This is hard to read....

[youngmo]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/health/california-overdose-doctor-murder-sentencing/index.html

I find it disturbing that a doctor could do something like this

 

[mimelim]

I don't understand why this is hard to read. While I don't find CNN typically all that stimulating or complete when it comes to reporting, this isn't particularly bad.

 

[youngmo]

I don't understand why this is hard to read. While I don't find CNN typically all that stimulating or complete when it comes to reporting, this isn't particularly bad.

I meant like emotionally... Not in terms of reading comprehension

 

[mimelim]

I meant like emotionally... Not in terms of reading comprehension

Why is it emotionally difficult to read? Because the defense is a physician?

This wasn't exactly much of a surprise if you were following the case. Very strong prosecution, pretty clear cut, not a ton really in dispute. The defense seemed to be playing more of a, "ya, she did it, but it isn't a big deal." which borders on the absurd...

 

[youngmo]

Why is it emotionally difficult to read? Because the defense is a physician?

This wasn't exactly much of a surprise if you were following the case. Very strong prosecution, pretty clear cut, not a ton really in dispute. The defense seemed to be playing more of a, "ya, she did it, but it isn't a big deal." which borders on the absurd...

Ok you're right man! I'll take down the post

 

[TBV]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/health/california-overdose-doctor-murder-sentencing/index.html

What a *******

 

[mimelim]

Ok you're right man! I'll take down the post

I don't mean to say that it isn't noteworthy, after all this is the first murder conviction for a position running a pill mill. Also I think the fair argument can be made that the charge, second degree murder, may not be appropriate. Reckless disregard vs. Intent and all, but I'd have to read more to form an opinion on where she fell on this. Clearly the DA thought it was intent and got the jury to agree.

 

[youngmo]

I don't mean to say that it isn't noteworthy, after all this is the first murder conviction for a position running a pill mill. Also I think the fair argument can be made that the charge, second degree murder, may not be appropriate. Reckless disregard vs. Intent and all, but I'd have to read more to form an opinion on where she fell on this. Clearly the DA thought it was intent and got the jury to agree.

What I meant is that it's hard to think that a doctor would actually do something like this. I do concur with you though

 

[youngmo]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/health/california-overdose-doctor-murder-sentencing/index.html

What a *******

🙁

 

[medic86]

I don't mean to say that it isn't noteworthy, after all this is the first murder conviction for a position running a pill mill. Also I think the fair argument can be made that the charge, second degree murder, may not be appropriate. Reckless disregard vs. Intent and all, but I'd have to read more to form an opinion on where she fell on this. Clearly the DA thought it was intent and got the jury to agree.

I'd say involuntary manslaughter at most. Murder is quite the stretch, and demonstrates yet again that juries are typically filled with idiots.

 

[mimelim]

I'd say involuntary manslaughter at most. Murder is quite the stretch, and demonstrates yet again that juries are typically filled with idiots.

I'll just re-post my thoughts on this from the other thread:

Which I have a problem with. I dont believe in using laws designed for one purpose, to enact "making an example of" in other areas. We have plenty of laws on our books, we dont need to stretch others to make examples. In fact, we dont need to "make an example" at all, the law will do that for us. I'm not defending any of her actions, quite the contrary, but I have to say I'm a little hesitant to ascribe full murder intent to her. We have things like criminally negligent homicide which sounds like from this one source at least, would have been a better fit. I dont like stretching and bloating our laws to cause fear or make examples. I think thats counterproductive and only feeds the march to extremism, we have laws and involuntary manslaughter isn't a slap on the wrist.

So my objection here is one based on the overarching consequences of padding charges to effect human behavior. I find that paternalistic and counterproductive in the long run. Plus my personal positions on individual vs societal responsibility is well known on this forum. I think individuals, yes including addicts, own responsibility for their actions. This in no way detracts from responsibility of others, like this doctor, but the responsibility must be placed appropriately. I dont think she had the intent to kill her patients. The angle here was making money and dead people dont pay.

California does not have a, "criminally negligent homicide". Based on how California law is typically applied, second degree murder does fit. For example, if a convicted DUI offender gets drunk and kills someone, they are typically charged with second degree murder. Given that this is an index case, it is consistent with how other crimes are prosecuted. I don't think that this is over reaching. While a strong argument could be made for involuntary manslaughter, given the number of deaths (12+) and the consistency of behavior, I don't think that it is beyond reasonable that a prosecutor could make an intent argument.

Blind bashing of lawyers and juries is just as counter productive. If you read the California penal code (187 and 192 for reference), I think based on news stories alone, this fits almost the textbook definition of involuntary manslaughter. But, can easily see how a higher level charge could be brought (since popular press/media) don't typically give all the relevant history.

 

[Turkishking]

😵

 

[mimelim]

I'd say involuntary manslaughter at most. Murder is quite the stretch, and demonstrates yet again that juries are typically filled with idiots.

Also, given that she had repeated warnings that 12+ people had died from medications she prescribed and she didn't change anything or acknowledge anything was wrong with that and took it as an "FYI" is just a little bit suspicious for intent. Certainly not conclusive, but it is begging for more than recklessness.

 

[Okazaki Frag Grenade]

🙁

I think they meant the doctor on trial, not you

 

[Mad Jack]

I'd say involuntary manslaughter at most. Murder is quite the stretch, and demonstrates yet again that juries are typically filled with idiots.

It fully fits second degree murder. This was in no way involuntary- she was prescribing drugs in a way she knew was killing people, for no reason other than money, and was falsifying records in order to do so. She was contributing to the opioid epidemic, which kills thousands every year, and didn't give a **** so long as her and her husband were making their cool $5 million dollars a year. When you are giving people recreational drugs that you know will likely kill some of them, it fully fits the definition of second degree murder per California law, as follows:

"A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators depraved indifference to human life"

She was committing an act with absolutely no regard for human life, all so she could make money. That's second degree, plain and simple.

The Legal Definition of Voluntary Manslaughter in California
When you

1. intentionally kill another person (without a legal excuse for doing so), or
2. act with a conscious disregard for human life,

you either violate California's murder law or California's voluntary manslaughter law. The difference between the two is whether you acted with "malice aforethought".

Malice aforethought exists when you act with (a) an intent to kill or (b) a wanton disregard for human life. When you kill another person (or fetus).and act with malice aforethought.you are guilty of murder. However, when you kill someone during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, California law presumes you acted without malice.which is why we have the reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter.

She clearly demonstrated wanton disregard for human life, as this happened multiple times. She was charged for three of the deaths, but if you read through documents about the case, there were more deaths than that. She just didn't give a **** that her meds were killing people.