You be the Judge: What is the appropiate punishment for something like this?

[Japher]

especially when you are the one who put him there.

[oedo]

poor Miss Mallard. even the lefties are against her.

[Asher]

As far as I know, it's not against the law to let someone die, unless you deliberately set up a situation which makes death likely.

So it's illegal to leave the scene of an accident, but not to let somebody die?

If I were juggling hatchets, and several of them fell on you, and I shrugged and waited for you to bleed to death, then dumped your body -- this is manslaughter only, not murder?

It's murder, without a doubt.

If she killed him instantly, it'd be manslaughter.

[Sava]

Actually, I'm not sure the actions sustain a murder charge. Murder requires intent. Waiting for someone to die and wondering how to dispose of the body does not show intent to kill, but intent to let someone die. As far as I know, it's not against the law to let someone die, unless you deliberately set up a situation which makes death likely.

if she had hit someone you loved, you might be singing a different tune

Personally, I think drunk-driving is murder. You willfully and knowingly intoxicate yourself. Then you get behind the wheel and kill someone. I'd give drunk drivers who kill people the death penalty.

[Meldor]

Being a resident of the Great State of Texas (you have to put that in), I have a few comments on the case not really covered by the article.

I read more about this one when it happened. She was DUI at the time it happened, but the only proof is her admission and heresay. What is fact is the following.

1) She hit the man with her car and did nothing to render aid. For this alone she should get vehicular manslaughter.

2) Upon reaching her house, she knew the victim was still alive and he remained alive for hours after the accident. This would at least get vehicular homicide.

3) The victim at one point pleaded for help (heresay, comes from one of her friends who disposed of the body and got a lighter sentence for testimony). She went inside the house and took more drugs and turned up the TV to drowned out the moans coming from the man still in her windshield. This gets you a murder conviction.

4) She made plans to dispose of the body and get rid of the evidence before the man was dead. This means she knew the man was in critical condition and that without medical aid would die. She planned to leave him to die and dispose of the evidence after the death. This is premeditation.

5) It is only through the incompetance of her helpers (dumping the body in a public park to be found, instead of putting it in a bayou and letting it disappear), and her own admission at a party that allowed the police to get her. Crude attempts had been made to destroy the car, but all of it, has still at her home. They could have also dumped it in a bayou as well. She could have then reported it missing or stolen.

All this out together means to me, she intentional took drugs and drove, she struct the man and refused to render aid, she conpired to allow his death and dispose of the body and the evidence. She (and her friends) is the sole reason this man is dead. She caused it and could have at anytime prior to his suffering for hours could have prevented it. The only reason she didn't get him aid was to protect herself and her job.

To me, if I am the jury, it is capital murder, no questions.

[Sava]

One of SLowwhand's old DL's?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, I'm not sure the actions sustain a murder charge. Murder requires intent. Waiting for someone to die and wondering how to dispose of the body does not show intent to kill, but intent to let someone die. As far as I know, it's not against the law to let someone die, unless you deliberately set up a situation which makes death likely.

Horsehockey. She was responsible for the condition which led to his death. She knew he needed medical attention and with deliberate intent did not get it for him, because she was concerned with her being caught, not his well-being. She also plotted, before he died, about how to dispose of his body, hence proving she knew he was going to die and intended for it to happen. She didn't intend to hit him, no, but she had the clarity following that to see that he needed medical attention and did not do so because she wanted him to die so she could get rid of any trace of him.

Murder fits.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
if she had hit someone you loved, you might be singing a different tune

That's why we don't let the family of victims on the jury.

Asher, if that situation happened, it's very likely you could not be charged with murder. There's no intent to kill.

No one has yet proven that this nurse intended to kill the man. All that can be proven is she inteded to cover up her other crimes (manslsuaghter, etc).

Velociryx, depraved indifference would be deliberately rolling my car down a hill and someone walked out of a store and got killed by it. Any reasonable person would know that rolling a car down a hill creates a dangerous situation where it is likely for someone to die. DI is considered murder, though not premeditated.

It's possible the prosecution could argue that the death resulted from her committing other crimes: fleeing the scene, destruction of evidence, possibly kidnapping. That would constitute felony murder.

It depends on what legal weapons are in the hands of the prosecution. I'm not arguing she should not be punished severely. I think she should. I'm just trying to suss out what the options are realitically.

[TCO]

Che may have a point. It may be manslaughter. I still want to kill her.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Sava
One of SLowwhand's old DL's?

If you are refering to me, I am afraid not. While I haven't been active at this sight for a while (I used to post in the Civ3 start area). I recent decide my usual haunt had taken a drift too far to the left for my tastes. The site had become nothing more than I left-wingers spouting out lies and patting each other on the back for being so clever. I prefer a little more balance and debate.

[chequita guevara]

In order to prove murder you have to prove intent to kill, depraved indifference, or that the death occured as the result of committing another felony. Murder also requires an act. There was no act to kill the man.

AFAIK, it is not against the law to let someone die, even as a result of something you did accidentally.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In order to prove murder you have to prove intent to kill, depraved indifference, or that the death occured as the result of committing another felony.

As far as I'm concerned, her case clearly has all three.

Murder also requires an act. There was no act to kill the man.

Smacking him with her car is certainly an act, the act can also be continuing to drive with a man impaled on your car, and hiding him away from people who could help him, etc. Many acts to choose from.

There is no question about intent: She wanted the man dead so she could dump his body. She had intent, and she carried through with that intent, to kill the man.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Velociryx, depraved indifference would be deliberately rolling my car down a hill and someone walked out of a store and got killed by it. Any reasonable person would know that rolling a car down a hill creates a dangerous situation where it is likely for someone to die. DI is considered murder, though not premeditated.

Any reasonable person also knows that driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol creates a dangerous situation where it is likely for someone to die. There's your depraved indifference.

His injuries were the result of her action. Her hitting him is what eventually killed him. Her refusal to get help for him when she knew he was seriously injured, her attempts to cover up and prior planning to get rid of his body prove her intent that he die. It doesn't matter that she didn't mean to hit him--her act, caused by her breaking the law, created a situation in which he was going to die without help. She then acted to deny him help by hiding him in the garage and not contacting the authorities.

Premeditation fits.

[oedo]

AFAIK, it is not against the law to let someone die, even as a result of something you did accidentally.

then you know wrong. she set the danger for the homeless man´s life. this alone made her responsible for him in the following. under these conditions not acting can be a crime.
and Mallard did more than just not acting. if she´d led him lying on the street, someone else could have found and saved him. but she decided to give him no chance at all by even hiding him in her garage.

[Boris Godunov]

Che, intent need not be malicious. There is a big difference between not acting to save someone's life and deliberately taking action to make sure the person's life is not saved. She did the latter when she fled the scene with him and hid him in the garage.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Sava
One of SLowwhand's old DL's?

I doubt it, Punk.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I doubt it, Punk.

So you're not sure?

[SlowwHand]

" I prefer a little more balance and debate."
But I like how he thinks.

[SlowwHand]

Asher, since it was your say-so that converted me to Opera, I'll not stuff you in my windshield for that remark.

[Asher]

I don't use Opera...

[SlowwHand]

Let me get that windshield ready then.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Any reasonable person also knows that driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol creates a dangerous situation where it is likely for someone to die. There's your depraved indifference.

The law sees it differently, because your judgement is impared when you make the decision to drive.

His injuries were the result of her action. Her hitting him is what eventually killed him.

Hitting someone accidentally isn't murder.

Her refusal to get help for him when she knew he was seriously injured, her attempts to cover up and prior planning to get rid of his body prove her intent that he die.

That's not against the law, except possibly conspiracy to destroy evidence.

It doesn't matter that she didn't mean to hit him

Oh yes it does.

She then acted to deny him help by hiding him in the garage

That's kidnapping. That's a Federal capital offense, btw.

and not contacting the authorities.

Premeditation fits.

No it does not. That she waited for him to die doesn't show intent to kill if she thought he was going to die no matter what.

You have to look at the crime dispationately. You want her to pay for her crimes and you aren't being objective. I want her to pay, and I think I've found several ways to get her which don't require twisting or ignoring the law: kidnapping and felony murder.

[HershOstropoler]

Murder (dolus eventualis, as oedo said). Several aggravating circumstances. 20 years or life. Probably accumulated with a stay at the Institution for mentally depraved criminals.

Well, that's our system...

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Murder also requires an act. There was no act to kill the man.

AFAIK, it is not against the law to let someone die, even as a result of something you did accidentally.

Here you can commit murder by a non-act, if you have created a guarantor status, like this woman has by inflicting potentially fatal injuries. I assume there is a similar concept in US penal laws.

[Asher]

You have to look at the crime dispationately.

A jury won't look at it dispationately.

And even then, I very very much doubt it's not murder in the eyes of the law to impale someone with your car accidentally and watch them slowly die and deny them help.

As soon as you actively deny them help, intent to kill is there and present.

Simple as that.

[oedo]

Here you can commit murder by a non-act, if you have created a guarantor status, like this woman has by inflicting potentially fatal injuries. I assume there is a similar concept in US penal laws.

I tried google. I didn´t find the english word for Ingerenz. but I´m sure something like this exists - at least in Texas.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Originally posted by Asher


As soon as you actively deny them help, intent to kill is there and present.

Simple as that.

there you go. and actively deny help to protect yourself from the act of DUI at that. what else is there to talk about??

[Velociryx]

So if I'm partying with someone, and while we're in the kitchen grabbing some munchies, through a TOTAL series of accidents, I spin 'round not knowing the person is behind me and accidentally skewer them with a knife (I mean really skewer 'em too....blood everywhere....looks like they'll prolly die), THEN I lock 'em in the basement so they can't get away and can't get help, ignore their pleas to be taken to a hospital....that's not murder?

Interesting.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

That would be felony murder, since you are committing kidnapping and/or unlawful imprisonment.

[Velociryx]

So....why is it different for Mallard? She didn't keep him in the basement....she kept him in the garage. He obviously lacked the means or physical strength (due to his injuries) to escape--which she was counting on, else she'd not have been talking about what to do with him after he croaked.

The injuries I caused with the conjectural knife were purely accidental (as was the initial impact: auto-->homeless guy)

Sounds pretty similar to me.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

The difference is between premeditation or not, 1st or 2nd degree murder. Also, I had forgotten felony murder when I first began writing.

The initial statement was, you be the judge. So rather than just think with my emotions, I'm trying to think carefully about the law and what the women did.

She's clearly guilty, and what she did was heinous, but what is she guilty of under the law? That's the question.

If the command was: you be the vigilante, that would be different now, wouldn't it.

Asher, the jury may or may not be dispationate about it. You never know. The prosecuter, who decides what crimes the woman will be tried for should be dispationate, trying to protect the integrety of the law as well as protect the community from criminals.