When 18 year old Steven Badke drove across the center median at a speed of more than 80 miles per hour, and crashed into a minivan, leaving three people dead in his wake, it naturally follows that someone must be guilty of murder. After all, when people die, someone killed them. Every bad outcome demands a crime.
But Suffolk County Judge C. Randall Hinrichs refused to succumb to the passion of tragedy, and instead dismissed three counts of criminally negligent homicide and one count of assault in the third degree, leaving only a misdemeanor reckless driving counts and VTL violations pending against Badke, according to this Newsday report.
[A]lthough Steven Badke, 18, was accused of driving 82 to 87 mph, then veering across the center divider on Jericho Turnpike in Smithtown, his behavior didn’t amount to criminal negligence. To be found guilty of criminally negligent homicide, a person must create risk – not just fail to perceive it, Hinrichs said. Speeding – without an another factor, like running a red light – is not enough, he said.
This was the holding of the recent Court of Appeals decision in People v. Cabrera, discussed here. The decision was surprising in that it firmly demonstrated intellectual integrity at a time when the public demands, and the trend has followed, the creation of a crime to fit every tragedy.
In an age where statutes suffer from such overt manipulation as in the Lori Drew/Myspace prosecution, or the horrendous Heidgen murder conviction for drunk driving, the pressure on a judge to appease the public bloodlust is enormous.
Since I have no reservation about mentioning a failure to resist the pressure, it’s only right that I similarly note a jurist who has rendered the right decision in the face of ugly circumstances. It can’t be easy, but it’s the right thing to do.
But there is a collateral problem brewing in the background that should not be ignored. As the public’s understanding is that there must be a crime whenever a tragedy occurs, a result like this must necessarily reflect a failure of the legal system. This is the way the father of John Aruanno, 13, who died in the minivan, feels.
“I think he should be held accountable for what he did, but if there’s no law on the books, what are you going to do?” Aruanno said.
He said he is now focused on fighting for laws that would decrease accidents involving teen drivers. They include increasing how many driving hours are required to get an adult license and limiting nighttime driving by teens.
“I’d just hate to see any family go through the pain we’re going through,” he said. “It didn’t have to be my wife and son driving on that road that day. It could have been anybody.”
The impact of the death of a 13 year old son on a father is beyond my comprehension. All things considered, the father has taken Judge Hinrichs’ decision with remarkable equanimity. So while I refuse to fault him for the failure of logic, it remains that his tragedy neither changes nor improves by the prosecution of Badke for homicide.
While prosecutors and law enforcement push their agenda by convincing the bereaved that a crime and harsh sentence will somehow lessen their pain, they present entirely separate issues with entirely separate impacts.
John Aruanno, the father, has channeled his pain into a way to productively save another father from standing at the grave of his son. Rather than demand “justice”, his focus on preventing kids from doing what kids do, behaving stupidly and occasionally causing unintentional grave harm to others.
So this is doubly rare story, in that there are two people to admire despite the face of terrible tragedy.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is the sort of tragedy and ruling that can lead to something called “John’s Law,” defining these facts as a more serious crime, so that people like Badke are “held accountable.” But given his father’s measured response, maybe not this time.
If the kid had flashed a loaded gun and started pointing it at people (with no intent to actually shoot someone), and someone was shot; should he have been prosecuted for negligent homicide?
A car is thousands of pounds of steel. When driven recklessly, it’s no different from any other weapon of destruction.
Our society is way too tolerant of car-related crimes. Getting on the roads is one of the most dangerous things any of us will do. Those who make driving even more dangerous by speeding deserve prison time.
That teenager is a killer. It’s a shame that far too many are unwilling to call him that. He speed, he killed. He’s a killer.
The problem, I think, comes down to this: Most people speed.
Therefore the thought that anyone should go to prison after killing someone while speeding is beyond the pale. “That could be me!” people think.
Instead of lamenting the public’s blood lust, perhaps it’s wiser to ask if one’s own actions (such as speeding) are what is really worthy of criticism. Perhaps we should drive more carefully, lest another teenager be killed.
That’s probably the most muddled thinking I’ve seen out of you Mike. By you logic, if you get caught speeding, you are guilty of attempted murder. If the act itself it that malevolent, than it’s worthy of punishment regardless of the fortuitous impact on someone else. Is that where you think it ought to be?
The issue isn’t whether speeding is good, but whether it demonstrates such an utter disregard for human life that, when it results in an accident and someone dies, it equates with a homicide.
I think your second paragraph nails it, and I think it depends not on whether or not somebody is speeding, but how much and where. Going 62 in a 55? In Minnesota, that’s called “driving on the crosstown.” 92 in a 25 school zone when kids are letting out of school? That would be, it seems to me, demonstrating an utter disregard for human life, even if the driver didn’t happen to squash any kids.
Given that, of course, it would be up to somebody — presumably a jury — to decide whether the facts of a given situation support an accusation of that level of recklessness.
“Most people speed” is exactly right. And most people will speed all their lives without ever hurting anyone. Unless you’re crazy, it’s just not a very dangerous thing to do, so it doesn’t deserve a very severe punishment.
While I never speed (or break any other law), drive any normal highway at the posted limit and see what happens. Speeding is a national pastime. I’m not promoting it, but to elevate it to be tantamount to a loaded gun is, well, way, way over the top.
In this case, the kid was going a little over 80 mph. Fast, but not crazy fast. Sometimes a death is an accident. Society has just come to believe that every death demands a criminal. There isn’t always a criminal to be had.
What’s all this about a loaded gun? [Checks. Yup. Got one right here.] There’s nothing unsafe about a loaded gun, not intrinsically. Just keep the digits away from the bang switch . . .
Guns don’t kill people. It’s the bullets within the guns that fly outward at great velocity.
Nah. It’s the bullets’ relatively sudden stop within the human body. All kidding aside — really — while I’ve come far too close to deliberately demonstrating that on a couple of occasions, making that not happen accidentally or negligently is a lot easier than driving safely. (It’s one of the reason why I can find it easy to imagine a situation where somebody could unintentionally kill somebody with a car and not deserve prosecution and conviction — to loop back to the topic at hand — and much less easy to be persuaded in the case of an “accidental” killing with a firearm. Not saying that it can’t happen, but it’s almost impossible in other than a self-defense situation*.)
____
*Not entirely orthogonally: NYPD misses 49% of the time at 0-6 feet. And I’m only mentioning them because, well, they’re your guys, they keep good numbers, and I happen to know that one.
49%? When did they get that good?
Remember Larry Davis? At the raid where they finally caught him, Davis=8, @100 NYPD=0. The numbers are probably off, but it was something along those lines. Unbelievable.
Two problems, basically: first, targets don’t frighten folks much, most of the time. (And I do mean just that; it’s amazing how nervous some people can get when doing a low-stress shooting qual. One of the reasons why I always do mine one on one; haven’t had to grab a gun, yet, but I came close to a couple of times.)
Secondly, most departments train their guys (and guyettes) to use a fairly complicated stance, that works really, really well when you’re not scared (literally:) half out of your wits. Few people can actually use the Weaver when scared, which is why point shooting probably makes more sense. (As I’m sure will be a shock, shock to you, I’ve got fairly strong opinions on the subject; the late Julio Santiago made a believer out of me.)
Or consider Amadou Diallo. Unarmed guy, no more than twelve feet away from the three well-trained (really; I’m not being sarcastic) NYPD officers who (honestly, I believe, although completely inaccurately) thought he was shooting at them. 41 shots; 19 hits.
And then there’s the Kehoe brothers — a whole passel (technical term) of shots fired at a couple of guys standing in front of an SUV; the cops didn’t even hit the SUV, much less the guys.
Davis was 6-0, by the way.
My old pal Lynne Stewart was Davis’ attorney, and she told me that covered up the last two because it was just too embarrassing. But I can live with 6-0 if it makes the cops feel better.