DONT MIND THIS AGAIN, it for discussion and debate
DONT MIND THIS, MY JOURNAL IS BORING ANYWAY
James Millar
Discussion and Debate
3rd Hour 01-28-05
On October 31 2003, Judith McClosky’s 17-year-old daughter hosted a party in McClosky’s basement, inviting two dozen kids. Mrs. McClosky neglectfully stayed upstairs watching a movie with her boyfriend, knowing that there was a “double kegger” taking place in her own house. A young man by the name of Christopher Mowad, showed up to the gathering, and, according to witnesses, drank a substantial quantity of alcohol. When the police arrived due to a complaint relating to the number of cars and people in the area. Mowad fled the house in hopes of not getting caught. He then proceeded to a near by field where he picked up three other passengers. Soon after leaving the field, Chris sideswiped another vehicle and lost control of his car, leading to his SUV turning over and killing two of the passengers in the back as well as Mowad. McClosky was charged with three accounts of involuntary manslaughter, and it is this charge that brings us to our current situation. After weighing the evidence provided by the affirmative and defensive position, it is obvious that, although tragic and devastating, Mrs. McClosky should not be held responsible for the deaths of these three premature adults.
In Pennsylvania law, it states that to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a person must cause the death of another by doing a lawful or unlawful act of reckless or grossly negligent manner. I do believe that McClosky was negligent, but not in the manor of his death. It a moral conscious, if a neutral party, or bystander does nothing to prevent an unlawful act, especially when they are very much able, they have done something that has ‘helped’ that act to be carried out. McClosky stayed upstairs during the party, and allowed whatever happened in her house to happen. This holds her easily responsible for Mowad’s state of drunkenness. But the law does not state that this neglectful causation can be taken beyond what it causes, or it would say “…must cause the death of another by doing a lawful or unlawful act, or doing something that causes the deceased to commit an act that kills themselves…” I believe McClosky is the only one that blame can be placed on for his drunken state, but it can be taken no further, meaning, she is not linked to Mowads death or to the two passengers.
The next argument made by opposing position is that due to Americans being so promoting and defensive to have such strong and strict government regulations over their personal properties, that anything illegal that is caused by a property owners negligence should be persecuted against. This is true, but only for her responsibility for the party, not for Mowad, due to Mowad’s absence from her party at the time of his death. When the police showed up, usually the same time the party ends, Mowad did not want his night to be finished, and on the free will of his own 19 year old actions, he fled the house and at that moment, was no longer McClosky’s responsibility. She cannot be negligent to something she is unaware of, and this is true in relation to McCloskys blindness to Mowad leaving her home. The moment that 19year old, legal adult made a decision on his own to leave the safety of McCloskys sheltering responsibility, he took any responsibility upon himself.
Now, since Mowad is driving to a field with no one to blame but himself, he is then the person held under Pennsylvania law which again states, “to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a person must cause the death of another by doing a lawful or unlawful act of reckless or grossly negligent manner.” Mowad picked up the two passengers, which was not illegal, but what was illegal was his reckless drunken state while driving, an unlawful act that did lead to the death of another, actually, two others. It is simply clear that McClosky cannot be held responsible for two passengers held over Mowads head after he rightfully took it upon himself to involve them in his unlawful drive. With the responsibility of these two bystanders lifted from her shoulders, it is only fair to pronounce McClosky innocent of these charges, and sent home with no punishment.
This whole grave situation is a very sensitive subject, and in no manor is the defensive position disrespecting the deceased students who were unfairly taken from us. All the defense is trying to do is prevent yet another robbing of a free will. Those three students did not deserve to die, just as McClosky does not deserve to be punished for acts that responsibility is held within its own deaths. McClosky is entirely responsible for the party that she neglectfully held in her house, which does hold her responsible for Mowads drunken state, but it cannot be take any further, supported by Pennsylvania law. Mowad left on his own will, which separates him from the protection of McCloskys responsibility, and leaved his illegally driving for his own sake. Mowad, a 19 year old, adult citizen, later picked up three more passengers, two doomed to be killed in the upcoming accident. This all is due to Mowads illegal act, and stated in Pennsylvania law, holds him responsible for the deaths of these two students. After thoroughly reviewing all this evidence, the true and morally correct decision was made clear to me, but I plead that those who review this same case will see the same truth that I have seen and not convict Mrs. McClosky, it is not fair to lose another innocent victim.
James Millar
Discussion and Debate
3rd Hour 01-28-05
On October 31 2003, Judith McClosky’s 17-year-old daughter hosted a party in McClosky’s basement, inviting two dozen kids. Mrs. McClosky neglectfully stayed upstairs watching a movie with her boyfriend, knowing that there was a “double kegger” taking place in her own house. A young man by the name of Christopher Mowad, showed up to the gathering, and, according to witnesses, drank a substantial quantity of alcohol. When the police arrived due to a complaint relating to the number of cars and people in the area. Mowad fled the house in hopes of not getting caught. He then proceeded to a near by field where he picked up three other passengers. Soon after leaving the field, Chris sideswiped another vehicle and lost control of his car, leading to his SUV turning over and killing two of the passengers in the back as well as Mowad. McClosky was charged with three accounts of involuntary manslaughter, and it is this charge that brings us to our current situation. After weighing the evidence provided by the affirmative and defensive position, it is obvious that, although tragic and devastating, Mrs. McClosky should not be held responsible for the deaths of these three premature adults.
In Pennsylvania law, it states that to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a person must cause the death of another by doing a lawful or unlawful act of reckless or grossly negligent manner. I do believe that McClosky was negligent, but not in the manor of his death. It a moral conscious, if a neutral party, or bystander does nothing to prevent an unlawful act, especially when they are very much able, they have done something that has ‘helped’ that act to be carried out. McClosky stayed upstairs during the party, and allowed whatever happened in her house to happen. This holds her easily responsible for Mowad’s state of drunkenness. But the law does not state that this neglectful causation can be taken beyond what it causes, or it would say “…must cause the death of another by doing a lawful or unlawful act, or doing something that causes the deceased to commit an act that kills themselves…” I believe McClosky is the only one that blame can be placed on for his drunken state, but it can be taken no further, meaning, she is not linked to Mowads death or to the two passengers.
The next argument made by opposing position is that due to Americans being so promoting and defensive to have such strong and strict government regulations over their personal properties, that anything illegal that is caused by a property owners negligence should be persecuted against. This is true, but only for her responsibility for the party, not for Mowad, due to Mowad’s absence from her party at the time of his death. When the police showed up, usually the same time the party ends, Mowad did not want his night to be finished, and on the free will of his own 19 year old actions, he fled the house and at that moment, was no longer McClosky’s responsibility. She cannot be negligent to something she is unaware of, and this is true in relation to McCloskys blindness to Mowad leaving her home. The moment that 19year old, legal adult made a decision on his own to leave the safety of McCloskys sheltering responsibility, he took any responsibility upon himself.
Now, since Mowad is driving to a field with no one to blame but himself, he is then the person held under Pennsylvania law which again states, “to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a person must cause the death of another by doing a lawful or unlawful act of reckless or grossly negligent manner.” Mowad picked up the two passengers, which was not illegal, but what was illegal was his reckless drunken state while driving, an unlawful act that did lead to the death of another, actually, two others. It is simply clear that McClosky cannot be held responsible for two passengers held over Mowads head after he rightfully took it upon himself to involve them in his unlawful drive. With the responsibility of these two bystanders lifted from her shoulders, it is only fair to pronounce McClosky innocent of these charges, and sent home with no punishment.
This whole grave situation is a very sensitive subject, and in no manor is the defensive position disrespecting the deceased students who were unfairly taken from us. All the defense is trying to do is prevent yet another robbing of a free will. Those three students did not deserve to die, just as McClosky does not deserve to be punished for acts that responsibility is held within its own deaths. McClosky is entirely responsible for the party that she neglectfully held in her house, which does hold her responsible for Mowads drunken state, but it cannot be take any further, supported by Pennsylvania law. Mowad left on his own will, which separates him from the protection of McCloskys responsibility, and leaved his illegally driving for his own sake. Mowad, a 19 year old, adult citizen, later picked up three more passengers, two doomed to be killed in the upcoming accident. This all is due to Mowads illegal act, and stated in Pennsylvania law, holds him responsible for the deaths of these two students. After thoroughly reviewing all this evidence, the true and morally correct decision was made clear to me, but I plead that those who review this same case will see the same truth that I have seen and not convict Mrs. McClosky, it is not fair to lose another innocent victim.