100 days for Manslaughter

[Tmy]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/22/janklow.sentencing/index.html


That South Dakota Congressman only got 100 days? The guy was found guilty of manslaughter, 3 months seems kinda low.

Good thing he wasnt selling crack, hed get much worse if he got caught up in mandatory min laws.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/22/janklow.sentencing/index.html


That South Dakota Congressman only got 100 days? The guy was found guilty of manslaughter, 3 months seems kinda low.

Good thing he wasnt selling crack, hed get much worse if he got caught up in mandatory min laws.


Sell some drugs, get 20 years.


Kill a dude, get 100 days.


Yep, seems like justice and freedom to me. :rolleyes: :mad:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony



Sell some drugs, get 20 years.


Kill a dude, get 100 days.


Yep, seems like justice and freedom to me. :rolleyes: :mad:

OK, got your scarcasm. What do you propose?

[Tricky]

I'm actually a little surprised he's doing any jail time, what with his political connections. I guess his history of thumbing his nose at traffic laws got him.

But really, I don't see any purpose in keeping him in jail a long time. This is truly one of those cases where the punishment of knowing he killed a human being is probably worse than any jail sentence. He's unlikely to be a danger to society again.

[Andonyx]

Man you should see what's going on over in the motorcycle.com forums. They're lke rabbid dogs there.

Of course it doesn't help that the headline they posted is a tad mis-leading.

http://news.motorcycle.com/article.motml?sid=2585&mode=nested&order=0&thold=1

I think you can view this without membership but I'm not sure.

[Chaos]

"I expected no jail time, so I was somewhat surprised that there was 100 days given to him," Johnson said after the hearing. "I think that's a just sentence. I think it's probably a little excessive, given his background. ... I think that he could do more good doing some community service to our young people just learning how to drive."

At a news conference before the trial, Janklow said he "couldn't be sorrier" about the accident, but he bristled at reporters who questioned him about his driving record, which included 13 traffic citations since 1990.

"A little excessive..."

Tell me, please, on which planet these guys are living? Janklow had an average of one citation per year, for goodness´ sake! Under German law, he would have lost his driver´s license long ago...

[subgenius]

He is also eligible for "community service" release leaves after 30 days.
An example of special treatment for the powerful.

[headscratcher4]

Wonder whether he was ever an advocate of minimum sentences...or maybe it was minimal....

Seriously, it does no good to put him in Jail...he's old. THey've taken his licence away. He's disgraced. It was an accident (i.e. it wasn't an intentional killing).

[Furious]

The one incident itself doesn't bother me. Accidents happen.

However, it was clear something like this happening was the only way he was ever going to change his behavior.

I don't think he should have more jail time for the manslaughter.

I DO think he shouldn't have been driving in the first place. After 5 or 6 tickets (or whatever arbitrary number), he shouldn't have been behind anything resembling a steering wheel. Be it laws that were too easy on him or using his political conections to keep driving, he shouldn't have been on the road.

I wouldn't trust him with opening a gallon of ice cream and making "vroom vroom" noises with his lips while holding the lid.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Wonder whether he was ever an advocate of minimum sentences...or maybe it was minimal....

Seriously, it does no good to put him in Jail...he's old. THey've taken his licence away. He's disgraced. It was an accident (i.e. it wasn't an intentional killing).

The accident part is the key. One hundred days is not really all that short of a sentence for involuntary (or vehicular) manslaughter. It carries up to a year here, with no mandatory time. It isn't even a felony. Unless the defendant was drunk, then it is a felony worth 1-10 years.

Generally, if his driving rose to the point of "depraved indifference to human life" he's be looking at 2nd degree and a larger sentence.

However, I've always had a slight problem when the whole "but he could do so much more out of jail" and "waste of money" arguments as they seem from my perspective a gentle way of advocating lesser sentences for the rich and powerful. The motivation is stressed over result.

Most people with skills that can be used other ways are going to be more successful. So, these arguments are usually going to be more persuasive the wealthier and powerful the guy is. The actor and the ballplayer do anti-drug ads instead of going to prison and we pat ourselves on the back for our enlightened pragmatism. The poor guy who can fix cars, however, goes to prison and more often than not had better while there work in the auto shop if he wants the parole board to not giggle.

[Tmy]

I just cant help but think of a friend of mine. Back in high school he got drunk and crashed his car killing his girlfriend. He was devestated. He ended up getting almost 2 years in jail.

I think the congressmans case was worse.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy
I just cant help but think of a friend of mine. Back in high school he got drunk and crashed his car killing his girlfriend. He was devestated. He ended up getting almost 2 years in jail.

I think the congressmans case was worse.

Maybe you are right, but that is the problem with laws.

As a class, killing someone because you are driving drunk is worse than killing someone because of negligence, took your eyes off the road, mild speeding, missed a stop sign, that sort of thing. At least that seems reasonable.

So, we either set up a completely fluid system of penalties where the judge pulls a number out of a hat, which leads to some obvious problems, especially when the judge is a bigot or has weird ideas about certain things. The judge's discretion can lead to absurd results.

Or, we set up categories and try to tie in specific penalties to specific categories. Then the lack of discretion serves up... more absurd results.

Then, there is the federal system, where the sentencing guidelines are 88789 pages long, cover everything including whether the accused wears boxers or briefs (not really) and tailors a sentence based on all these factors. This system provides... the most absurd results. Even our current Chief Justice, hardly a bleeding heart, is with me on this...

No matter what, there are going to be sentences that are absurd, at least that seem absurd to some reasonable person. Trying to eliminate all absurdity just leads to greater and different absurdity.


On another note a question for Tmy...

Is that shanek quote in your .sig line there for the purposes of making fun of shanek or do you agree with what he is saying? I of all people am not against pulling shanek's chain, but I agree with that particular statement of his 100%.

I'm just curious about that. No big deal.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky
But really, I don't see any purpose in keeping him in jail a long time. This is truly one of those cases where the punishment of knowing he killed a human being is probably worse than any jail sentence. He's unlikely to be a danger to society again.

Well, one reason for keeping him in jail a long time is to serve as a deterrent for others. (The message being "Don't be reckless, because if you kill someone, even if its an accident, you will go to jail a long time.")

[Skeptical Greg]

I believe a bigger problem is a system that made it legal for a guy like this to still be licensed to operate a motor vehicle, long before the acident occured..

[Tmy]

Why is drunk driving worse that what he did? I cant beleive how many tickets this guy had. AND HES A CONGRESSMAN, so you know he got our of many more tickets cause of his connections.



I find Shanes quote as kinda funny. I couldnt get it out of my head. Im thinking that common sense tells us stuff like "dont step off that cliff". Do you really want to ignore that little vocie!!!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is drunk driving worse that what he did? I cant beleive how many tickets this guy had. AND HES A CONGRESSMAN, so you know he got our of many more tickets cause of his connections.

I said as a class, the drunk driving resulting in death is worse than negligent (or reckless) driving resulting in death, at least such a position is reasonable.

This doesn't mean that all instances of the first class are worse than instances of the second class. That was kinda my whole point (i.e. "Maybe you are right, but that is the problem with laws.")



I find Shanes quote as kinda funny. I couldnt get it out of my head. Im thinking that common sense tells us stuff like "dont off that cliff". Do you really want to ignore that little vocie!!!

Yes, if you are Major Samuel McCullough and some (perhaps rightfully so) angry Native Americans are about to do some unpleasant things to you. McCullough was once again surrounded, except for an almost perpendicular precipice 150 feet high with Wheeling Creek at its base. His decision was immediate; rather than succumb to the horrors of torture, he struck his heels against the side of his steed, who sprang forward toward the precipice and they made the fearful leap. The Indians could only stand and admire. They had lost an opportunity to torture their most hated enemy. At least he was now dead. In the next instant, however, their astonishment grew tenfold when, from that impossible height, they watched as the Major climbed the opposite bank of Wheeling Creek and rode safely away.

http://www.bbhc.org/pointsWest/PWArticle.cfm?ArticleID=53

Common sense is just a trojan horse for predjudice, assumption, and other shortcuts to avoid critical reasoning. If that is the only basis for action, that action needs to be reconsidered.

[Tmy]

Hey, "common sense" told Major Sam "holy crap, theres no way you can beat all those injuns, lets take our chances with making that jump".:p

[Michael Redman]

It is my understanding that he had previously nearly collided at high speed with a car at the very same intersection. I think he's guilty of a greater level of homocide, but I think it would have been hard to prove, so I suppose this was the best they could get. I'm surprised that the sentence wasn't at least 6 months. I wonder what the range for his conviction was.

His sentence should be the same whether he's old or young, powerful or not. And it should be longer. He killed a person doing something he fully understood was dangerous to others, but continued for no reason other than his own convenience.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
It is my understanding that he had previously nearly collided at high speed with a car at the very same intersection. I think he's guilty of a greater level of homocide, but I think it would have been hard to prove, so I suppose this was the best they could get. I'm surprised that the sentence wasn't at least 6 months. I wonder what the range for his conviction was.

His sentence should be the same whether he's old or young, powerful or not. And it should be longer. He killed a person doing something he fully understood was dangerous to others, but continued for no reason other than his own convenience.

Yikes. The crime he was convicted of carries a maximum of 10 years. It appears to be their lowest category of homicide, and from what I could find they give very broad discretion to the judge as there are maximums but not minimmums for each felony level. Plus, the levels of homicide there are curious. "Vehicular Homicide" appears to only to apply to DUI related deaths, 2nd degree manslaughter is a sort of catch-all "all homicides not of a higher degree nor justifiable" type statute, so my guess is the precise definition, if there is one, is a matter of caselaw.

Criminal law is a highly local deal, so I have no way of telling what is customary for that sort of conviction there, so it is unclear if he got a massive break or not.

[crimresearch]

Isn't the '100 days' sentence broken down into 30 days (of which I do not know how many he will be credited with as already served), followed by 70 days of sleeping at the jail after doing a days worth of 'community service'? And who defines the community service?

It sounds like this sentence could range from almost nothing, to at most a minor inconvenience, and I do wonder if it is in line with other cases having similar factors.

Paul Nunis