11-16-2013, 04:59 AM
Perhaps the law should include such a charge.
Maybe not.
Most laws involving criminal activity center on committing an act that rises to a standard involving intent or gross negligence.
In CA, maiming is a result of the crime of mayhem which specifically involves intent. Without intent, disfigurement or the loss of a limb doesn't rise to the level mayhem. I don't believe criminal justice is served by making the level of injury determine wether or not a criminal act was committed. There is no misdemeanor crime of mayhem in CA.
A simple collision occurs and somebody gets a broken nose, limb, or gets a concussion. No intent, no negligence. It happens all the time. Hopefully everyone is treated, and life goes on with some degree of normalcy. Same situation but someone loses both legs, maybe an arm. Tragic, but does this now determine that the otherwise typical collision has resulted in a criminal act? No.
Regardless of what one thinks they "know" or believe, you shouldn't be able to charge much less convict somebody of a crime based on outrage. There was no evidence of criminal activity. From what I read so far, bad journalism does not continued a confession of intent. Without evidence of a criminal act, there is no crime. It would please a lot of people to get him in court and convicted by twelve incensed good citizens.
What happened to Ms. Green is without a doubt a real tragedy. Making laws to substitute for evidence could be an even greater tragedy. You have legislated the perversion of justice.
Maybe not.
Most laws involving criminal activity center on committing an act that rises to a standard involving intent or gross negligence.
In CA, maiming is a result of the crime of mayhem which specifically involves intent. Without intent, disfigurement or the loss of a limb doesn't rise to the level mayhem. I don't believe criminal justice is served by making the level of injury determine wether or not a criminal act was committed. There is no misdemeanor crime of mayhem in CA.
A simple collision occurs and somebody gets a broken nose, limb, or gets a concussion. No intent, no negligence. It happens all the time. Hopefully everyone is treated, and life goes on with some degree of normalcy. Same situation but someone loses both legs, maybe an arm. Tragic, but does this now determine that the otherwise typical collision has resulted in a criminal act? No.
Regardless of what one thinks they "know" or believe, you shouldn't be able to charge much less convict somebody of a crime based on outrage. There was no evidence of criminal activity. From what I read so far, bad journalism does not continued a confession of intent. Without evidence of a criminal act, there is no crime. It would please a lot of people to get him in court and convicted by twelve incensed good citizens.
What happened to Ms. Green is without a doubt a real tragedy. Making laws to substitute for evidence could be an even greater tragedy. You have legislated the perversion of justice.