Murder by DVD distraction?

[MarkMarciano]

Have you observed a trend wherein the laws are being manipulated to support harsher charges against persons accused of criminal wrong-doing?

Here's a case in point:

When a pickup truck crossed the double yellow line along Highway 101 and killed two occupants of a Jeep Grand Cherokee, police initially thought the accident was another tragic mistake by a momentarily distracted driver.

Then they spotted the dashboard DVD player.

In what may be the first trial of its kind in the nation, prosecutors have accused the pickup truck’s driver of First degree murder for watching a movie instead of the road when he crashed head-on into the Jeep.

The prosecutor said the facts warranted charging this man under one of two theories: that he knew his conduct was substantially certain to cause death or that he knowingly engaged in conduct showing extreme indifference to human life.

First, we need to put things into perspective.

If you handle a loaded gun, deliberately point the gun at another person's head, and intentionally pull the trigger, then, most definitely, you are engaging in conduct that you know is substantially certain to cause death or you are knowingly engaging in conduct that shows extreme indifference to human life.

If you beat someone so bad that the person dies--even though you did not intend to cause that person's death--your actions of deliberately and repeatedly applying your fists or a weapon to another person's body would support a charge of second-degree murder because you engaged in conduct (inflicting injuries) that you know is substantially certain to cause that person's death or you knowingly engaged in conduct that shows extreme indifference to human life.

But, if you are distracted by DVD and you plow your vehicle into another vehicle, has your level of culpability risen to the same level of culpability as someone who knowingly shoots another person or someone who beats another person to death?

There are different degrees of homicide based on the culpability of the accused. Our criminal laws are specifically graded so that individuals with the greatest culpability are punished more severely than individuals with lesser levels of culpability.

If a person engages in negligent conduct and that negligence results in the death of another, that person's culpability would support a negligent homicide charge.

If a person engages in reckless conduct and that recklessness results in the death of another, that person's culpability would support a manslaughter charge.

Both negligent homicide and manslaughter are serious charges, but the accused simply does not knowingly or intentionally cause the death of another. IMHO, murder charges should be reserved for those who are truly guilty of murder.

If you dig a deep hole in your yard to bury your new septic tank and this hole attracts a curious neighborhood child who falls in and dies are you suddenly a murderer? Shouldn't you have known that your conduct in digging that hole would attract a child and cause his death?

I am troubled when the law is manipulated to turn people who are merely negligent or reckless into convicted murderers. Are our nation's "tough on crime" prosecutors blurring the lines of culpability upon which criminal laws are based?
_________________
People don't hate lawyers, they hate the other guys lawyer