Derailment
The nine-fatality (so far) derailment of a pair of commuter trains in Glendale this morning happened just a few miles from our house, very close to a bunch of stores we go to pretty frequently. What a nightmare.
Current news reports are telling us that the whole mess ó three separate train derailments in succession ó was caused by some guy who parked his Jeep on the tracks. What's the right punishment for that guy? Nine dead and hundreds wounded, with hundred of firefighters and policemen tied up and those trains down for the foreseeable future? It's not like you can just bill the guy. It's not like putting him in jail until the end of time serves any useful purpose.
Comments
I just heard about this on the radio on the way to grab lunch, and instantly thought of you as Exemplar Friend in LA. Glad to hear you're OK.
Well, actually, according to CNN this morning, the guy is being held on criminal charges and might be facing the death penalty. Apparently he was suicidal, intended to let the train hit him in his SUV, but chickened out at the last minute and jumped out of the car.
i hope your not suggesting death penalty.
thats like saying "no jimmy! hitting your brother is WRONG!" >>SMACK!!
Yeah he should get the death penalty. But unfortunately he won't. He'll get off on the insanity plea. One of the dead was a deputy sheriff. Ten counts of murder, and this guy will be put in a psych hospital. They should get a SUV out of impound, put him in it and send an unmanned train at him and let him have his wish of killing himself.
In response to Captain Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling, no, I am not proposing he be put to death. I think it's a bad idea for the state to kill its own citizens for a variety of reasons, among them the one you state.
The question remains, though: What's the just thing to do to that guy in the name of punishment and/or rehabilitation?
In response to Jeff R, it's my understanding that a for a murder charge, you have to have intended to kill your victim(s) or have had a reasonable expectation that they would die. That seems not to be the case here. If you think this is more than a particularly horrific and costly case of manslaughter, what's the basis for it? I'm honestly curious.
I was interested in what criminal charges were filed last week, but could not find a copy of the indictment. I now have found one at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/latrain/caalvarez12705cmp.html.
Since I have a complete set of the California Penal Code, I spent a few minutes on the issue. Please bear in mind that criminal law is not my specialty, but I think I can identify most of the issues. I apologize in advance for the length, but I think the comments are germane.
The State of California has alleged murder - unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. In California, the term "malice aforethought" appears to include both intentional killing and acts which have a high probability of death. Penal Code 187.
Here is how I would analyze the case if prosecuting:
First degree murder: Probably can not prove "willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing" - intentional murder. Penal Code 189.
First degree murder (second chance): May be able to prove killing while committing train wrecking (but see issue in next paragraph). Penal Code 189. Maximum penalty is death. Penal Code 190.
Train wrecking: Train wrecking includes placing an obstruction on a railroad with the intent to derail a train. Penal Code 219. May be able to prove this. The most critical question to me: Did intent to derail the train exist? It looks like he intended to place his vehicle on the tracks, to wreck his vehicle, and to kill himself, but these are not the same as intent to derail the train. Also- does "derail" include "wreck"? - these two terms are used in the statute. A judge probably needs to decide if the Californa Legislature meant these to be the same or different. There is a downside to stretching the law to fit the actions. From time to time, people act stupidly, but not really maliciously, and cause vehicle-train collisions. We probably do not want to bring those facts within the definition of train wrecking. California deems train wrecking to be a serious crime - the maximum penalty is death.
Second degree murder: Have a decent chance to prove second degree murder - that the suspect committed acts knowing it was likely that death would result. It appears that California requires an intent to commit the acts, but not an intent to kill a specific person - second degree murder has been applied in drunk driving cases. Penal Code 189. But, there are valid arguments that the result would not have been anticipated, so this is not a sure thing. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Penal Code 190.
Voluntary manslaughter: Can not prove - not a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Penal Code 192.
Involuntary manslaughter. A slam dunk, assuming we arrested the right person and there is no insanity or similar defense. Basically, requires an unlawful act or doing something stupid. Penal Code 192. Maximum penalty is 4 years. Penal Code 193.
Vehicular manslaughter: May supersede involuntary manslaughter. Applies when driving a vehicle. It is likely that putting a car on railroad tracks is "driving" even when you have just gotten out of the vehicle. Penal Code 192. In this case, gross negligence exists. The maximum penalty is 6 years.
Notice the number of possible charges. Society does not approve of people doing things like leaving vehicles on railroad tracks. In such cases, the criminal laws are written so that most any set of circumstances will involve a substantial penalty.
Another important fact is whether consecutive or concurrent sentences apply. There is a substantial difference between 11 consecutive four-year sentences and 11 concurrent four-year sentences. A brief check suggested that California may permit consecutive sentences in these circumstances.
Now, to address the two questions presented:
What should the penalty be (legally)? I think second degree murder and a life sentence are the most likely. The suspect apparently has extenuating circumstances. But, people can not be leaving cars on commuter rail lines. A severe penalty is likely.
What is the just result? Consecutive sentences for manslaughter may be more just. The crime more closely fits what is alleged. Eleven consecutive, shorter sentences may wind up to be functional equivalent of a life sentence.
Why do I pick the legal result rather than the just result? Because of what I think is a basic concept in our criminal justice system - if you commit a particularly unsavory crime, like leaving your vehicle in the path of a train, you lose all tiebreakers. We try to make the process fair, but in these circumstances, you should expect the most severe penalty to apply, not the closest fit.
As to the death penalty, I do not think this is an appropriate case for the death penalty. I have no across-the-board problems with the death penalty. Criminal sentencing must balance rehabiliation of the offender, protection of the society, and retribution for the victim. In some cases, the retribution element weighs so heavily and the other elements are so unimportant that a death penalty is appropriate. But, this case does not seem to be one - the suspect's profile seems to suggest that rehabilitation may yield some benefit.
Steve Anderson, you r0xx0r on toast!
Jeff to answer your question. Depending on if they can prove that he was sane at the time, any sane person would realize that you put an SUV, car, truck, etc. on train tracks that there is a hugh chance that the train will derail. Since these are passenger trains then you will also figure that with the derailment will come the death of some people. Since he had enough sense to leave before the train hit, I would say that he will probably be found sane enough to stand trial.
Steve brings up some good arguments against 1st degree murder. I would have to say that they will not go with manslaughter due to the extreme circumstances of the case. Second degree does fit, but I see them going after first degree, due to the fact that there are a lot of angry people out there and the public outrage of this would be very vocal.
Jeff R wrote: "[A]ny sane person would realize that you put an SUV, car, truck, etc. on train tracks that there is a hugh chance that the train will derail.
The interesting thing about that, which was reported on the news here in the days after the crash, is that apparently the Metrolink trains (of which the derailed train is one) hit something on the order of 3-4 vehicles a year around the region, and that this hasn't caused a derailment in the years since they've been operating. So that was part of the genesis of my question. Not only does there not seem to be a "huge" chance the train will derail, it doesn't even seem to be likely.
But were all those trains traveling a close to top speed when the struck the vehicles? According to what I heard is that the train was almost at top speed when it struck the SUV. I believe that in itself would cause a train to derail.
I agree with Jane Cams. Great blog that seamlessly mixes movie reviews, musings on California criminal law, and links to arabic sex chat. Trifecta!