criminal law

How Your Violent Charge Gets Classified

October 24, 2019 by Guest Contributor Leave a Comment

When defining violent charges, it can be hard to see where the lines cross from simple assault to assault to battery. It’s important to know the difference between the penalties for each and to know how to avoid charges that are more severe than necessary.

Assault

Simple

Simple assault describes instances that involve a minor injury and/or minor threat of violence at most. It is the most minor of assault and is usually charged as a misdemeanor. There are certain protected classes of people for which those who assault them are given harsher sentences. Members of this protected class often include police officers, mental health workers, social services workers, and disabled and elderly persons.

Aggravated

Aggravated assault describes instances in which serious harm is done or threatened the victim. It can result in serious injury and is especially dangerous with the use of a deadly weapon. Use of a deadly weapon opens up a separate case in some states and can lead to serious criminal charges including, but not limited to, jail time, fines, and/or community service. Aggravated assault is considered a felony offense with consequences of up to 20 years in prison. If the assault was against a protected class or used a deadly weapon, jail time and other penalties can be increased.

Sexual

Sexual assault, as well as aggravated sexual assault, involves the threat and/or action of non-consensually engaging in sexual acts with a victim. They are usually defined as felony offenses, and consequences can range from one year to a lifetime in prison. Additional penalties often include court-ordered rehabilitation while in prison.

As with other forms of assault, penalties increase if the assault is committed against a protected class, a minor, or use of a deadly weapon occurs.

Battery

The difference between battery and assault has become less relevant over the years, with many charges being labeled as “assault and battery,” as opposed to either one individually. Semantically, where assault covers the threats of violence, battery covers the followthrough and actual physical violence.

Dropping Rates/Rising Rates

Violent crime charges are serious and varied. Penalties change drastically when factors such as the aggressor and/or the victim being a minor come into play, whether it is a recurring charge, and the degree of the damages done. Fortunately, violent crime in the United States has seen a drastic drop since its peak in the early 90s, with a drop from 758 violent crime cases per 100,000 people in 1991 to just 368 cases per 100,000 people in 2018.

While violent crime rates as a category are dropping, unfortunately, some cases of assaults are on the rise, largely sexual assault. Some of this is due to the FBI updating its outdated definition of rape to focus on consent rather than force, therefore classifying more crimes as rape, but there does seem to be a considerable upward trend since 2013. According to the National Criminal Victimization Survey, estimated rapes (beyond just what is reported) have drastically increased since 2013.

No matter what the trends say, violent crime can ruin a person’s life completely. Whether you have been unfairly punished or were a victim of a violent crime, it is important that you know how to put your experience in legal terms.

Drunk Driving Fatalities Spike in July

August 3, 2019 by Mike Nason Leave a Comment

Summertime means more people enjoying the great outdoors and exploring new places. However, across the United States, summer is also a time when it’s extremely dangerous to be on the road, either as a driver or as a passenger.

A number of factors contribute to high drunk driving rates in the summer months. Many of the same things that make summer the most popular time of year are the same things that increase impaired driving rates—outdoor events, longer days, and more free time can all lead people to get behind the wheel when they shouldn’t.

Drunk Driving Statistics

Statistics indicate that impaired driving is a massive problem in the United States, and efforts to quell it have not been widely successful. Per the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly 11,000 people died from drunk driving crashes. This averages out to one death every 48 minutes. Alcohol was a contributing factor in 29 percent of driving fatalities in 2017.

The same report shows that nearly 10 percent of fatal drunk driving crashes take place in July. Fatality rates creep up steadily in spring, peak in July, and gradually decrease throughout fall and winter. According to the CDC, alcohol-related crashes lead to over $44 billion in damages and expenses every year.

Experts note that the Fourth of July is a major reason that July is such a dangerous month for drunk driving accidents. Many extend the holiday and turn it into a long weekend, and without proper planning, many find themselves without a safe way to get home after a night of drinking. In 2017, 40 percent of all fatal crashes occurring during the Fourth of July week involved alcohol.

Penalties for Driving Under the Influence

Federal, state, and local governments have tried a wide range of tactics to stem the tide of drunk driving accidents. Many of these efforts have been punitive in nature. By implementing higher and higher fines for drunk driving arrests, legislators hope to dissuade people from driving while impaired. Additionally, many states have implemented mandatory minimum sentences for drunk driving offenders. While many municipalities do not have mandatory minimum sentences for first-time offenders, several have strict requirements for second, third, and additional offenses. As penalties for impaired driving have become more severe and the social stigma of impaired driving has grown, it’s become more difficult for drivers to defend themselves after an arrest.

Other campaigns have attempted to tackle the drunk driving issue on a societal level. Some campaigns strive to make events less alcohol-centered, while others aim to attach a greater stigma to drunk driving. Several organizations highlight fatalities and serious injuries caused by impaired drivers, hoping to show people the harm they could potentially cause when they get behind the wheel after drinking.

Across all of these programs and campaigns, results have been mixed.

Other Solutions to the Drunk Driving Problem

A growing number of programs try to provide solutions for drivers, rather than enforcing punitive measures. A rapid increase in ridesharing programs across the nation has provided affordable alternatives to many people after a night out. The NHTSA reports that over half of drunk driving crashes occur in urban areas, where consumers have many rideshare options. Some bars and restaurants offer free overnight parking for guests who cannot safely drive, allowing people to realize when they’ve had enough without worrying about getting their vehicle towed. Some cities offer a free shuttle service or free bus rides to people on nights when drunk driving is a common issue—this includes holidays like the Fourth of July and New Year’s Eve. Legislators in some states and cities have dedicated substantial funding to public transportation, recognizing that people may be less likely to drive while impaired if there is a safe and affordable way to get home instead.

California Judges Scramble to Prevent Death Penalty Resurgence

December 19, 2011 by Ben Buchwalter Leave a Comment

California is well-known as a bastion of liberalism. The perpetual “blue state” is no stranger to high taxes and government regulations, and last year nearly voted to legalize marijuana. But California’s criminal justice system doesn’t extend as far to the left, illustrated by the state’s rejection of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, and California’s choice not to join states like Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, and 13 others in abolishing the death penalty.

There are currently more than 700 prisoners on death row, but not a single person has been put to death since 2006, 76-year-old Clarence Ray Allen was killed for his three murders. Soon after, federal judge Jeremy Fogel issued a moratorium on the state’s death penalty due to procedural concerns that if the three-drug cocktail were administered incorrectly, it would result in cruel and unusual punishment. The federal 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in San Francisco, then held that executions must be administered by technicians who are medically trained to give intravenous medications. As this is would be a clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath (“do no harm”), the 9^th Circuit’s ruling resulted in a de-facto death penalty moratorium that continues to this day.

A few California judges have recently indicated a desire to maintain this moratorium by acting to prevent carrying out the sentences of a few high-profile death row inmates. Just last week, for example, Marin County Superior Court Judge Faye D’Opal once again rejected the three-drug lethal injections, noting that the state should develop a one-drug alternative. In particular, Judge D’Opal wrote that the drug pancuronium bromide “is unnecessary, dangerous, and creates a risk of excruciating pain.” Judge D’Opal’s tentative decision resulted in yet another death sentence delay for Michael Sims, who was convicted of killing three Domino’s Pizza employees in 1985.

While a handful of California judges have publically opposed the death penalty, it remains legal and mostly popular among Californians. But the fate of the 700 prisoners on death row, and the institution writ large, remains uncertain. “The death penalty is going the way of the dinosaur,” says University of the Pacific McGeorge Law School professor John Meyers, adding that District Attorneys will continue to seek death sentences as long as they are popular.

In her decision, Judge D’Opal also criticized the San Quentin Prison for withholding data on the cost of the state’s executions. Former Warden Jeanne Woodford has said that each execution costs between $70,000 and $200,000, but the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has not released any relevant data. Donald Heller, the lawyer who wrote California’s death penalty law, estimates that the state has spent $4 billion to put only 13 death row prisoners to death since 1976. Heller has since reversed his position and now advocates for abolition.

Most likely, it will not take long before the CDCR locates a one-drug lethal injection to short circuit California’s current de facto death penalty moratorium. At that point, judges who oppose the death penalty on legal and moral grounds will need to scramble to make another argument stick, rely on the California legislature to join those 16 states that have abolished the death penalty, or hold their breaths for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter.

Ben Buchwalter is a law student at UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco.