Right at the outset, let’s be clear that the injuries to the boy in the Lowell hit-and-run are much worse than those to the boy in the Cambridge hit-and-run. Twelve year old Kelvin Savanhmixay of Lowell is looking at several weeks in the hospital and possible facial reconstruction surgery, whereas Samuel Tager’s 13 year old son is experiencing numbness in his extremities and shoulder pain, and is receiving outpatient treatment.
But there are similarities as well. Both drivers, Michelle Medeiros and Anthony Galluccio, fled after causing an accident, and both have been charged with leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury (according to the Globe, “additional charges are likely” against Medeiros because of the severity of the boy’s injuries). Both are on the front page of today’s Globe’s Metro section.
Other compare-and-contrasts: Medeiros has no prior traffic infractions; Galluccio’s history includes two DUIs (he was pardoned for one), along with a 2005 incident in which he caused an accident after drinking but no charges were filed, and police reports that he was drunk the morning of the hit-and-run. And one more: Medeiros’s driver’s license has been revoked; Galluccio’s (as far as I know) has not.
So keep your eye on the hit-and-run cases about the 17-year-old girl from Methuen and the 42-year-old state Senator from Cambridge. I’m not saying equality of treatment is appropriate — again, Medeiros caused much more serious injuries than Galluccio. But something like proportionality would be nice.
I’m sure you mean that both Michelle Medeiros and Anthony Galluccio are alleged to be traffic law violators. Too many cases are tried in public media rather than courts.
it’s a fair point as to Medeiros. But Galluccio has publicly admitted that he caused the accident and then fled the scene. And I didn’t say that either of them was guilty of the charges as filed.
I have no problem with using the public media to remind the courts that people are paying attention to decisions they make and the bias that those decisions too often reflect.
<
p>Unacceptable behavior of young working-class women is all too often treated much differently in the courts than equally unacceptable behavior of middle-aged powerful and connected white men.
<
p>That’s a terrible reality that, in my opinion, is more likely to be corrected by an intense media spotlight than by inserting the word “allegedly” into a blog posting.
I tend to be wary of what I read in the media and look with jaundiced eye upon prosecutors and defense counsel that try their cases outside the courts. While the courts often prove themselves rancid when it come to meting out justice, I see the courts as the only hope of the people.
It is my experience that citizens and their legislature do not always bring about just laws. As in poll tax laws or miscegenation laws or gender preference laws (I could go on all day) the laws of a legislature should be filtered with justice. If a legislature bans same sex marriage is it within the bounds of the judiciary to deem the law unjust and nullify the law?
<
p>Who provides justice to the individual?
While you might want to call the 90% Democrat Mass. legislature a lynch mob, in most places where it is a diverse elected group representing different interests and opinions.
<
p>Of course, the equivalence of the Boston Democrat Hive Mind and a Lynch Mob is an unfortunate impression that can be drawn in the ‘commonwealth’.
Reality is much different, to wit:
<
p>Brown v. Board of Ed.
Loving v. Virginia etc.
<
p>Ironic that sometimes the least democratic branch is called upon to make sure we uphold everyone’s rights, isn’t it?
Scott v. Sandford
Korematsu v. U.S.
and I could go on.
<
p>Each branch has its share of great triumphs and of disastrous failures. That’s why we need three branches.
“Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Also, what does the extent of the victim’s injuries have to do with the level of criminal intent? Two people who engage in the exact same reckless conduct can face two completely different legal scenarios depending on something other than their own level of personal culpability. I’ve always sort of wondered about this somewhat troublesome legal/philosophical territory. For instance, a fistfight can become manslaughter through the “bad luck” of one participant falling down and hitting his head the wrong way, etc.
Let’s say two people “decide” to get drunk, and then to take their chances driving themselves home. They both cause car accidents because of their drunk driving. In one of the car accidents, somebody dies. In the other accident, there is only property damage. It seems there’s a certain element of chance involved in these things. Perhaps the driver who got in the non-fatal crash was actually drinking much more than the driver who endes up killing someone, but at the same time the legal consequences will be much worse for the latter than for the former. I guess the question is, how can “luck” have any bearing on whether or not a person committed a certain crime? Of course, it’s a no-win situation: treating a situation where someone dies the same as a situation where there is only property damage would seem to somehow fall short of justice as well.
there is no allegation that Medeiros was intoxicated. Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence I’m aware of that Galluccio was intoxicated.
<
p>On your other comment, this is the famous “eggshell skull” conundrum in law school. You whack someone on the head, assuming only that it would hurt. Unfortunately for you, the person has an unusual abnormality resulting in a very weak skull, so instead the person suffers brain damage and dies. Result: you’re at least guilty of manslaughter. Tough luck. Shouldn’t go around hitting people on the head. That’s kind of how it works.
According to news reports, eyewitnesses say that Michelle Medeiros was racing another car just prior to striking the boy:
<
p>How does racing compare with OUI? Both are criminal. Both are dangerous to everyone around them. It seems to me that the fact that Ms. Medeiros has no prior record should make a significant difference.
<
p>I note that Ms. Medeiros has already lost her license, while Mr. Galluccio retains his.
they are backing off the racing thing.
<
p>
If anything, it amplifies the apparent disparity in how these two accused criminals are being treated. I think Mr. Galluccio has gotten too many “second chances” already.
<
p>At a minimum, he should lose his license. Now.
Not such a good decision, in retrospect. It seems Galluccio hadn’t exactly experienced the proper “moment of clarity” that prompts many toward a sincere effort at reforming themselves.