For Fallen Stop Sign, Vandals Face Life - Essay Example

For Fallen Stop Sign, Vandals Face Life For Fallen Stop Sign, Vandals Face Life Introduction Felony is defined as a criminal action, most involving violent actions that are interpreted as more serious compared to misdemeanor and always punishable by imprisonment. Most states have statutory laws that determine the extent of felony, their classes, and relevant punishments. In determining a felony, the court must acquire substantial justifications. Among the most common felonies in the U.S. is manslaughter. Manslaughter may be voluntary or involuntary. Understanding the provisions of applicable statutory laws is vital to determine felony such as manslaughter in a case. An example of a case is the Feb. 7, 1996 incidence that occurred in Utah State, determined in Hillsborough County court. A succinct analysis of the case details and occurrence leading to the accident and death reveals that Miller, Baillie, and Cole, the defendants, were guilty of involuntary manslaughter as charged in under the Utah Criminal code. Concept Any legislation that is formed as a statute by government agencies that are perspective in nature are known as statutory laws. They serve the interest of citizens under the governance of the agency that constitute the laws. They are important to decide outstanding issues among citizens living in the area to within which they are applicable. Statutory laws are applicable in areas where common laws may not have direct jurisdiction. An example of statutory law is the Utah Criminal Code. The Utah Criminal Code The Utah Criminal Code defines criminal homicide and various provisions related to the act. According to the code, an individual is guilty of criminal homicide if he or she, intentionally, acts in a manner that causes the death of another individual. The act should meet the threshold that defines it as reckless or committed knowingly. There are diverse elements and definitions outlined in the code including the terms recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly as applicable in defining murder or an act of manslaughter. The code has diverse situations that define murder under a criminal homicide. Murder Based on the provisions of the code, criminal homicide qualifies to be considered as murder if the actor does three things. First, an act qualifies as murder if the actor knowingly or intentionally causes the demise of the affected victim. Second, the code defines criminal homicide that constitutes murder if the perpetrator intended to cause severe or bloody injury to another individual, an act that causes death. Third, a criminal homicide constitutes murder if the circumstances under which it occurred show evidence of grave risk to which the victim was subjected by the perpetrator of the action, and thereby causing death. Under the code, murder is classified as a first-degree felony. Besides murder, the code outlines provisions on the concept of manslaughter. Manslaughter A criminal homicide under the code qualifies to be referred to as manslaughter under three main circumstances. First, it is manslaughter if the perpetrator’s action was reckless to an extent of causing the victim’s death. Second, manslaughter involves an incidence in which the perpetrator causes extreme emotional disturbance for there is an excuse. Third, the death should be caused under an instance in which the actor is confident there are justifications to believe there are permissible explanations, even though there are no legal reasons to justify it. In reference to emotional disturbance as outlined under the code, does not include metal impairment. Furthermore, the reasonableness of the justification provided to prove mental disturbance is determined by the viewpoint of the actions that a reasonable person would take under the circumstance. Under the code, manslaughter is second-degree felony (Utah State Legislature, 2015). Besides the concepts of criminal homicide murder and manslaughter, the code outlines the provisions of negligent homicide. Negligent homicide First, criminal homicide qualifies to be considered as negligent homicide if the perpetrator causes death while acting with negligence. The code classifies negligent homicide as a class A misdemeanor. Parts of the concept (analytical tools) The Utah Criminal Code defines murder and manslaughter through an evaluation of the terms recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly, criminal negligence and criminally negligent based on a perspective or point-of-view presented and in reference to acceptable definitions. An individual conducts an action intentionally based on the perception of his intent and objective of conduct to cause the resultant effects. Knowingly in respect to conduct, and in the context of the code, implies a situation in which an individual has full consent and awareness that the conduct can reasonably result to a particular circumstance. Recklessly, as considered of a circumstance surrounding a conduct, refers to a situation in which an individual intentionally disregards substantial risks that may emanate for his or her conduct. In considering the allowable level of risk, it must not only be of a nature that causes serious deviation from the standard of care. Criminal negligence or, in some cases criminally negligent actions, as applicable in circumstances, an individual should have full knowledge in regards to the implications of his or her actions. The risk should be of the extent to which its negligence results to a great deviance from the standard of care, as would be observed by the reasonable person. Object On June 19, 1997, Miller, Baillie, and Cole faced possible sentencing in a case involving vandalism of traffic signs in Hillsborough County. The three faced counts of manslaughter in Hillsborough County Courthouse. The court argued that the three were guilty of removing the stop sign from the ground before the accident occurred on sixteen days later. They allegedly interfered with the stop sign located in front of Tim’s café. Their action, according to the jury, was the cause of multiple manslaughter. The incidence involving a fatal crash occurred on Feb. 7, 1996 and caused the death of three friends aged 18 years (Clary, 1997). Miller, Baillie, and Cole agreed they had, earlier that night, tampered with 20 road sign along the area, but did not admit claims that they took the sign in front of the café that became the scene of accident. The case of the three had initiated debate on the relationship between provisions crime and punishment that should be applicable in the case. The assistant state attorney in Utah, Leland Baldwin, argued that the charge placed on the three of manslaughter was justified. Joseph Registrato, while presented his arguments in defense of Baillie and Cole in the case. According to Registrato, Baillie and Cole may be guilty of causing criminal mischief that would have caused the death of the said three in the case. However, others successfully went through the intersection in front of Tim’s café without dying from an accident. The success of other drivers to pass the intersection creates the question of c the falling of the sign was the sole cause of the accident and subsequent deaths. Joe Episcopo, the lawyer defending Miller, argued that theft of road signs was a common occurrence. It is interesting that even part of the jury admitted having vandalized road signs. It is noteworthy that vandalism of road signs is a countrywide problem as argued by Episcopo during the trial. Application of concept to object The concept of statutory law is applicable in solving most cases. In the case, Leland Baldwin, the assistant state attorney in Utah, would use the Utah Criminal Code as a legal justification to charge the three of manslaughter. According to the code, a criminal homicide under the code qualifies to be referred to as manslaughter under the three aforementioned circumstances. In my viewpoint, the three were guilty of all the three circumstances based on the case details and factors that caused the accident. Their action of removing the signs was a most likely causative factor of the accident that occurred in front of Tim’s café. Would there have existed the stop sign at that point of the road, it is arguable that the accident would have be avoidable. Actions of the three accused, can be described as reckless and committed knowingly, in the context of the Utah Criminal Code. The three, therefore, were guilty of manslaughter as argued by Leland Baldwin. Conclusion The case that occurred in Hillsborough County was tantamount to violation of the State’s Criminal Code. The defendants’ arguments had no legal justifications to prove the accused innocent of manslaughter caused by recklessness. The court had legal proof of the offence, as opposed to claims by the defendants. It is justifiable, based on the case details leading to the accident that the defendants were guilty of involuntary manslaughter as charged in under the Utah Criminal code. References Clary, M. (1997, June 11). For Fallen Stop Sign, Vandals Face Life. The Los Angeles Times.. Retrieved April 10, 2015 from http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-11/news/mn-2303_1_one-stop-sign Utah State Legislature (2015). Title 76 Chapter 5 Section 205. Manslaughter. Retrieved April 10, 2015 from http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_020500.htm Read More