CdM is in love!

[crazy canuck]

No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime. 

I think this is where you and many other of the American posters are getting confused.  The Canadian offence of criminal negligence is different from the the test in civil negligence - ie we are not making "ordinary negligence" a crime.

Criminal Negligence requires a higher standard than civil negligence.  The Prosecution must prove, as one of the elements of the offence, that the accused showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.  That standard has nothing to do with the conduct of the person who was killed.

The Baron is the only American poster who seems to understand this distinction.  He is arguing for a different criminal standard while the rest of you are importing civil law concepts into a criminal analysis.

[Barrister]

No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime.  And in any event, I'm referring narrowly to Beeb's statement that he never concerns himself with what other people did, which is a non sequitur unless SD is not a defense in Canada.

Which maybe it isn't.  You people deny human rights.

But we don't make ordinary negligence a crime. 

Ordinary negligence is failing to do something that an reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

In order for something to constitute criminal negligence however, the person's actions must show "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons", a much higher standard.

BY the way, I'm surprised this lady was found guilty of crim neg causing death.  I would have thought she'd be found guilty of the offence of dangerous driving causing death instead.


Edit: CC beat me to the punch.

[grumbler]

OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent.  To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".

I don't think you can start the trial with the conviction that the victim is criminally negligent, which is what your standard would require.  If we were looking at the 'victim is criminally negligent" angle, how is the daughter criminally negligent?  She didn't do anything.  And I don't think that the father can be criminally negligent in his own death.  That just leaves the father possibly criminally negligent in the death of the daughter, but that seems moot at the point of the woman's trial.

I would agree with you that the woman's guilt should probably be considered less because of the reckless driving of the father.  But her actions were criminally negligent, especially in not activating her emergency blinkers (yeah, stopping was also criminally negligent, but even in the hypothetical that she was stopped involuntarily, she still didn't exercise reasonable judgement).  Whether or not she should have considered the possibility of a reckless driver when deciding what actions to take is beyond my understanding of negligence; perhaps that is a factor for the jury, perhaps it isn't.

I don't see any evidence that she is being judged more harshly than the law allows or requires (my digs on Quebecois and Canadian law were just that: digs).  My observations on the stupidity of the father don't change what she did and didn't do, which is hopefully what she was tried for.  An accident was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of her actions/inactions.

[CountDeMoney]

Malthus, I am not sure why you think the dead should be resurrected for trial, nor is anyone saying the woman was not negligent (the fact that she never turned on her emergency blinkers alone should tell you she was negligent - in fact, had her axle broken and stopped her like that, she would still be negligent for failing to turn on the emergency blinkers).

Or, if her alternator immediately died and she had no power at all, even for blinkers.  Catastrophic electrical failure = criminally negligent?  Rough crowd, that Canada.

[crazy canuck]

Malthus, I am not sure why you think the dead should be resurrected for trial, nor is anyone saying the woman was not negligent (the fact that she never turned on her emergency blinkers alone should tell you she was negligent - in fact, had her axle broken and stopped her like that, she would still be negligent for failing to turn on the emergency blinkers).

Or, if her alternator immediately died and she had no power at all, even for blinkers.  Catastrophic electrical failure = criminally negligent?  Rough crowd, that Canada.

If stopping and failing to put on her emergency signals were for reasons out of her control then she could not be convicted of having wanton or reckless disregard 

[derspiess]

I have to say I'm with the Canucks on this one.  Perhaps the deceased should not have been driving so fast around a blind curve, but a majority of the blame goes to Ms. C.

[CountDeMoney]

The Baron is the only American poster who seems to understand this distinction.  He is arguing for a different criminal standard while the rest of you are importing civil law concepts into a criminal analysis.

Maybe it's because what is a civil law concept to you is actually applied to criminal standards down here, and we forget that you're a weirdo foreign country.

Depending on the state and the circumstances, striking and killing a pedestrian with a vehicle for not crossing at the crosswalk or on a pedestrian-banned roadway is pedestrian error, not criminal negligence on the part of the driver.  But circumstances are at least taken into consideration when it comes to prosecution, unlike that draconian wasteland up there.

[CountDeMoney]

If stopping and failing to put on her emergency signals were for reasons out of her control then she could not be convicted of having wanton or reckless disregard 

Sure as shit wouldn't want to take any chances with it up there.  Not with your hang-'em-high crowd.

[CountDeMoney]

I have to say I'm with the Canucks on this one.  Perhaps the deceased should not have been driving so fast around a blind curve, but a majority of the blame goes to Ms. C.

The Canucks aren't talking majority, they're talking 100%.

[derspiess]

Well I say she bears a *large* majority.  Most of those arguing the other side seem to think her culpability is <50%.

[CountDeMoney]

Well I say she bears a *large* majority.  Most of those arguing the other side seem to think her culpability is <50%.

Everybody seems to be coming to that conclusion but nobody has said anything of the sort.

[crazy canuck]

Well I say she bears a *large* majority.  Most of those arguing the other side seem to think her culpability is <50%.

Everybody seems to be coming to that conclusion but nobody has said anything of the sort.

Actually Grumbler started us off on this line when he stated:

"Now, that's not to say that the accident was all his fault; the woman was acting stupidly as well.  But the bulk of the responsibility for his death, it seems to me, lies on him."

He seems to be changing his view now so I dont blame you for missing it.

[grumbler]

Well I say she bears a *large* majority.  Most of those arguing the other side seem to think her culpability is <50%.

I believe that i am the only one specifically arguing that.

[grumbler]

He seems to be changing his view now so I dont blame you for missing it.

i explicitly said a few posts above

the point I made, which appears to have started all of this, is that the motorcycle guy appears to have acted just as stupidly as the woman, and in fact probably bears more blame for the deaths than the woman does.  ANYTHING in the road would have killed him and his daughter, from the facts that we have.  I stand by that assessment, even if it isn't relevant to the woman's trial.

reading posts requires reading comprehension, though, so I don't blame you for missing that and using a strawman argument instead.

[Malthus]

The Baron is the only American poster who seems to understand this distinction.  He is arguing for a different criminal standard while the rest of you are importing civil law concepts into a criminal analysis.

Maybe it's because what is a civil law concept to you is actually applied to criminal standards down here, and we forget that you're a weirdo foreign country.

Depending on the state and the circumstances, striking and killing a pedestrian with a vehicle for not crossing at the crosswalk or on a pedestrian-banned roadway is pedestrian error, not criminal negligence on the part of the driver.  But circumstances are at least taken into consideration when it comes to prosecution, unlike that draconian wasteland up there.

You may want to avoid Wisconsin. 

939.14  Criminal conduct or contributory negligence of victim no defense. It is no defense to a prosecution for a crime that the victim also was guilty of a crime or was contributorily negligent.

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2012/chapter-939/section-939.14