Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the most part, I would guess proposed cases like these don't go through, but around the country it has happened (the Aurora theater massacre in Colorado, the Ft. Hood shooting incident, victims' families are suing wealthy teen Ethan Couch who got no jail time for mowing down several victims while drunk driving in Texas, etc.).
I agree with the judge and I think parole boards who release maniacs who rape, kill, etc., should be held accountable for their decisions also.
The best story is in Newsday. There is an AP story, but it barely has anything to it. Here is the Newsday link:
A judge has decided to let the family of Glen Cove murder victim Denice Fox continue to pursue a lawsuit against the psychologist who had treated Fox's murderer and the residential facility that released the killer before the grisly slaying in 2006.
Evan Marshall, now 39, is serving a term of 30 years to life in prison after pleading guilty in 2007 to killing Fox, whose body he dismembered.
Authorities found the 57-year-old retired teacher's head in the trunk of Marshall's car and recovered the rest of her body in his family's basement.
If anyone wants more of the story's text, PM me.
What do you think about this? Please answer the poll. The question is:
Should professionals be held legally accountable for releasing violent and/or mentally ill people who then kill?
Last edited by I_Love_LI_but; 09-10-2014 at 03:52 PM..
Society as a whole is not ready to say "you have to live in a controlled setting for the benefit of society", the individuals rights are held in higher regard. Less than a hundred years ago a person with Consumption (TB) would be sent to a sanitarium until they were better to protect others from catching it, today they have the right not to take their meds. Parents refuse childhood shots and our kids are in danger of catching illnesses that were eradicated years ago.
If the professionals have followed the law/guidelines that they are bound to then no they should not be held legally accountable. Society has to change their position then alter the laws to reflect that only after that can you sue the person for not doing their job.
You can sue anyone for anything, whether you'll win is another story. I don't have Crapday access but from the wording I presume all that happened is the case survived a motion to dismiss made before the parties had done discovery, which is not a hard thing to do if you have any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing (even made up evidence).
You can sue anyone for anything, whether you'll win is another story. I don't have Crapday access but from the wording I presume all that happened is the case survived a motion to dismiss made before the parties had done discovery, which is not a hard thing to do if you have any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing (even made up evidence).
Here's a snippet from the article:
Quote:
State Supreme Court Justice F. Dana Winslow's Aug. 29 decision said questions must be answered about the information that Marshall's psychologist had or should have had about him while he was a patient at a facility in Brewster that was run by SLS Residential Inc.
Winslow's decision, which dismissed some other parties from the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs have alleged Marshall was out on a "pass" from the mental health/drug abuse treatment program when he murdered Fox.
It said the victim's family claims that letting Marshall leave the facility was "wholly inappropriate" because of his prior history of violence and his impulse and anger problems.
The victim's family also alleges that, while Marshall was admitted to the program voluntarily, the defendants breached their duty to the public by failing to seek his involuntary commitment.
Society as a whole is not ready to say "you have to live in a controlled setting for the benefit of society", the individuals rights are held in higher regard. Less than a hundred years ago a person with Consumption (TB) would be sent to a sanitarium until they were better to protect others from catching it, today they have the right not to take their meds. Parents refuse childhood shots and our kids are in danger of catching illnesses that were eradicated years ago.
If the professionals have followed the law/guidelines that they are bound to then no they should not be held legally accountable. Society has to change their position then alter the laws to reflect that only after that can you sue the person for not doing their job.
What the lawsuit is contending is that the professionals have NOT followed the law/guidelines that they are supposed to be bound to.
If the facility failed to follow the law/guidelines then why haven't charges from the state been filed? Too often people are not satisfied with the criminal proceedings or lack of and decide to sue. We have all heard the cases such at OJ where the family pursues a civil action after a criminal action. To me it's double jeopardy and shouldn't be supported.
But back to your question, shouldn't criminal negligence be establish first and tried? Or do we just go to the penalty phase..
If the facility failed to follow the law/guidelines then why haven't charges from the state been filed? Too often people are not satisfied with the criminal proceedings or lack of and decide to sue. We have all heard the cases such at OJ where the family pursues a civil action after a criminal action. To me it's double jeopardy and shouldn't be supported.
But back to your question, shouldn't criminal negligence be establish first and tried? Or do we just go to the penalty phase..
Please cite the source regarding the State not filing any charges or complaints in this case, or your knowledge that they will never be filing charges or complaints, or your knowledge that they are not currently in the process of deciding whether or not to file charges or complaints, or your knowledge that they are not currently preparing charges or complaints against the facility regarding this particular incident.
In a way it can be looked at by a casual observer as double jeopardy, but it is not. The fact is, double jeopardy applies to criminal cases only, not civil or administrative. But I know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean with the last paragraph. This is not the penalty phase and I did not suggest there should be no trial and just a penalty. This is the pre-trial phase. Also, a trial is the vehicle for determining criminal negligence (or not). If criminal negligence were to be established "first," there would be no need for a trial. It would be over before it started.
Here's another article, one from the New York Law Journal, with more details concerning the legal situation, explained better than I can:
[Nassau County Supreme Court Justice F. Dana] Winslow also said that court precedent has clearly established that health providers can owe a duty when outpatients harm third parties, citing Winters v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 223 AD2d 405 (1996), and Bell v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 90 AD2d 270 (1982).
"The defendants' professed lack of control or ability to do anything to address a resident like Evan who allegedly posed no danger to himself or others is flatly rejected in the context of the information and records in this case," Winslow wrote.
Please cite the source regarding the State not filing any charges or complaints in this case, or your knowledge that they will never be filing charges or complaints, or your knowledge that they are not currently in the process of deciding whether or not to file charges or complaints, or your knowledge that they are not currently preparing charges or complaints against the facility regarding this particular incident.
In a way it can be looked at by a casual observer as double jeopardy, but it is not. The fact is, double jeopardy applies to criminal cases only, not civil or administrative. But I know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean with the last paragraph. This is not the penalty phase and I did not suggest there should be no trial and just a penalty. This is the pre-trial phase. Also, a trial is the vehicle for determining criminal negligence (or not). If criminal negligence were to be established "first," there would be no need for a trial. It would be over before it started.
Here's another article, one from the New York Law Journal, with more details concerning the legal situation, explained better than I can:
I am making no assertion that there are not now or every going be charges brought. I was stating that the family is not allowing/waiting for this to occur, they are ready to sue the psychologist before any criminal action appears to have be processed.
As for the penalty phase my comment meant that there has not been any criminal charges filed so the family (rather than waiting) is initiating a law suit which I believe they would do even if "criminal negligence was established. Either way they are going to pursue monetary compensation in the 7 figure range, I am sure they are not initiating this to raise public awareness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
