Janklow pleads innocent to manslaughter in accident that killed motorcyclist

Associated Press ^ | 09-26-03

[Brian S]

Four days after saying he "couldn't be sorrier" for a traffic collision that killed a motorcyclist, Rep. Bill Janklow pleaded innocent Friday to manslaughter.

The Republican former governor also pleaded innocent on three misdemeanor charges in the Aug. 16 wreck. Defendants in felony cases rarely enter guilty pleas during arraignments.

[Cboldt]

... still suffers from memory loss and confusion...

But Janklow said he had no plans to resign because he's still able to carry out his duties.

Must be a politician.

[nickcarraway]

Innocent on what grounds?

[martin_fierro]

REMEMBER RANDY SCOTT!	FReeper Motorcycle Hooligan
FR motorcycle-related posts
Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list

[sboyd]

Janklow is not capable of holding this office mentally or in the next election. He should resign and allow the governor to appoint someone. That man is dead and regardless of what the court says, Janklow is responsible. Our party is better than this and Janklow should do the honorable thing and resign.

[JoeSixPack1]

I have, at this point of the episode of Janklow vs. "the law's for everybody else" case, resigned myself to accept any and all BS surrounding it.

The fact stands that Janklow ran a stop sign. He admits that.
A biker is dead because he ran that stop sign. He beligerently admits that.
He's an ex-gov of the state and a current office holder in DC and has friends that will give him leniency. He doesn't admit that at all, but we can surmize.

The presstitutes are clueless and will report the legal ramifications as they become apparaent and will toss in a few hometown sob stories of the friends and family of R. Scott each time this story is mentioned to add civility, impact and humanity which satisfies editors.


What I accept is the absolute horror Janklow must be or will be feeling should he be imprisoned as "a politician that killed a biker".

Any jail time given Janklow would most likely have to be spent in solitary to protect him from the general inmate population.

That's the real world Mr. Janklow, you are extremely close to finally entering it. Chose your defense carefully.

[Nick Thimmesch]

Perhaps this famed drug warrior will require the use medical marijuana for them headaches. Janklow -- once on Bush's possible Drug Czar list -- was so "anti-drug" that he fought efforts by farmers to grow industrial hemp. This bloated career "politician" ran South Dakota like a small town sheriff and thought he was above the law, including speeding laws, and now it appears he was right: he is above the law. Give this man the same hard time he sought for citizens convicted of possessing an herb, marijuana:

South Dakota:
Mandatory incarceration for possession:
2 oz or less misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
2 to 8 oz felony 2 years $2,000
8 oz to 1 lb felony 5 years $5,000
1 to 10 lbs felony 10 years $10,000
More than 10 lbs felony 15 years $15,000
(Source: NORML.ORG)

[GOPcapitalist]

My thoughts on this whole episode:

Should Janklow have his license revoked, be slapped with a heavy fine, and have to face any civil liabilities that the biker's family brings against him? Absolutely. That would be perfectly just and reasonable.

Should he be locked up for a decade like a criminal for being at fault in a car accident where the other person happened to die? Probably not. At terrible as it is that the other man died, it cannot reasonably be said that Janklow engaged in any criminal intent to do him harm or that their collision was anything other than an automobile accident not unlike ones that tragically happen all around the country on a daily basis. He was at fault and is wholly liable for civil negligence as well as any and all driving offenses involved. But sending him to prison is extreme and unjustified for an incident that lacked any criminal intent.

Should he resign his seat? It depends. It depends on how he continues to behave himself during the court proceedings. If he is compliant with the more reasonable penalties (things like admitting that he is too old or whatever to be driving and giving up his license) and compassionate in his acceptence of civil liabilities to the victim (i.e. he willingly settles with them on a fair ammount and doesn't need to be dragged into court kicking and screaming before he simply pays up) then no. He doesn't deserve to lose his seat. If he does anything less though it would indicate a serious lapse in character that would merit his resignation.

[river rat]

If reports about Janklow's history of speeding, and accidents are true....

His speeding, running a stop sign and killing a man - was not an accident..
It was the predictable outcome of reckless behavior.

This man is NOT above the law..
He should be tried for manslaughter in the very least.
If found guilty, do time.

In the meantime - a replacement should be named - since he obviously will be "unavailable" physically or mentally to "do the people's work"...

Semper Fi

[kenth]

He was breaking the law by speeding, and he broke the law by running the stop sign thus killing the motorcyclist. His willful breaking of the law ended up with another person dead. Sounds criminal to me.

This wasn't a mere accident.

[GOPcapitalist]

He was breaking the law by speeding, and he broke the law by running the stop sign thus killing the motorcyclist. His willful breaking of the law ended up with another person dead. Sounds criminal to me.

His speeding et al were willful. His collision was not. Therein lies the distinction. As I said, he deserves the full penalty imposed for the crimes of speeding et al as they were willful acts. But manslaughter was not and lacks the criminal intent to make him deserving of its harsh felony penalties.

This wasn't a mere accident.

It was a bad accident - one that resulted tragically in the loss of life and one for which the person who caused it should be civilly liable and penalized insofar as his bad driving is concerned. But it was still an accident and was not unlike any number of similar accidents that happen on a daily basis around the country. It is a terrible and horrific tragedy but sometimes people make mistakes when driving. Sometimes they miss lights or stop signs. Sometimes they make a wrong turn. Sometimes they lose control of a vehicle. Sometimes they don't see another vehicle in their path. These people are without doubt dangers to others on the road and should be penalized accordingly with license revocation and any applicable driving statutes. But to send somebody off to prison for a decade on felony charges for an unintended automobile accident is indeed extreme.

[trussell]

So you propose he receives a slap on the wrist for causing the death of an innocent human being?

[BikerNYC]

If a jury finds his conduct of speeding and going through a red light or whatever the facts might happen to be to be reckless and that he ignored an obvious risk that someone could be seriously injured as a result of his conduct, he is guilty of manslaughter and should go to jail.

[GOPcapitalist]

So you propose he receives a slap on the wrist for causing the death of an innocent human being?

Not at all. I propose he be held civilly liable to the tune of several thousand dollars, if not a million. I propose that his license be revoked and the penalties for all the traffic violations be imposed on him. And I propose that he be held guilty for some lesser offense of criminal negligence. It would be extreme though to lock him away on a decade of felony charges for an accidental death, just as it would be extreme to lock up every person who was ever involved in a car wreck that resulted in the death of the person he or she hit. Criminal intent is the founding basis of our criminal justice system. For that reason alone we should not exceed its realm in a zeal for handing out harsh punishments.

[JoeSixPack1]

This car accident where the other person happened to die was the culmination of a lifetime driving record that would have had any normal citizen walking to work years ago.

He's been warned, fined, suspended, and ordered to driving schools.

But I guess the only person available to give an honest chance to survive following a car accident where the other person happened to die is the guy who lived.

Your previously posted explanation may be PC and fair for a driver who made a simple mistake. Janklow made it his business to ignore DOT law and Randolph Scott is dead because of it. If he wasn't an ex Gov, an incumbant Cong/critter and a statesman with influence nationwide, he'd already be in jail.

I lost a friend just a few weeks before this in a car accident where the other person happened to die while riding his motorcycle. The guy that killed my friend has been in jail ever since.

[Melas]

ummm, there is no criminal intent in manslaughter, that's the point of having manslaughter on the books.

[GOPcapitalist]

If a jury finds his conduct of speeding and going through a red light or whatever the facts might happen to be to be reckless and that he ignored an obvious risk that someone could be seriously injured as a result of his conduct, he is guilty of manslaughter and should go to jail.

If our jury system was a healthy one I would agree with you. Unfortunately it is not. The system as it is practiced today is wholly distorted by judicial regulatory intervention and is susceptable to undue emotional sway by courtroom antics (i.e. lawyers). For those reasons it is no longer a healthy and certain arbiter of justice. It is right more often than it is wrong, but when it is wrong that error can be significant and far reaching (witness the failure of a jury to achieve justice in O.J. Simpson for a classic example).

[BikerNYC]

I trust 12 ordinary people in that jury box more than I trust some "professional" jurors. A jury of ordinary people is a good bullwork against the state wanting to incarcerate anyone it wants to.

[JoeSixPack1]

Did you read the first reprot on the accident?

Did you read where the most exciting factor the state police found minutes after arriving on the scene was that Mr. Scott was not wearing a helmet!! OMG!!

Did you read where the same State Officer said he didn't think Janklow was driving but needed further investigative proceedure to determine it? And took 3 days to announce it was Janklow at the wheel?

Did you read where Janklow said he avoided another vehicle on the second police report but after examing the cars blackbox that was an unfounded explanation?

Did you know he used this defense previously in traffic court?

So I can go on with a bit more but I hope to have made the point. Janklow should have been in the back seat. He wasn't because of priviledges granted to him.

If they throw the key away on him, I'll feel safer on the road, by one.

[GOPcapitalist]

ummm, there is no criminal intent in manslaughter, that's the point of having manslaughter on the books.

Actually there is intent entailed in manslaughter by degree. Manslaughter, by definition, lacks substantial premeditation or malice but it is not necessarily an act void of criminal intent (at least in the traditional common law meanings, which is the reading to which I am referring).

Blackstone distinguished between the act of manslaughter per se and a lesser degree of involuntary manslaughter. He defines it as a "species of manslaughter in consequence of an unlawful" act but one that is different from the significantly higher offense of voluntary manslaughter, which could include killing another with provocation - an act with intent to kill.