Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[alohagal]

As one of the lawyers on the thread, I am hopefully going to make my position clear:
1. I am troubled by there being a duty (in terms of legal obligation, punishable by some criminal or civil sanction) upon one diver to rescue their buddy when their buddy gets into trouble. The High Court of Australia has on many occasions said that the very fact that it is difficult to articulate what the duty requires and the circumstances in which it is required itself is a powerful indicator there is in fact no duty.
2. As a result of 1, I would be troubled if a trial had gone ahead and if findings had been made such as those recounted in the sentencing remarks (ie failure to come to Tina's aid), that those findings would result in a verdict of guilt of manslaughter by reason of criminal negligence. MY own view is that those findings ought not result in such a verdict.
3. Having said that, as the man pleaded guilty to the alternate charge of manslaughter, and subject to the exercise of some discretion to reject the plea (not lightly exercised), then he has to be sentenced on the basis that he is guilty of that offence.
4. Nonetheless, the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence, and for the reasons articulated in 1, in my view the existing sentence is already a harsh one in the context where, as we know from our own experiences, split second decisions need to be made which may not always turn out to be the right ones in hindsight.
5. Despite what i said in 4, I do not think that the sentence was so harsh as to fall outside of the judge's sentencing discretion.
6. I am not so troubled by the judge's comments (other than the reference to there being a failure to act, which I address in 1, but which is a necessary element of the offence of which he pleaded guilty and therefore has to be assumed for the purposes of sentencing). In particular, like it or not, those factors that seem to trouble others such as sparing the community the expense of a trial etc, ARE relevant factors that AS A MATTER OF LAW MUST be taken into account.
7. In mt experience trials of any kind (criminal or civil) are traumatic experiences, which many frequently regret being involved in, and whether or not it is a good or bad experience is something that is rarely capable of prediction beforehand, which is why in my own view, based on my experience, little weight should be given to the desire of family members of victims to proceed to a trial.

All your points are well taken. As to the remarks by the judge. I am not sure if this only rubs us as Americans as incongruous and insincere. To remark for the record that he recognizes sparing the family a trial a magnanomous consideration by Gabe Watson...to me seems an illegitmate proposal.

Rightly or wrongly, we are taught that to have our day in court is our utmost right whether victim or accused. It has been drummed into our beings that enduring the course of trial in court is the ultimate due process for both sides of the issue and is sacred to upholding justice, no matter the end result. We have learned to live with "plea barganing" but, for most victims and/or families that is often not the best result, but understood to often be the quickest and easiest solution to resolve overburdened courts and still satisfying a sense of "retribution" in the end.
However, the judge, from my experience, usually has the presence of mind not to mention this as a reason for the agreement unless it is a true concern of the familly.

There are many people on this thread who have chimed in, about the family's vendeta against Gabe Watson and are adamant in feeling the family should not have any sway in this case...so in the same respect those chimers should now agree that the judges remarks about Gabe Watson sparing the family a trial ( as if doing them a favor), when that is far from their wishes, should neither want to condone the judges remark about sparing the family a trial, as a legitimate part of the sentencing record? Why should the judge make the statement at all if the familys thoughts, feelings, or desires have no bearing here. I would prefer that he leave the family out of this thing altogether, especially when it is completely contrary to reality.

That statement alone only helps to undermine the judges credibility to many "lay" persons in this emotional case.

 

[Cacia]

All this is a huge argument for always stating loudly on the boat, within earshot of everyone, that you are a solo diver. (and then dive "around" whomever you like) The entire buddy system is frought with danger for many, many reasons, including being subjected to being judged by any persons in the vicinity that have an opinion about any duties and responsibibilities, which may or may not make any sense at all.

Unless you are working for a fee, of course.

 

[Dan Ziegner]

From the first post of this thread:

In mid-2008, coroner David Glasgow found that it was likely Mr Watson killed his 26-year-old wife by holding her under water and turning off her air supply.

 

[alohagal]

All this is a huge argument for always stating loudly on the boat, within earshot of everyone, that you are a solo diver. (and then dive "around" whomever you like) The entire buddy system is frought with danger for many, many reasons, including being subjected to being judged by any persons in the vicinity that have an opinion about any duties and responsibibilities, which may or may not make any sense at all.

Unless you are working for a fee, of course.

Truer words never spoken. I just spent 4 weeks, as a single, alone, by myself, diver, on many boats with many others. Depending on the DM, sometimes a buddy was assigned to me and sometimes not. It was a total crapshoot. And even when I had an insta buddy...that relationship was so ill-defined it might as well have meant "see you at the dinner buffett for margaritas at the resort later this evening"

 

[Under-Exposed]

From the first post of this thread:

Quote:
In mid-2008, coroner David Glasgow found that it was likely Mr Watson killed his 26-year-old wife by holding her under water and turning off her air supply.



I'm sorry, but the Coroner made no such finding at all. In fact he is precluded from making any such finding. That is just media nonsense. I am not being critical of others for perpetuating it, but it is simply not the fact.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Alohagal, the simple fact is that as a matter of law the judge HAD to take that into account as a relevant consideration, and is therefore required as part of his sentencing remarks to demonstrate that he has taken it into account. May I also add that there is nothing more devastating to a family, hell-bent on seeing someone go to jail for the death of their loved one, discover that a panel of their peers do not agree with them that the loved one has been murdered. For better or for worse, sometimes the system, through long experience, knows what's best more often than not.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Truer words never spoken. I just spent 4 weeks, as a single, alone, by myself, diver, on many boats with many others. Depending on the DM, sometimes a buddy was assigned to me and sometimes not. It was a total crapshoot. And even when I had an insta buddy...that relationship was so ill-defined it might as well have meant "see you at the dinner buffett for margaritas at the resort later this evening"

And that is why the very nature of being guilty of criminally negligent homicide is so fraught, in my view.

 

[alohagal]

From the first post of this thread:

Quote:
In mid-2008, coroner David Glasgow found that it was likely Mr Watson killed his 26-year-old wife by holding her under water and turning off her air supply.



I'm sorry, but the Coroner made no such finding at all. In fact he is precluded from making any such finding. That is just media nonsense. I am not being critical of others for perpetuating it, but it is simply not the fact.

When you first pointed that out many, many posts ago on this thread...I went back, right then and there, to look and was shocked to find, indeed, the coroner never did make that statement. Real eye opener indeed.

 

[ItsBruce]

From the first post of this thread: "In mid-2008, coroner David Glasgow found that it was likely Mr Watson killed his 26-year-old wife by holding her under water and turning off her air supply."

Even if this were true, it is essentially meaningless. So what if it is likely. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And, as I've said so many times: "Where is there evidence he turned off her air?" And, I'll add how does the coroner then explain that her air was on when her body was found?

I'm sorry, but this bit is getting tiresome.

 

[Ayisha]

The general rule in most places that follow the English Common law, i.e. England, U.S., Canada, Australia, etc., is that you do not have a duty to come to the aid of another unless (1) you create the need for that aid, or (2) you are in what the law calls a "special relationship."

Bruce, There is another relevant aspect of emergency first response in Ontario that may apply to other areas as well. Once anyone BEGINS first aid, even those without a duty of care, they are required to continue until a more qualified person takes over. If they become extremely exhausted in their efforts and take a little break or the situation becomes dangerous for the responder, that will mitigate the requirement, as long as they don't "abandon" the patient, flee the scene or be unavailable for information. In Ontario, we are protected by the Good Samaritan Act as long as we act reasonably in accordance with our knowledge and circumstances. No one to date has been successfully sued in Canada for offering first aid assistance.