\nSenator Frosh has been quoted in the paper saying some things that do not ring true about HB 363 and that needs to be addressed. Some quotes of Frosh in the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post, what the bill actually says and my comments:<\/p>\n
\nFrosh:<\/b> Already approved by the
\nHouse, a bill that would change
\nthe law now is in the Senate
\nJudicial Proceedings Committee,
\nwhich Frosh chairs. He says the
\nrush of Senate business has kept
\nhim from reading it. He plans to
\nhold a hearing next week but isn\u2019t
\nsure whether he will ask the committee to vote on it.
\n\u201cIt depends on what the bill
\nsays,\u201d Frosh said, \u201cand whether it
\ncan be fixed and whether they can
\nthread the needle.<\/p>\n
B’ Spokes:<\/b> So to be fair he has not read the bill yet so this may be a bit of an over reaction but still his concerns necessitate a response. <\/p>\n
\nFrosh:<\/b> Proponents jubilation at House passage of the bill has been tempered by comments from Sen. Brian E. Frosh, chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, expressing concerns that the law could be used to jail people over unintentional driving errors.<\/p>\n
HB 363:<\/b> IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION FOR A PERSON TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF ANOTHER AS THE RESULT OF THE PERSON\u2019S DRIVING, OPERATING, OR CONTROLLING A VEHICLE OR VESSEL IN A NEGLIGENT MANNER<\/p>\n
B’ Spokes:<\/b> Simple negligence still exists and is purposefully excluded in this bill to address that concern. This bill fills the GAP between simple negligence and recklessness. <\/p>\n
\nFrosh:<\/b> Sen. Brian E. Frosh, chairman of that panel, expressed misgivings about creating an offense carrying a jail term for conduct that was negligent but not intentional or reckless.<\/p>\n
HB 363:<\/b> THE PERSON SHOULD BE AWARE, BUT FAILS TO PERCEIVE, THAT THE PERSON\u2019S CONDUCT CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK THAT SUCH A RESULT WILL OCCUR; AND THE FAILURE TO PERCEIVE CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE THAT WOULD BE EXERCISED BY A REASONABLE PERSON.<\/p>\n
B’ Spokes:<\/b> Really, someone that drives without the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable person and KILLS someone should no way, no how, in all circumstances never face jail time? <\/p>\n
Post:<\/b> \u201cFor someone to demonstrate
\n\u2018substantial negligence\u2019 is higher
\nthan ordinary negligence but
\nlower than gross negligence,\u201d
\nSimmons said. \u201cAt one point I
\nestimated that there were 30 to
\n40 [vehicular] homicides that
\nprosecutors wanted to prosecute
\nbut couldn\u2019t under today\u2019s high
\nstandard.<\/p>\n
\nFrosh:<\/b> But Frosh said he’s concerned about imposing harsh penalties on drivers who may have killed others as a result of “split-second negligence.” “Our jails are bursting right now,” he said. “To me the jails are a place for people who have done something that is intentional.”<\/p>\n
HB 363:<\/b> A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION IS SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 3 YEARS OR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING $5,000 OR BOTH.<\/p>\n
B’ Spokes:<\/b> Split-second negligence??? Cute misdirection but what is he saying? It’s perfectly fine to take a split second to send a text message thus missing a red light and then killing people as a consequence? Frosh seems to keep referring to simple negligence and the penalty for that is still $500 max.<\/p>\n
Post:<\/b> To Frosh, that new standard
\ncould be applied to the mother
\nwho fatally hits a bicyclist when
\nshe takes a glance at a crying child
\nin the back seat of her minivan<\/p>\n
B’ Spokes:<\/b> First I would like to point out that Frosh has NOT read the bill so his assertion that a glance back is more then simple negligence may not be valid. Next, as a father of five we have ALWAYS pulled off the roadway to deal with the kids. I take exception to the assertion that a mother HAS to be distracted for a split second to deal with kids. As always we trust the courts and juries to do the right thing, if we throw that out the window there is no point to making laws.<\/p>\n
Overview <\/b>
\n<\/big><\/p>\n