PDA

View Full Version : Rich Man's Justice


Dave Schwartz
11-14-2010, 11:51 AM
Plea bargain in US hit-and-run case sparks anger
By Kirsten Frattini, in Toronto, Canada

Financial manager Martin Joel Erzinger is alleged to have injured cyclist Dr Steven Milo in a hit-and-run collision (Junial Enterprises - Fotolia.com)
A decision to reduce the charges faced by a businessman accused of leaving a cyclist for dead in a hit-and-run incident last summer has prompted public anger and an online petition.


This has to be one of the flattest article titles I have ever heard of.

Essentially, the district attorney has chosen to reduce the hit-and-run charges to misdemeanors because a felony conviction would hurt the guy's career.


"Mr Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway," Milo wrote in a letter to the district attorney. "Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case."


More at the link...

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/plea-bargain-in-us-hit-and-run-case-sparks-anger-28381

prospector
11-14-2010, 12:13 PM
i have a degree in finance..you won't find a bigger supporter for business..
you also won't find a bigger proponent for criminals getting the max for their crimes...that deal just stinks...my hope is people will stop doing business with his firm till they get rid of this would be killer..

JustRalph
11-14-2010, 04:27 PM
It's a tough call. Btw, back when I was sitting in on plea bargain sessions (15 yrs ago or more) this kind of stuff came up all the time. What is going to be the total impact on the offender, and what makes the best outcome for the victim.

The fact that the Prosecutor has stated he is also trying to preserve the ability for the accused to pay off for the victim is a valid consideration, Depending on the circumstances. I get the feeling that the victim in this case doesn't need the money , so he has a different viewpoint.

Depending on the past record of the offender etc, you don't just consider the sentence handed down by a judge. You have to consider the total consequences. It is a tough tough decision and one that speaks to a furtherance of justice and equal and fair treatment of all. You cannot take a snapshot of one incident and make a decision. You have to review past cases, the best outcome for the victim etc. These are tough calls.

There are tons of conditions that can come into play. I get the feeling we don't know all of them. Such is life in our current climate.

Tom
11-14-2010, 04:44 PM
I think the offender should have considered all the consequences before he did the deed.

JustRalph
11-14-2010, 08:09 PM
I think the offender should have considered all the consequences before he did the deed.

Goes without saying. I suspect he was drunk and is getting way with that part of it. He wasn't stupid. Staying and being found in a state of drunkenness makes it worse legally etc. I can't recall if alcohol was mentioned .......... hard to say if this is good decision or not. We don't know enough. There are several ways of handling the drunkenness and then calling the police, but I won't list them. He could have made a phone call, after taking some steps to protect himself and things would have been much better.

I can tell you one thing, the Prosecutor handled the response to this question wrong. He needs a PR guy.

Dave Schwartz
11-14-2010, 08:33 PM
Ralph,

Using this logic, then, the more someone has to lose then the lighter the penalty should be?

IOW, if the driver had been (say) a Mexican immigrant who works at Walmart, he should have the book thrown at him because he is not as successful?

That sounds like a very perverted definition of "justice" and "equal under the law."


Dave

JustRalph
11-14-2010, 11:43 PM
Ralph,

Using this logic, then, the more someone has to lose then the lighter the penalty should be?

IOW, if the driver had been (say) a Mexican immigrant who works at Walmart, he should have the book thrown at him because he is not as successful?

That sounds like a very perverted definition of "justice" and "equal under the law."
Dave

I didn't say it was right in all situations. But is a valid discussion when making these decisions. The Prosecutors have wide discretion. In your example there appears to be a disparity and I agree there may be depending on the circumstances. The big issue is whether or not this person comes out the other end of this event with a felony or misdemeanor conviction. In most instances that makes a huge difference. It would probably not stop the Walmart employee from obtaining employment at the same level of compensation after he is convicted. It won't help things, but he can probably still perform and obtain a labor position that is equal to what he had before. Or very close.

The other guy probably holds a license or certification that may or may not be revoked upon his conviction. If it's revoked, or his state license is forfeited he will probably never obtain the same level of employment etc. The same goes for teachers (teaching certificates) Nurses (State Credentials) and even Cops. Law Enforcement officers face a similar situation with Domestic Violence laws. Clinton got a Domestic Violence law passed that said that if you have a Domestic Violence conviction (some being very minor in nature) you cannot carry a gun. This actually put some police officers out of work and removed hundreds from eligibility for Law Enforcement jobs.

This scenario makes any conviction a quasi life sentence. You pay for this event for the rest of your life. That would result in what may be considered an extended punishment and possibly a more harsh sentence for those offenders than for your Walmart employee example. This is why the discretion is there. Equal protection of both offenders and victims is the goal. Sometimes it is hard to enforce or aspire to those lofty goals. The case we are discussing is one of those up in the air discussions that Law Students have. I am a pretty much black and white kind of guy (I have my grey areas) but when you start weighing out this stuff you can start to see different sides. You don't have to always agree, but there are grey areas.

The scenario I describe strives for equal justice under the law.....even though it might sound counter-intuitive (using your scenario) it probably does more to further equal justice.

Dave Schwartz
11-14-2010, 11:56 PM
I guess we need to agree to disagree. I just see it way differently.

What I see is that the more you have to lose, the more careful YOU should be. Your scenario puts the "careful" part on the public: "The more a person has to lose, the more they can get away with."

I know you might not want to say it that way but that is the end result.

It really does mean that there are multiple levels of justice, depending upon your degree of success in life.

You know, I don't have a problem with your approach for a non-heinous crime. Like a friend of mine who killed a man in a wheelchair in a Carson City cross walk. It was late at night, he had not been drinking, had no prior history of anything. It was just an accident and accidents happen. I really get it in this kind of case. (He got probation.)

However, when someone does something willful, as this guy did, it becomes heinous. IMHO, he needs to be punished to the full extent of the law.


Dave

JustRalph
11-15-2010, 12:01 AM
I don't think we are that far apart at all. :ThmbUp:

Dave Schwartz
11-15-2010, 01:44 AM
I agree.