Experts say Alvarez death penalty arguments fell short

The jury foreman and two others speak to the media at a Los Angeles courthouse after reaching a sentence of life in prison for Juan Manuel Alvarez for the Metrolink derailment which killed 11 people in Glendale ...

[Norman Moore]

"In this case, the jury agreed that this guy is going to die - it's just going to be in prison and a few years down the road."

This is the case whether the sentence is life or death. No one has in recent history been executed in less than 20 plus years. In the past the death penalty has been nullified by court decisions so that people like Charles Manson are now service life sentences. In this case it is hard to really see that there was any actual intention kill others. In truth the accident was a tragic concurrence of events, the fact that the train which struck the car was a cab car in front with the locomotive in back, coupled with an oncoming train and a freight train on the siding. If all of that had not been present in the positions it was the results may well have been less dramatic.

In any event a person of the intellect of Mr. Alvarez could not possibly have reasoned the actual outcome. Most people for that matter would not have, even a lot of engineering professionals even. The truth is that envisioning such a disaster is easier after the fact when all of the dust has settled. We will never know if the planners of the Twin Towers attack actually knew that the construction of those buildings would make their attack so successful of if they were just "lucky" in a perverse way. There are so many mechanical factors involved that even computer modeling may not predict them all. The Minneapolis bridge collapse was finally determined, as I recall, to have resulted from some plates in joints which were too thin, coupled with corrosion.

[FedupinLA]

How many Mexicans were on the jury???

[Norman Moore]

FedupinLA wrote:

How many Mexicans were on the jury???

Doesn't matter, the law is the law. In order to justify a death sentence the prosecution has to be able to show, without doubt, that there was an intent to harm the others. As a person who hates illegal immigration and also but for the luck of the draw would have been on that train and in the front, I feel I can still think rationally on this one issue. They could not prove intent and if they, the jury, had ruled for the death sentence it would have been an instant automatic appeal, based on legal principles.

[Dave- Chatsworth]

What was the problem here??? The guy killed and maimed almost 200 people!!! The jury blew dog on this one!

[rpj22]

I don't have much problem with life without parole for this guy, but thank God for the felony murder rule. From reading the jury comments in this and other articles, it looks like those wimps would have let this guy go with a slap on the wrist if it weren't for that.

[Norman Moore]

Dave- Chatsworth wrote:

What was the problem here??? The guy killed and maimed almost 200 people!!! The jury blew dog on this one!

You are all missing the point. Emotionally we all wanted him to fry, but legally the jury did not screw the pooch", they did exactly what they should have done, given the proof presented. To have gotten the death penalty he had to have had the clear and demonstrable intention of killing one or more people, other than himself.

Now if we could dispense the death penalty for stupid sensless acts then he fits the bill, but so does most of the US Congress and our current President. The main problem I have with his life sentence is that given what has been reported this scum bag will not feel any regret for what he did and thus not suffer the mental torment he should as he spends his life in prison. In truth given what we know of him he will only feel victimized by society. I honestly do not personally feel that he deserves any mercy nor has he a right to the privilege to live but that isn't my or your decision, regrettably though that may be.

[Dave- Chatsworth]

Norman Moore wrote:

<quoted text>
You are all missing the point. Emotionally we all wanted him to fry, but legally the jury did not screw the pooch", they did exactly what they should have done, given the proof presented. To have gotten the death penalty he had to have had the clear and demonstrable intention of killing one or more people, other than himself.
Now if we could dispense the death penalty for stupid sensless acts then he fits the bill, but so does most of the US Congress and our current President. The main problem I have with his life sentence is that given what has been reported this scum bag will not feel any regret for what he did and thus not suffer the mental torment he should as he spends his life in prison. In truth given what we know of him he will only feel victimized by society. I honestly do not personally feel that he deserves any mercy nor has he a right to the privilege to live but that isn't my or your decision, regrettably though that may be.

OK, I don't get it. "Clear and demonstrable proof"??? What did this killer think was going to happen? "Gee, I'll just park my jeep on the tracks and the jeep will be the only thing damaged?? Give me a break! I don't care how screwed up this guy is or was at the time. He had to know the collision would cause death and destruction.

[the dude]

tony castro is just full of fluff. is he alvarez' boyfriend or something? oh and daily news just lost a subscriber with the 2 tony articles of sympathy for a cold blooded murderer.

[Norman Moore]

Dave- Chatsworth wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, I don't get it. "Clear and demonstrable proof"??? What did this killer think was going to happen? "Gee, I'll just park my jeep on the tracks and the jeep will be the only thing damaged?? Give me a break! I don't care how screwed up this guy is or was at the time. He had to know the collision would cause death and destruction.

I'm sorry but there is no way as I stated in my earlier posting that you can say that a person with his intellect could have foreseen the actual outcome that was. The average person, probably you and me would think that car on the tracks, locomotive, smash, and that is that. What was not figured was a train with the cab car in front being pushed by a locomotive in the rear. Also there was the oncoming train with the engine in front and a freight parked on the siding which is often the case in that area. Then Alvarez's car was an SUV heavier than a regular car which he had pushed onto the tracks, beyond the actual crossing.

I am not excusing him for what he did, but he was responsible for the start of a terrible chain reaction. If he had not decided to do this then none of it would have happened and the people who died would not have. However to justify a death sentence the prosecution needed to show that he intended to kill others and that they did not do. That like it or not is our legal system. He was stupid, uncaring irresponsible and a lot of other things so he is not someone we should have any sympathy for.

The civil trials to come will have to prove that the practice of cab forward passenger train operation was at fault. The plaintiffs will make that argument and the insurance carriers and Metrolink will charge that Mr. Alvarez was in fact to blame. But remember this is a civil trial and the burden of proof is less onerous.

As for death and destruction he was too cowardly to stay for his own and I doubt that any concern for others went through what passes for his mind. To that extent he is the lowest form of human but that alone is not enough for the law to kill him. Maybe the best would have been an unfortunate "accident" when he was taken into custody, but that wouldn't pay back the victim's families for their loss, nor in reality will the civil trials.

In the end I'm not against your opinion, actually I share it emotionally, but I'm only being the devil's advocate for the legal system. Ask any attorney and they should tell you the same.

[Mufon]

Norman,

Interesting and well-thought postings, as usual.

[Kent Scheidegger]

The comparison to the Jeffery Daumer case is just astonishing. Is the "expert" unaware that Wisconsin has no death penalty?

[Bureaucratic Mess]

I agree with the statements made by the three male jurors, including the statement about having to abide with the felony murder rule in the face of contradictory evidence. This jury made the right choice.

There was a lot of "lynch" mentality associated with this case because of the families and the numbers harmed. I also think that there was some hope by government agencies that their liability associated with 1) the train locomotive pushing the passengers from the rear, exposing them to this kind of danger, 2) allowing a car to access the tracks, and 3) not responding sooner to a burning car on the tracks, would be overshadowed by the anger toward the defendant.

[Dudldey Sharp]

Professor Radelet, Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty.

[Chief Justice Dredd]

He'll just off himself in prison anyway. Case closed.