I seem to have a knack for these things. I post about something and the next day there’s some news on that subject (or it could just be coincidence – take your pick). After yesterday’s post on the death penalty, I was but a little surprised to see two interesting news items today. The first is this very thorough and deeply interesting report [pdf] from the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment. A legislatively created body, the Commission was charged in 2008, with evaluating the racial, socio-economic, geographic and other influences on the death penalty and to make a recommendation as to its continued viability.
This is a car accident/personal injury question. I’m sure some of you are well-versed in that area of the law. This is the setup: Two on ramps merge into one, leading to an interstate highway. One of those on-ramps has a yield sign. Assume that there are three cars going toward the highway on the non-yield side and one on the yield side.
The car on the yield side does not yield to the first car, which manages to pass it. The second car also manages to pass the car on the yield side, but the yield car is still moving forward. The third car on the non-yield side, which was following normal rules of traffic, keeps driving, because it has the right of way. Unfortunately, it is now to the side of, or slightly behind, the offending car from the yield side. They collide.
Is it a defense to any lawsuit that despite having the right of way, the third car is at fault (or at enough fault) that it should have followed normal rules of traffic and allowed the offending car to pass. Does the answer change if the third car hits the offending car from behind?
Ideally, following rules of traffic, the offending car from the yield side should have waited till all three cars had passed.
Several occurances in the last week have got me thinking about the death penalty. Miguel Roman should be the new posterchild for abolishing the death penalty. Yes, he wasn’t on death row, but here is a man who spent 20 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.
Consider the rush to execution that the pro-death penalty crowd loves to push. Imagine if that was actually the case and Roman was on death row. He’d be dead right now. If my calculations are correct, were Roman on death row, he’d be the longest serving member of that club. And people complain about the length of time the other death row members’ appeals and habeas corpus petitions have taken. Many would have killed them already.
The arbitrariness of the death penalty is also something to ponder. Continue reading