Insanely Sickening

[Observer]

The man involved in the hit and run death of Marjorie Clayton Cordero, wife of Hall of Fame jockey Angel Cordero, Jr., was sentenced to a mere 6 months in jail.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Here's the unbelievable story:

Cordero (http://newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lisent0206,0,1191308.story?coll=ny%2Dlinews%2Dhead lines)

[ranchwest]

In 1994, my then-wife and my one year old son were deliberately and maliciously run down by a drunk hit and run driver. Luckily, she survived with major bruising and my son was merely tossed onto soft ground. The police refused to accurately take the statements of me or a neighbor. The chief of police and the mayor refused to accept my statement or reprimand the officers involved. A suspect was determined, but the police said they lacked the proper evidence to prosecute.

The next month, two blocks away, my 11-year old son was riding his bicycle and was run off the road by a school bus, resulting in a broken arm. There was an eye witness. I am sure I could have won a sizeable lawsuit, but settled for payment of over $4,000 in medical bills after finally convincing the school board that I understood that I had very solid grounds for a suit and an eye witness. Nothing was done to the bus driver.

I moved.

Yeah, I am very aware of the inadequacies of the laws on hit and run drivers.

[baravot]

Observer,

That is not just insanely sickening, it is morally obscene. Makes me wonder how much $ it took to buy that result.

[andicap]

After watching a million episodes of Law & Order, I can guess how this went down. The cops and the DA didn't have enough evidence -- or they were unsure of their case and didn't want the guy to walk -- so they pled it down to a minor offense -- leaving the scene of a fatal crash.
I suspect Cordero's drinking had something to do with the light sentence (not that I approve) as did the fact this guy had probably never been in trouble before.
Not justifying it, just how it might have happened.
I agree the guy should have gone away for a while.
I think the same thing happened with a Rams player a couple of years back, hit and run, fatal accident, he got off with a wrist slap.

And there's some poor person sitting in a jail in Texas somewhere for 20 years for having a joint.

[tanda]

Well ... there is a contrarian viewpoint.

I have no followed this case and am not fully aware of all the facts.

However, it is important to distinguish between leaving the scene of an accident and manslaughter/homicide.

For example, I hit you purely by accident, you die instantly. Whether I stay or leave has no effect on your life and no effect on my culpability for your death. It is an action that occurs after the accident and your death. We would refer to the later case as 'hit and run' but notice that in terms of the actual accident and death, it is no more malicious or criminal than remaining at the scene. Yes, it is callous, cowardly and illegal to leave, but it does not change the fact that the accident and death were pure accidents with no intent to harm. My leaving does not change those facts.

Again, you and I hit people purely by accident. You stay, I leave. You get a ticket for failure to control (a minor traffic violation). You pay a combined $150 in fine and court costs and get a couple of points on your license. I leave. My leaving now leads to a 6 month jail sentence. That seems fair, maybe even a bit excessive.

A drunk driver or otherwise criminally culpable driver who hits someone (and particularly if he kills that person) and leaves the scene should be dealt with much more harshly than 6 months in jail. But that is true even if the person stays at the scene. The harsh punishment should be due to the culpability for the accident/injury/death. We should punish drunk drivers not because they leave the scene but regardless of whether they leave the scene. The evil they do is not after the fact when they leave (since the injury has occurred by then) but the very fact of driving drunk.

Of course, a person who leaves a scene when staying could have saved the victim's life or reduced their injuries is different. In that case, the person's actions in leaving were another cause (in addition to the accident) of the victim's injuries and the person has culpability for those injuries by virtue of leaving.

Was this guy legally culpable for her death (reckless or drunk driving, etc.)?

If so, why was he not charged with vehicular manslaughter/homicide, etc.?

I believe many of you are confusing vehicular manslaughter with leaving the scene of an accident. He was charged with the latter, not the former. If he was drunk, etc. than the injustice is not in the sentencing on leaving the scene charge but in not being prosecuted for the drunk driving.

[ranchwest]

Leaving the scene is a voluntary and unconscionable action and should be punished accordingly.

[tanda]

My point is that the charge of leaving the scene of an accident is not meant to punish people for their culpability for the accident itself. It is meant to punish action taken after the accident. Conversely, the fact that you are not culpable for the accident does not excuse you from remaining at the scene.

If this man was culpable for her death (drunk driving, reckless driving, intentionally hitting her, etc.), then six months is too lenient. But, then he should have been charged with manslaughter, etc. as well. Since he was never vharge with culpability for her death, it is not surprising that his sentence was only 6 months. In fact, it is very unusual for those convicted of only leaving the scene to go to jail for any period of time. The typical case is a license suspension and fine.

His other conduct and that of his lawyer (comments about the victim and no apology), while disgusting, is not illegal.

The term 'hit and run' is quite inclusive. It includes a drunk man who deliberately runs down and kills a person and runs and an old lady who dings a car in a parking lot and leaves. Although the latter is illegal, and should be, it does not deserve jail sentence. The former obviously does.

Where does this guy fit in the spectrum? I do not know. He appears to be a real jerk, no doubt.

[PaceAdvantage]

Of course, we'll never know whether or not he was drunk, since he left the scene and didn't turn up till months later.....

It's total BS. Now any drunk who runs someone down can just pick up and go home, sober up, and then turn him/herself into police after he/she's sober....

"Ooops, you just left the scene of the accident instead of murdering someone because you were driving drunk....go sit in jail for a few months, instead of doing 10-20 years....."


==PA

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Of course, we'll never know whether or not he was drunk, since he left the scene and didn't turn up till months later.....

It's total BS. Now any drunk who runs someone down can just pick up and go home, sober up, and then turn him/herself into police after he/she's sober....

"Ooops, you just left the scene of the accident instead of murdering someone because you were driving drunk....go sit in jail for a few months, instead of doing 10-20 years....."


==PA

And, go ahead and keep the murder weapon, too.

[tanda]

PA,

Yes, the assumption that he fled because he had something to hide is a decent assumption.

Nonetheless, the judge cannot assume, when sentencing for leaving the scene, that the defendant is actually guilty of another more serious crime and punish him for that more serious crime (well he can, but is not suppossed to do it).

Actually, I assume that the jail time (since jail time is not normal in these cases) was given because the judge made this assumption.

Of course, we could pass a law that a person who leaves will be presumed by law to have been criminally and/or civilily liable for the damage. That presumption could be conclusive or rebuttable. For reasons you mentioned, the idea has merit. By leaving, the driver gains the chance of avoiding detection, but runs the risk of a presumption of guilt/liability if caught.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Of course, we'll never know whether or not he was drunk, since he left the scene and didn't turn up till months later.....

It's total BS. Now any drunk who runs someone down can just pick up and go home, sober up, and then turn him/herself into police after he/she's sober....

"Ooops, you just left the scene of the accident instead of murdering someone because you were driving drunk....go sit in jail for a few months, instead of doing 10-20 years....."
==PA

PA you have stated the most likely scenario. As a police officer for several years I ran into this often. In Ohio (and most other states) the criminal rules say that if you cannot aprehend them in the first few hours, you cannot assume what their BAC was. Better than that, leave the scene, drive home (unless your tags are current, then go somewhere else) and wait an hour. Open up your fifth of bourbon and a couple of beers. Set them up on the counter and sit down. Drink about as much as you can in the first hour (a witness to the drinking helps) and then call the police. The minute they are walking through the door, do a nice shot. You proclaim as you finish the shot " I was so upset that I decided to get drunk". Case over, write them a ticket and they pay a hundred dollar fine. Every attorney in the State tells their clients about this the first time they get caught. So now the multiple time offender is a knowledgeable professional drunk driver. The hour or two in between the acccident (in ohio you must test them within 2 hours of the accident) is spent driving home and drinking some more. I have seen them do this with broken legs and arms. In Ohio there is some case law that says that if you call and report the accident within 24 hours, you didn't leave the scene of the accident. It supposed to allow people to seek medical attention etc without having to worry about doing a police report? The really smart ones call and report the accident to the wrong jurisdiction (the next town over) and hang up. Even if the Hooterville police tell them to call Crabwell corners and report it, they don't. They go to court and proclaim "I thought Hooterville would call them?" Case closed, pay the $100 bucks and its over.

Tanda, you make some very good points, and I have heard most of them used successfully by defense attorneys. oh yeah, in Ohio the most you can get for killing someone while drunk driving is 8 years. 5 for intentional homocide with recklessness etc,,,,, and 3 more if you're drunk when you do it. Most get the 5 years because the info above. Often you can't prove the intentional aspects. They pay the fine but they also are subject to the 6 mths in jail that you can get (but nobody ever does) for regular traffic violations. Many kill people and pay the fine and get 6 mths. Jumping off soapbox............ :cool: