Judge's Daughter Drives Drunk, Kills Boyfriend, Sues Truck She Hit

[PeterCH]

Judge's Daughter Drives Drunk, Kills Boyfriend, Sues Truck She Hit
Elizabeth Shelton, daughter of juvenile judge Pat Shelton, is suing Lance Bennett, the driver of the box truck she rear-ended while driving with a BAC three times the legal limit in the Oct. 23 crash that killed her boyfriend.

Shelton, who received 4 months in jail and 8 years probation for intoxication manslaughter, listed 16 defendants in her lawsuit. "They're just throwing everything against the wall to see if anything sticks," Bennett's attorney said.

Shelton's defense at her trial argued that Bennett swerved in front of her Lexus SUV, while prosecution said there was no such evidence. The defense also said that the truck's insurance had lapsed. Shelton is suing for $20,000 plus an undisclosed amount.

Source: www.chron.com

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=75636

 

[LazyLion]

LOL.... if I was the judge I'd give her another ten years.

 

[supersunbird]

Shelton, who received 4 months in jail and 8 years probation for intoxication manslaughter

This kind of nonsense sentences has to stop (all over the world). If you are in a drunk driving accident, especially one that causes someones death, you should spend much longer in jail. I don't care what sob story you have...

 

[marine1]

This kind of nonsense sentences has to stop (all over the world). If you are in a drunk driving accident, especially one that causes someones death, you should spend much longer in jail. I don't care what sob story you have...

Should be at least 25 years.

 

[bwana]

This kind of nonsense sentences has to stop (all over the world). If you are in a drunk driving accident, especially one that causes someones death, you should spend much longer in jail. I don't care what sob story you have...

One could argue that in this case the passenger was there by their own choice.

However I do agree - the penalty rarely seems to fit the crime in cases where drunk driving is concerned. Perhaps passengers should also be seen as aiding and abetting a criminal activity and receive some form of punishment as well?

 

[Arthur]

This is a very difficult area in law. As we all intuitively know, intention (what jurists call mens rea) is an important element in determining culpability. Accidentally crashing into someone's car (eg after a mechanical failure) is very different from intentionally crashing into someone, and this is rightly recognised by the courts. That is why there is an in-principle difference between accidentally killing someone (culpable homicide) and intentionally killing someone (murder). The greater the intention, the greater the culpability; the lesser the intention, the lesser the culpability. The legal principle is that only intentional acts can be criminally culpable, which is why we don't put animals or inanimate objects on trial.

There is plenty of medical evidence that intoxication diminishes intentionality, and that a person who is say very drunk does not intend to cause an accident. By this reasoning, intoxication reduces intentionality and therefore mitigates culpability and sentence.

Though initially this sounds stoopid, you get into even more bizarre problems and run a far greater risk of miscarriages of justice if you change the tried-and-true definitions of intentionality, or remove it from determining criminal culpability if only for certain categories of crime (as some countries have done).

Negligence is an entirely different matter, where the core test is the duty of care owed to the other party, and the degree to which that duty was breached. This is used to determine civil damages, not criminal liability.

 

[supersunbird]

There is plenty of medical evidence that intoxication diminishes intentionality, and that a person who is say very drunk does not intend to cause an accident. By this reasoning, intoxication reduces intentionality and therefore mitigates culpability and sentence.

But they shouldn't drive in the first place...

 

[bwana]

This is a very difficult area in law. As we all intuitively know, intention (what jurists call mens rea) is an important element in determining culpability. Accidentally crashing into someone's car (eg after a mechanical failure) is very different from intentionally crashing into someone, and this is rightly recognised by the courts. That is why there is an in-principle difference between accidentally killing someone (culpable homicide) and intentionally killing someone (murder). The greater the intention, the greater the culpability; the lesser the intention, the lesser the culpability. The legal principle is that only intentional acts can be criminally culpable, which is why we don't put animals or inanimate objects on trial.

There is plenty of medical evidence that intoxication diminishes intentionality, and that a person who is say very drunk does not intend to cause an accident. By this reasoning, intoxication reduces intentionality and therefore mitigates culpability and sentence.

Though initially this sounds stoopid, you get into even more bizarre problems and run a far greater risk of miscarriages of justice if you change the tried-and-true definitions of intentionality, or remove it from determining criminal culpability if only for certain categories of crime (as some countries have done).

Negligence is an entirely different matter, where the core test is the duty of care owed to the other party, and the degree to which that duty was breached. This is used to determine civil damages, not criminal liability.

How would an intoxicated individual shooting up a shopping mall be dealt with by the courts?

 

[Arthur]

But they shouldn't drive in the first place...

True. But that is a separate offence. Especially in criminal matters the courts must look at the actual facts in the real world and not just at legalisms, otherwise you get into serious problems with otherwise innocent matters, leading to even greater miscarriages of justice.

How then should the courts consider the case of a medical emergency and legally drunk but not intoxicated driver? You are out drinking alone with your friend in a remote spot. An asparagus lodges in her throat and she stops breathing. You have had four beers and two glasses of wine and are legally way over the legal blood-alcohol limit. You rush her off to hospital, but on the way you have an accident caused by someone else but aggravated by your speeding. What legal principles do you apply to determine the culpability of the various parties?

Another example: An unlicensed 18-year-old driver drives his mother to hospital in a dire medical emergency. On the way someone else shoots a red light and collides with the unlicensed driver. Should they be permitted to use the defence that the driver was unlicensed and was thereore not supposed to be there? Of course not. What if the unlicensed driver caused the accident? Again, the actual facts needs to be considered. Not having a licence is a technical violation - it is entirely possibe that a person can be a superb driver but unlicensed, or that a licensed driver can be a very poor driver.

Being legally drunk is not the same thing as being actually drunk, as almost everyone knows. The more we get into legal positivisms the more it seems we get away from reality, and the more the legal systems becomes screwed up. Little wonder people have less and less respect for the law, because the law is an ass, and becoming more so with each passing legislative session.

 

[Natas]

This is a very difficult area in law. As we all intuitively know, intention (what jurists call mens rea) is an important element in determining culpability. Accidentally crashing into someone's car (eg after a mechanical failure) is very different from intentionally crashing into someone, and this is rightly recognised by the courts. That is why there is an in-principle difference between accidentally killing someone (culpable homicide) and intentionally killing someone (murder). The greater the intention, the greater the culpability; the lesser the intention, the lesser the culpability. The legal principle is that only intentional acts can be criminally culpable, which is why we don't put animals or inanimate objects on trial.

There is plenty of medical evidence that intoxication diminishes intentionality, and that a person who is say very drunk does not intend to cause an accident. By this reasoning, intoxication reduces intentionality and therefore mitigates culpability and sentence.

Though initially this sounds stoopid, you get into even more bizarre problems and run a far greater risk of miscarriages of justice if you change the tried-and-true definitions of intentionality, or remove it from determining criminal culpability if only for certain categories of crime (as some countries have done).

Negligence is an entirely different matter, where the core test is the duty of care owed to the other party, and the degree to which that duty was breached. This is used to determine civil damages, not criminal liability.

Dolus Eventualis! Your argument = very FAIL........

 

[ToxicBunny]

Arthur : whilst I agree with your arguments to a point...

In this situation, this wench was just driving with her boyfriend in the car, and she was legally drunk. As far as I'm concerned, his death is on her hands and she should be charged with murder simply because a 3 times the legal BAC, she must have KNOWN she had drunk to much and therefore should not have been driving. Its that whole cause and effect thing. She knew she shouldn't drive because she might have an accident or do something stupid, but she chose to anyway, and therefore that makes (for me anyway) the intention of killing her bf there.. even if it is in a bit of a round about fashion.

 

[supersunbird]

...

OK ok ok, you like to type a lot. I get it

Anyway, I bet you that cases of drunk driving because of a REAL emergency sistuation is probably less than 1% of drunk driving cases and drunk driving involving accidents and drunk driving involving accidents and death cases.

 

[Arthur]

Dolus Eventualis! Your argument = very FAIL........

But to establish indirect intention one needs to show that the accused actually and in reality recklessly disregarded the foreseeable consequences. Further, the action in itself needs to carry inherent actual and not just potential risk.

 

[Arthur]

... As far as I'm concerned, his death is on her hands and she should be charged with murder simply because a 3 times the legal BAC, she must have KNOWN she had drunk to much and therefore should not have been driving. Its that whole cause and effect thing. She knew she shouldn't drive because she might have an accident or do something stupid, but she chose to anyway, and therefore that makes (for me anyway) the intention of killing her bf there.. even if it is in a bit of a round about fashion.

I know where you're coming from, and I agree with your sentiment up to a point, ToxicBunny. Yes, the 'death is on her hands' and she is at fault - but the fault is one of negligence (culpa) and not intention (dolus). To secure a conviction for murder you need to prove intention to wrongfully kill. Though negligent and intentional killing are indistinguishable in their effect on the victim, there is a profound difference between the two and society rightly treats them very differently.

 

[ToxicBunny]

For this specific case though, she has now proven intent to be a stupid arrogant wench.... that should be put away for life just for be useless to society.