

From France, 1998: "French driver saves Tamagotchi, kills cyclist (http://www.petting-zoo.net/~deadbeef/archive/3597.html)"

Ophiolite,

Though it wasn't exactly a trick question, I do agree with you. When it comes to murder, there should not be a second chance. If I was testing out my new katana in a day-care center and accidentally lopped off one of the kids' heads, I should still go to jail for the rest of my life (or die), regardless of my intentions. When it's a situation where my actions directly affect the life of another individual, then society's response should equal that direct relationship.

If I stole a car that someone was planning on using to drive themself to the hospital for an emergency appendectomy ... is it involuntary manslaughter?

Some will say, "It was an accident." I don’t think that matters; her accident was caused because she chose to take her attention away from driving to use her cell phone, and someone else died.


An accident is an accident is an accident. If you punish her for what is an accident, you have a very skewed dictionary.

Yes.
Setting precedent is reason enough.

People need to understand the repurcussions of their actions and accept accountability for the results.
It is exceedingly easy to kill behind the wheel of a car.
If someone is doing something to take their attention off that -whether it be talking on the phone, reading the newspaper, putting on make up or playing a Game Boy- they are guilty of negligence at best.

Regardless how well you think someone drives while "multi-tasking" the more they ave taking their attention away from the road the more thay are putting others at risk.
If so many people have the ability to muti-task why are there so many damned accidents on the road?
It's not just people who swerve into oncoming traffic.
If you lokk down at your cell for two seconds to select a name from your address book, and don't even swerve from you lane, it is still taking a big risk because it DRASTICALLY cuts your reaction time if the person in front of you has to stop suddenly, or if someone swerves into your lane to avoid another accident, or if a deer jumps in front of you.

Driving at 60 MPH, you travel 176 feet in 2 second, then there is your reaction time AFTER you look up then there is the breaking distance of your car.
It is easy enough to kill someone in your car if you ARE paying attention.

People need to realize the gravity of what it is possible to do while behind the wheel of a car.

Her conscience?
Why bother punishing anyone who breaks the law then?
"Well, maybe she will feel bad about it, and that's enough punishment."
Bullshit.
What if I kill someone intentionally, then show remorse and contrition?

Count me as another vote for a manslaughter indictment.

An accident is an accident is an accident. If you punish her for what is an accident, you have a very skewed dictionary.

Most "accidents" can easily be avoided.
Accidents, when referring to cars crashing into each other, should be limited to "unforseen or unforseeable events", when caused by stupidity or irresponsible behavior, they should be considered "reckless, negligent endangerment".

Why so?

one_raven,
Setting precedent is reason enough.
So what about people who listen to distracting music while they drive? When you're in a car, you must accept the fact that others and yourself are prone to get distracted. She probably used the cellphone responsibly many times before then. AFAIK, she wasn't doing anything illegal.


Her conscience?
Why bother punishing anyone who breaks the law then?

Main reasons:
-keep them seperated from the rest of society
-deter them from doing it again

By punishing her, you get don't get the benefit of either thing. She's not more dangerous than any other moron on the road. And if she's a normal person, she'll learn from it and be extra-cautious in the future.

I can understand maybe taking her license away for a year..but throwing her in jail? Seems absurd to me

Why so?
Because of everything I just said, not the least of which being:
Most "accidents" can easily be avoided.
and
People need to understand the repurcussions of their actions and accept accountability for the results.
It is exceedingly easy to kill behind the wheel of a car.
If someone is doing something to take their attention off that -whether it be talking on the phone, reading the newspaper, putting on make up or playing a Game Boy- they are guilty of negligence at best.

Main reasons:
-keep them seperated from the rest of society
-deter them from doing it again

There is a lot more to it than that.
Two of the glaringly obvious reasons you missed:
-to deter OTHERS from doing the same
-to set legal precedents

Revoking her licence should be a given.
Perhaps if people apreciated and respected the gravity and seriousness of taking another's life while driving, they would be a little more careful.

Most "accidents" can easily be avoided.

How do you distinguish between an accident that can "easily be avoided" and one that cannot?

If someone is doing something to take their attention off that -whether it be talking on the phone, reading the newspaper, putting on make up or playing a Game Boy- they are guilty of negligence at best.

Why, is negligence a crime?

-to deter OTHERS from doing the same
-to set legal precedents

No. You missed one glaring fact:
What she did-talking on the cellphone- was not illegal. Its like in the early 90's when there weren't many laws against crackers.

If you want precedent, create a law with defined penalties and enforce it.

If you have a specific written law, precedent is unnecessary.
That's the point.

There are no laws specifically against applying lipstick while driving either, but there are laws against reckless endangerment, careless driving and vehicular manslaughter.

It is impossible to forsee the cause of every accident, the point of setting a precedent is defining what is and is not covered under an existing law.
There is no law specifically aginst sending email while driving or playing a video game while driving or writing a letter while driving...
Laws are meant to be interpreted by the judicial brances of government to decide what is and is not included in the laws as unforseen situations arise.
If someone were to lay their driver's seat down and drivw while lying down unable to see the road, that would be rexkless endangerment, even though the law says nothing about driving while lying down being illegal.

Yes, one_raven, but the problem is that way too many people talk on their cells while driving, as opposed to laying their seats down flat (which I'm pretty sure is illegal.) Unless they're willing to legislate specifically against cellphones, then its no different from other distractions like loud music or lipstick. So you have to treat them the same way.

Why, is negligence a crime?

Yes, actually. It IS.
When injury or death is caused due to negligence it is a crime.
Negligence, in fact, is the basis for MANY, if not MOST, civil cases brought to court and quite a few criminal cases.
When a corporation is sued because their drug caused harm to people that took it and the position is that the corporation is responsible (due to not enough medical trials, or whatever reason is given) what do you think the crime is? It's negligence.
Look it up.

Xerxes,
Do you understand what "setting a legal precedent" means?
Do you understand what the purpose of a legal precedent is?
Judging by your statement "If you want precedent, create a law with defined penalties and enforce it." you really don't seem to.

You should both probably do just a little research before arguing with and against legal terms. Especially if you don't have a valid comprehension of what those terms mean.

its no different from other distractions like loud music or lipstick. So you have to treat them the same way.

I agree completely.
If some moron kills someone while applying lipstick while behind the wheel that moron should be charged with criminal reckless endangerment.

How do you distinguish between an accident that can "easily be avoided" and one that cannot?
Let's see...
If the driver was under the influence of drugs or alchohol...
If the driver was speeding...
If the driver was asleep at the wheel...
If the driver admits to talking on her cell phone when she veered over the center divider line...
If the driver was driving an unsafe vehicle...

There are lots of situations in which is it quite obvious that the "accident" could have been avoided if it weren't for the recklessness, carelessness or negligence of one of the drivers.
In those cases, the driver at fault should be held responsible for the outcome of thier actions.

I agree, it was reckless. But what good would charging more her do? Set a precedent? Prevent her from doing it again?

Yes. Maybe prevent her from doing it again, and maybe prevent others from doing it at all. You don't have to put her in jail to make a point that negligence behind the wheel that results in someone else's death is not acceptable. Fines, yes, sure, but also say a year, or two years even, of community service of some sort, maybe on weekends for a year, doing something such as volunteer work in a hospital, doing charity work in a mission, working in a nursing home, etc. Putting her in jail may not be of any real value, but certainly don't let her walk away with a paltry fine.

I think the Carthage student should be charged with negligence for the reasons those with common sense have mentioned above. There is absolutely no reason to be doing actions that take your attention off the road. And if a situation arrives that calls for it such as taking a phone call, picking up a fallen CD, helping a kid in the backseat, or anything else, PULL THE HELL OVER and take care of the situation, but DON'T do it while still driving! Yet another example of how common sense just ain't so common anymore.

- N

An accident is an accident is an accident. If you punish her for what is an accident, you have a very skewed dictionary.

An accident would be having a blowout, or a deer running in front of your car, or any number of events that were outside of your control, causing you to veer into someone else and killing them. Talking on a cell phone and becoming distracted to the point you aren't in control of your vehicle, is not an accident. You made the conscious decision that led to your distraction.

An accident would be having a blowout, or a deer running in front of your car, or any number of events that were outside of your control, causing you to veer into someone else and killing them. Talking on a cell phone and becoming distracted to the point you aren't in control of your vehicle, is not an accident. You made the conscious decision that led to your distraction.

You were going so far but you narrowly missed my point.

Was the distraction itself a conscious decision?

Leading from the previous question, we ask: how can you charge someone for something you admit they didn't do?

one_raven, this is a follow up to your comments too (for consolidation).

An accident would be having a blowout, or a deer running in front of your car, or any number of events that were outside of your control,
Spyke, if you take defensive driving courses they wont let you away with calling these accidents.
Blowout: did you put substandard tyres on your car? Did you check their condition before driving off? Did you carefuly look out for debris on the road liable to cause a tyre failure? etc
Deer: You are in an area where deer may be found, are you looking out for them? Are you driving at a speed that will allow you to brake if one appears suddenly? The response here is usually, if I drove that slow I'd never get where I'm going. Fine, but when that deer appears and you are going too fast, you can't call it an accident.
Not trying to nitpick, just noting that if good drivers are not ready to view blowouts and deer strikes as accidents, then bending down to pick up a CD will receive zero sympathy.

You were going so far but you narrowly missed my point.

Was the distraction itself a conscious decision?

The decision to talk on a cell phone, despite the fact that there has been an enormous amount of public controversy over the last several years because of the increased risks of losing control of your vehicle, means that if you do choose to use the cellphone behind the wheel you consciously made the decision to ignore statistics, instead going on the old 'It won't happen to me' line of thinking. So you know the risk is there, that there is a much greater risk of distraction when talking on a cellphone than simply listening to loud music (unless maybe you are 'headbanging' while driving). So the mere act of talking on a cell phone, which has been shown to increase the risk of becoming distracted, is a conscious decision. Anything you do behind the wheel from the point you make the conscious decision to use the cell phone is your responsibility.

Leading from the previous question, we ask: how can you charge someone for something you admit they didn't do?

What exactly did I admit they didn't do?

Spyke, if you take defensive driving courses they wont let you away with calling these accidents.

I understand your point, having once upon a time been a professional trucker, and having had to go through the months of drving training to obtain a CDL and drive rigs. And certainly a professional driver wouldn't be able to plead 'accident' in such instances in most any state. Hell, in many traffic accidents involving trucks and cars, even when it's obviously the 4-wheel vehicle driver's fault, such as running a red light and being hit by a truck, a professional trucker has many times been the one to pay because he is supposed to be alert to all potential hazards,and he was supposed to be watching both traffic approaching the intersection from both sides. I've seen truckers not be charged with the accident, but still be sued and lose in civil courts by the person who ran the light, and that person be awarded damages from the trucker's company. And yes, a trucker must be aware of all road signs, such as Deer Xings, and must do his daily vehicle inspections, including his tires, so he should know if he's got bad tread on a tire. However, states aren't normally so harsh on civilian drivers in such 'accidents' as blowouts or hitting animals. While they might be be charged for losing control of their vehicle and causing the accident, they're not going to be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter, as they might for talking on a cell phone.

The decision to talk on a cell phone, despite the fact that there has been an enormous amount of public controversy over the last several years because of the increased risks of losing control of your vehicle, means that if you do choose to use the cellphone behind the wheel you consciously made the decision to ignore statistics, instead going on the old 'It won't happen to me' line of thinking. So you know the risk is there, that there is a much greater risk of distraction when talking on a cellphone than simply listening to loud music (unless maybe you are 'headbanging' while driving). So the mere act of talking on a cell phone, which has been shown to increase the risk of becoming distracted, is a conscious decision. Anything you do behind the wheel from the point you make the conscious decision to use the cell phone is your responsibility.

In other words you are inferring causality where it is not established.

That is all I was trying to point out.

In other words you are inferring causality where it is not established.

That is all I was trying to point out

But the driver did cause the wreck through her conscious action, to do something behind the wheel which put her at a much greater risk of becoming distracted. Obviously it wasn't the woman's attempt to purposely veer across the line and kill someone, but still, she caused the wreck. It's negligent driving. As I said before, I don't think it rates jail time, , but I do think it deserves more than a paltry $321 fine.

Obviously it wasn't the woman's attempt to purposely veer across the line and kill someone, but still, she caused the wreck.

You are not getting my point. Let me break down your statement.

"Obviously it wasn't the woman's attempt to purposely veer across the line and kill someone"

- Admission that there is no causal relationship.


"but still, she caused the wreck."

- Attempt to expose a causal relationship you just admitted wasn't there.

"Obviously it wasn't the woman's attempt to purposely veer across the line and kill someone"

- Admission that there is no causal relationship.

You just don't get it. Just because someone doesn't intend to hurt someone, it doesn't mean what they're doing isn't stupid. I can go ahead and put a blindfold on while driving and not have the intention of getting in a wreck, but if I do, it's my fault. Or heck, next time I'll sit in the backseat and steer the wheel with my feet and accelerate with a broomstick in hand.

There are rules and guidelines when it comes to driving. If one doesn't operate a vehicle in the manner that is intended, it's negligence and it's the person's fault if they get in a wreck, regardless of how good they usually are at multitasking or whatever. Not to mention that there are laws in process against driving while talking on a phone. I guess let's just tack this up to the girl getting off the hook by having this happen before the law actually passed, regardless of her killing someone.

- N

You are not getting my point. Let me break down your statement.

"Obviously it wasn't the woman's attempt to purposely veer across the line and kill someone"

- Admission that there is no causal relationship.

No, that's an admission that she didn't intend for it to happen, not that she didn't cause it to happen.

"but still, she caused the wreck."

- Attempt to expose a causal relationship you just admitted wasn't there.

Obviously I didn't admit any such thing. A drunk driver has no intention of causing an accident either, but he/she made the decision to get behind the wheel. If that decision, like the decision to talk on a cell phone, ultimately causes a fatal accident, then there is indeed a causal relationship. Neither driving while drunk or talking on a cell phone while driving are necessary causes, because after all, any number of other events can cause a wreck without those two factors being present, but they are both sufficient causes, meaning either of themselves can directly contribute to the wreck occurring, meaning the individual by their conscious decision to do either caused the wreck.

why do you guys have no laws against mobile phones?

here if you are talking on a phone without a car kit or head set then its a fine (think its $250 but im not sure) if you kill someone while doing it it becomes caluable driving as the acident was YOUR FAULT and you WILL do jail time for it

It's up to the individual states. At this point, some do, some don't, although most are working towards some sort of law.