Is Justice Blind?

[Mr. Lackawanna]

Is Justice Fair?

A young black woman who killed a man exiting a Bailey avenue bowling alley. Pleaded guilty to drunken driving and vehicular manslaughter who also had trace of marijuana in her system was given a sentence of 3 or 4 months jail time which will be served on weekends.

Compare this to the sentence that Christopher Tulumello who is white also killed a woman. Got when he pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter and drunken driving was given a sentence of 3-9 years in prison.

Her sentence should of been similar to the sentence Christopher got.

[run4it]

Is Justice Fair?

A young black woman who killed a man exiting a Bailey avenue bowling alley. Pleaded guilty to drunken driving and vehicular manslaughter who also had trace of marijuana in her system was given a sentence of 3 or 4 months jail time which will be served on weekends.

Compare this to the sentence that Christopher Tulumello who is white also killed a woman. Got when he pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter and drunken driving was given a sentence of 3-9 years in prison.

Her sentence should of been similar to the sentence Christopher got.

Really? Care to compare the specifics of the cases? Priors? Other evidence or exacerbating circumstances?

Really, I don't know the two different cases. Enlighten us (or I'm willing to bet, enlighten yourself first).

[CAugust]

I heard a little about this on Sandy Beach show yesterday. I never understood why or how one person gets the book thrown at them yet another gets off pretty lightly.

but can I ask, why it matters if she is black or any other color? I think it's more about the crime than the color.


I have heard that the family forgives her for what happened, although that was from the radio, I have not read anything about this.

[run4it]

Well, let's see.

Tulumelo (the white boy) was driving without a license, had a prior DWI (with other property damage charges), was charged not just with vehicular manslaughter, but also vehicular assault due to injuries to a 4 year old boy, and to top it off it was a hit and run.

Babagana, the black girl, had no priors, pleaded to criminally negiligent homicide (different charge), and didn't leave the scene. Both defendants were charged with DWI.

But yeah, these cases are totally the same, right?

Lacks, why are you (and others like you) so often trying to turn these things into racial issues? Did you really think that race was the differing factor here (and don't bother trying to say you weren't alluding to race)? I never figured YOU as a racist, but.....

[Linda_D]

Really? Care to compare the specifics of the cases? Priors? Other evidence or exacerbating circumstances?

Really, I don't know the two different cases. Enlighten us (or I'm willing to bet, enlighten yourself first).

Excellent points. I looked them up, and the two cases aren't the same at all. Of course, that's not the point when somebody simply wants to make the claim that "blacks are getting off easy while whites are getting screwed". Sorry, but not in this case -- or in most others, either.

Tulumello had a DUI within the last year, had had his license revoked, and had no insurance. He hit 2 pedestrians, a mother (fatality) and her son -- possibly while running a red light -- and then fled the scene. http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/513941.html

"The young black woman" -- her name is Ngoubdo Babagana BTW -- hit another car driving home after celebrating her 21st birthday. She had no priors for DWI or DUI. The victim may also have drinking. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...ry/836868.html

[Mr. Lackawanna]

Babagana, the black girl, had no priors, pleaded to criminally negiligent homicide (different charge), and didn't leave the scene. Both defendants were charged with DWI.

I looked on the web and the Buffalo News web site for more information about this case and was unable to find any more information.

Where did you find out the information you got about Babagana case?

[run4it]

I looked on the web and the Buffalo News web site for more information about this case and was unable to find any more information.

Where did you find out the information you got about Babagana case?

Linda gave you the link.

The better question being: why didn't you find the information yourself before posting this?

Really, I'd like an answer to that.

[Mr. Lackawanna]

Excellent points. I looked them up, and the two cases aren't the same at all. Of course, that's not the point when somebody simply wants to make the claim that "blacks are getting off easy while whites are getting screwed". Sorry, but not in this case -- or in most others, either.

Tulumello had a DUI within the last year, had had his license revoked, and had no insurance. He hit 2 pedestrians, a mother (fatality) and her son -- possibly while running a red light -- and then fled the scene. http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/513941.html

"The young black woman" -- her name is Ngoubdo Babagana BTW -- hit another car driving home after celebrating her 21st birthday. She had no priors for DWI or DUI. The victim may also have drinking. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...ry/836868.html

The judge said he was troubled by postcrash blood tests that showed Babagana had an blood-alcohol level of 0.17 percent, more than twice the minimum level for drunken driving, and traces of marijuana in her system.

[Mr. Lackawanna]

Linda gave you the link.

The better question being: why didn't you find the information yourself before posting this?

Really, I'd like an answer to that.

As I did not know Ngoubdo Babaganna name at the time I was unable to find the article about her on the Buffalo News website or by searching Google. Knowing her name made it easy to find the information.

I still think here sentence was to light due to the fact she took a life while she was drunk. She should of got some hard time.

PS Llinda thanks for the link

[run4it]

As I did not know Ngoubdo Babaganna name at the time I was unable to find the article about her on the Buffalo News website or by searching Google. Knowing her name made it easy to find the information.

I still think here sentence was to light due to the fact she took a life while she was drunk. She should of got some hard time.

PS Llinda thanks for the link

I found it without knowing her name. About 5 seconds on Google.

And even though you might not agree with the sentence (nor I, for that matter), you must admit that the two cases are hardly comparable.

Again, I'll ask why, if you didn't have any real information or research yourself, you would post anything like this?

[Riven37]

Our country is blind.

[nogods]

First, I agree with those who have shown that the two cases under discussion are entirely different, which probably accounts for the difference in the results.

But, these cases expose a problem with the entire way we approach drunken driving.

Let's say you and I drive our cars to a bar and both get plastered. We both leave at the same time and drive side by side down Main Street in Williamsville, passing through all the red lights as if they didn't exist. A pedestrian is crossing Main Street. Neither of us sees him. We proceed through the red light and he happens to be in front of your car when we do. He dies from the contact with your car.

Assuming all factors in our backgrounds are equal, you are likely to be charged with the more serious crime because of the result. Yet, are we equally as culpable for the crime?

If we both fired guns into a crowd with depraved indifference, but your bullet hits and kill someone, have I committed any lesser crime than you?

DWI should be prosecuted the same regardless of the results of the DWI. The real crime is the act of driving while intoxicated rather than the fortuitous results that occur from it.

[Linda_D]

First, I agree with those who have shown that the two cases under discussion are entirely different, which probably accounts for the difference in the results.

But, these cases expose a problem with the entire way we approach drunken driving.

Let's say you and I drive our cars to a bar and both get plastered. We both leave at the same time and drive side by side down Main Street in Williamsville, passing through all the red lights as if they didn't exist. A pedestrian is crossing Main Street. Neither of us sees him. We proceed through the red light and he happens to be in front of your car when we do. He dies from the contact with your car.

Assuming all factors in our backgrounds are equal, you are likely to be charged with the more serious crime because of the result. Yet, are we equally as culpable for the crime?

If we both fired guns into a crowd with depraved indifference, but your bullet hits and kill someone, have I committed any lesser crime than you?

DWI should be prosecuted the same regardless of the results of the DWI. The real crime is the act of driving while intoxicated rather than the fortuitous results that occur from it.

I disagree with your argument because people cannot be charged with crimes that don't take place. If Person A fired into a crowd and killed somebody, I believe that he/she would be charged with an additional crime: manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. Should Person B who also shot into the crowd but didn't hit anybody also be charged with criminally negligent homicide in addition to the depraved indifference charge? He/she can't be charged with homicide because he/she didn't kill anybody. That A's bullet killed somebody and B's did not is "unlucky" for A and "lucky" for B, but sometimes excrement happens. A person can't be charged with a crime that didn't happen, and B didn't kill anybody.

I think that Babagana got a very light sentence considering that she did cause a death while guilty of DWI, especially in view of the sentence that Tulumello got -- and that most drivers in DWI deaths get. That might very well reflect the judge's attitude towards DWI or Babagana's pre-sentencing report.

However, it is also well supported by all kinds of statistics that repeat DUI/DWI offenders are much more dangerous than single-timers. Tulumello fits the classic DWI killer profile -- the guy who will continue to drink and continue to drive while drunk no matter what sanctions the state imposes -- and the only way to protect the public from these people is to throw them in jail. I suspect that that was the judge's reasoning for handing him the sentence he/she did.

[fp2206]

run 4 it, great answers.

[nogods]

I disagree with your argument because people cannot be charged with crimes that don't take place. If Person A fired into a crowd and killed somebody, I believe that he/she would be charged with an additional crime: manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. Should Person B who also shot into the crowd but didn't hit anybody also be charged with criminally negligent homicide in addition to the depraved indifference charge? He/she can't be charged with homicide because he/she didn't kill anybody. That A's bullet killed somebody and B's did not is "unlucky" for A and "lucky" for B, but sometimes excrement happens. A person can't be charged with a crime that didn't happen, and B didn't kill anybody.

Logic would dictate that there be only one crime for firing into a crowd regardless of the result. Adding "homocide" on to the happenstance is not logical. Both A and B are equally culpable and should be subjected to equal levels of prosecution.

Are we punishing the criminal and the act committed, or are we punishing the result?

If the death penalty is deemed appropriate for murdering someone by placing a truck with explosive next to a building then logic dictates that it is equally applicable whether or not the bomb actuall goes off, or whether or not it kills anyone. The crime is the action taken coupled with the intent of the actor, not the results.

We never punish mere results. People die all the time because of the acts of others, but if those acts are not criminal, then they are mere civil matters. They become criminal matters because of the actions and intent of the actor, not because of the results.