How is this possible?

Overheal

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60215868&posted=1#post60215868

Former Irish rugby international Eddie Halvey has received a seven-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to careless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol.

Halvey was also disqualified from driving for seven years.

The charges relate to an accident causing the death of 16-year-old Kevin Walsh at Coole, outside Toomevara, in Co Tipperary on 1 April 2006.
Advertisement

Halvey had previously been charged with dangerous driving causing death.

A sitting of the Circuit Court in Nenagh heard that forensic difficulties had emerged in the case and the DPP had accepted the lesser charge of careless driving.

How?!

In comparison heres the law regarding Felony DUI in the US which occurs in bodily harm or loss of life.

If a person is convicted of felony DUI for causing great bodily harm to another, he or she is subject to a mandatory fine of at least $5000.00. However, a fine up to $10,000.00 could be imposed.

In addition to the fine, there is a mandatory imprisonment of at least 30 days in jail, and that sentence could be increased up to 15 years.

A person convicted of felony DUI when that person has caused the death of another is subject to a mandatory fine of between $10,000.00 and $25,000.000. Additionally, that person must be imprisoned for at least 1 year and could be sentenced to 25 years in prison.

In addition iirc it also means a lifetime suspension of Driving Privileges.

Our man in Havana

It happens.

Sangre

Merits of this particular case aside, the US justice system is the last legal system I'd ever want our criminal laws to follow.

Overheal wrote: »

"Ah sure you didnt mean to kill anyone while you were breaking the law." are you kidding me? Thats why we have the laws! :mad:


Gross injustice imo.

So you're in favour of a felony murder system?

Our man in Havana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies

We do not want to be following this.

Carawaystick

It's because he was convicted of careless driving - it's not as serious as dangerous driving or dangerous driving causing death, this charge was dropped.

drink driving on it's own usually results in a driving ban and a fine

delta_bravo

This is more of a general question perhaps relating to this case. I have often heard of the DPP appealing a sentencing for being too lenient, I presume it is only the DPP that can do this. However do they appeal based on their own discretion or by public request/ request from a T.D. or Senator?

Victor

delta_bravo wrote: »

However do they appeal based on their own discretion or by public request/ request from a T.D. or Senator?

Mostly at their own discretion. I'm sure they get representations from time to time. As to whether they are entitled to consider these or not is another matter.

Overheal

I'm not sure why you are opposed to FM? I am in favor of it. He was already committing a dangerous felony at the time of the accident. I don't see why that shouldnt be taken into account. I dont see how it should only be clasified as careless and not dangerous.

As for the leniency not even 7 months of jail, 7 months of a suspended sentence (probation, right?) and a 7 year license suspension. That doesn't seem very light given the circumstances? He was out drinking the night before, got in his car at 5AM (did he eat? did he sleep?) and slammed into another car which was parked off the side of the road, killing 1 passenger, a minor.

I'm not arguing I'm just asking btw.

Our man in Havana

The main problem with felony murder is that it seeks to double punish people who did not set out to kill anyone as part of whatever crime they were committing. Felony murder is basically a catch all used to coerce plea bargains from defendants.

Does felony murder attract the death peanlty in any state?

Overheal

The Doe Gang attempts to rob a bank. John, Jane and Richard Doe will do the actual robbery. Mary Doe will act as lookout, and Joe Schmoe waits around the corner with the getaway vehicle. Mike Meek is a bank employee who is to make sure the alarm is not sounded. The robbery is a violation of both federal and state law, and can separately be prosecuted under each without incurring double jeopardy. Both jurisdictions employ the felony murder rule: for purposes of this example, we assume that federal law employs the proximate cause theory and state law the agency theory.

During the course of the robbery, the Bank Manager suffers an aortic dissection and dies almost instantly. A teller hits the silent alarm in the confusion. The police arrive, and Mary surrenders promptly. When the police enter the bank, John, Jane and Richard open fire: Jane kills an officer while Richard's wild shot kills John. Joe Schmoe hears the shots and flees. He does not see a child playing in front of the car, and accidentally kills her. Later, officers' bullets kill Richard and the teller behind him. The result of all this carnage is as follows:

1. Mary is probably not guilty of any felony murder; while she will face charges for the robbery, she will probably not face any other charges, because she surrendered to authorities before any violence.[citation needed]
2. The manager's death is felony murder, because the robbery may have caused the heart attack.[5]
3. The officer's death is both first-degree murder for Jane, and felony murder for Joe and Mike, under both federal and state law. Jane may be charged with felony murder as a tactical matter if the ballistics are inconclusive.
4. John's death is felony murder for all three under federal law and probably state law. Some states might not allow it because he was a participant in the crime.
5. The teller's death is felony murder for all three survivors under federal, but not state law, because the teller was killed by a non-participant. Because the officer that killed the teller was not a participant in the felony, under the state's "agency theory" the felons would not be liable for the death because it was not committed "in furtherance of the felony." On the other hand, under the alternative proximate cause theory (in this example, the theory adopted under federal law), it was reasonably foreseeable that an innocent teller would be killed by responding officers' fire, so the felons would be liable for the death. Note that even though Joe had ceased to participate in the robbery at this point, his flight counts as a continuous transaction, so the rule continues to apply.
6. Richard's death is felony murder under federal, but not state law, for the same reasons.[citation needed] In practice, many prosecutors are reluctant to make the charge when an accomplice is killed by police.
7. The child's death is felony murder for all three in both federal and state court. Again, the fact that Joe was trying to flee does not mitigate the crime.
8. Jane is subject to the death penalty, even if the ballistics are inconclusive, because she attempted and intended to kill.
9. Joe is subject to the death penalty because he killed, albeit accidentally.[citation needed]
10. Mike escapes the death penalty, because he neither killed nor intended to kill.

If this is true, Eddie Halvey would be a Joe Schmoe in this case. However the example is a bit biased in that it assumes they committed a robbery in a state which authorizes the Death penalty. Federal Law as far as I know only institutes the Death Penalty for High Treason.

also,

In the United States, felony murder is generally first degree murder, and is often a capital offense. When the government seeks to impose the death penalty on someone convicted of felony murder, the Eighth Amendment [which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.] has been interpreted so as to impose additional limitations on the state power. The death penalty may not be imposed if the defendant is merely a minor participant and did not actually kill or intend to kill. However, the death penalty may be imposed if the defendant is a major participant in the underlying felony and "exhibits extreme indifference to human life".

Similarly in the case of Halvey a conveyance of grief for the boy who was killed who most likely weigh heavily in his favor when say, a Texas Court, went to hear his case. However he would still be regarded as a Major Participant in the original felony.

Ultimately however the Vehicular Manslaughter Statute protects negligent drivers from being charged with 2nd or 1st degree murder.

http://www.duiblog.com/2004/11/06/the-death-penalty-for-dui/