Light sentences handed down in "The Station" nightclub pleabargain

[SirFozzie]

You have to be shittin me. One guy gets four years in a mininum security prison and the other gets a suspended sentence?


By Eric Tucker, Associated Press Writer | September 20, 2006

PROVIDENCE, R.I. --The owners of a nightclub where a 2003 fire killed 100 people will plead no contest to involuntary manslaughter charges.

Kathleen Hagerty, a lawyer for Jeffrey and Michael Derderian, confirmed Wednesday they will plead no contest after WJAR-TV reported on a letter Attorney General Patrick Lynch wrote to families of those killed to announce the plea deal.

The plea comes as jury selection was under way for Michael Derderian's criminal trial.

Hagerty said Michael Derderian will serve four years in a minimum security prison. Jeffrey Derderian will receive a suspended sentence.

Lynch's spokesman Mike Healey did not immediately return phone messages left seeking comment. WJAR reported that Lynch was calling family members Wednesday to inform them of the pleas.

The fire on Feb. 20, 2003, at The Station nightclub in West Warwick began when pyrotechnics used by the heavy metal band Great White ignited flammable soundproofing foam placed around the stage.

In May, former Great White tour manager Daniel Biechele was sentenced to four years in prison for igniting the pyrotechnics without the required permit. He pleaded guilty in February to 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Relatives of those killed were furious at the news.

"I can't believe the attorney general is just going to stand by and say OK to this," said Diane Mattera, whose 29-year-old, Tammy Mattera-Housa, died in the fire. "I mean, we got shafted with Biechele and now the same stuff basically is being pulled."

Robert Bruyere, whose stepdaughter, Bonnie Hamelin, died in the fire, said he and his wife, Claire, learned about the plea on the news and had not yet heard from the attorney general.

"He better hope I don't see him person, because I'll be in jail," he said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If anything, I thought the manager's four year sentence was too long and would probably think the four years for one of the owner's is also too long (except that the precedent had been set).

[molson]

I know the emotional impact this had in New England (I lived there at the time), but four years does seem pretty steep. The guy ran a crappy firetrap bar. Just like thousands of other people who we won't bother with until someone gets killed. Most child molesters get less than this.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by molson

I know the emotional impact this had in New England (I lived there at the time), but four years does seem pretty steep. The guy ran a crappy firetrap bar. Just like thousands of other people who we won't bother with until someone gets killed. Most child molesters get less than this.

Most Child Molestors don't end 100 lives.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Most Child Molestors don't end 100 lives.

He wasn't charged with first degree murder. There's more to justice than cause and effect. Involuntary Manslaughter is running over someone when you're on your cell phone. It's stupid, reckless, and needs to be punished, but it's not intentional, and thus, a lesser crime than child molestion or murder.

[KevinNU7]

My problem is that the building was up to code, being grandfathered in on alot of code. IMO the owners should have minimal liability because of that one aspect. I'm sure the DA was concerned that this would be the main defense and make the state look bad

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yeah, there's a reason the AG did these plea bargains. If he thought he could get them for 10-20 years as you seem to want, he wouldn't have pled them for 4 minimum security and suspended sentence. We haven't heard any of the defenses, etc. Kevin raises one of them.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If anything, I thought the manager's four year sentence was too long and would probably think the four years for one of the owner's is also too long (except that the precedent had been set).

Would someone else who has paid more attention please outline a treatise comparing Jon's advocacy of the death penalty for copyright infringement vs. less than four years of prison for manslaughter? That might be an interesting diversion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Would someone else who has paid more attention please outline a treatise comparing Jon's advocacy of the death penalty for copyright infringement vs. less than four years of prison for manslaughter? That might be an interesting diversion.

Might be interesting but probably wouldn't take long.

Intentional & willful violation of law versus an accidental & unintentional outcome, that pretty much explains the difference in opinions in a nutshell.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Might be interesting but probably wouldn't take long.

Intentional & willful violation of law versus an accidental & unintentional outcome, that pretty much explains the difference in opinions in a nutshell.

Interesting. Your position is much clearer now.

Does this 'accidental vs. intentional breaking of the law' distinction come into play with political malfeasance as well, or is there a different standard that you apply?

[Ksyrup]

The real crime here is that the media still insists on calling Great White a "heavy metal band."

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The real crime here is that the media still insists on calling Great White a "heavy metal band."

My my my....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Does this 'accidental vs. intentional breaking of the law' distinction come into play with political malfeasance as well, or is there a different standard that you apply?

Hard to answer, since I'm not clear on what sort of malfeasance we're talking about.

I mean, are we talking about somebody signing a campaign finance form in the wrong place inadvertantly or are we talking about massive intentional corruption or about something altogether different (usually I think of "malfeasance" in terms of things that can get you legally recalled; probably influenced by the fact that "malfeasance" is very narrowly defined in Georgia & is just about the only thing that subjects a politician here to a recall legally).

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by stevew

My my my....

Well, you know what they say... once bitten, twice shy... or something.


Edit: Yeah, I took the bait...

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hard to answer, since I'm not clear on what sort of malfeasance we're talking about.

Intentionally breaking the law, however large or small its scope. I'd consider copyright infringement, especially of products that have little or no monetary value, as small. I'd consider violating the Constitition large.

I mean, are we talking about somebody signing a campaign finance form in the wrong place inadvertantly or are we talking about massive intentional corruption or about something altogether different (usually I think of "malfeasance" in terms of things that can get you legally recalled; probably influenced by the fact that "malfeasance" is very narrowly defined in Georgia & is just about the only thing that subjects a politician here to a recall legally).

For example, if a President were to intentionally violate the law by authorizing the denial of citizens of their Constitutional rights, or other acts that the Supreme Court would deem unconstitutional. Knowingly trying to subvert the law of the land to his or her own ends. Or commiting perjury, as in President Clinton's case. The intentionality argument would seem to argue that such violations are worthy of the death penalty, and if so one would be hard pressed to find a recent President who wouldn't be subject to such under that framework.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Would someone else who has paid more attention please outline a treatise comparing Jon's advocacy of the death penalty for copyright infringement vs. less than four years of prison for manslaughter? That might be an interesting diversion.

The Giant Peach has already commented, but my guess would have been that he assumes the victims of the fire were in fact copyright violators, therefore the owner of the club should have been given a fucking medal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Intentionally breaking the law, however large or small its scope. I'd consider copyright infringement, especially of products that have little or no monetary value, as small. I'd consider violating the Constitition large.

I dare say you are probably more of a Constitutionalist (for lack of a better / more accurate term) than I am. Not arguing that part of your point in this case particularly, more like making a general observation. The older I get, the more I see the Constitution as being basically "whatever the SCOTUS says it is". Which is probably just as well, since I believe the Constitution is so badly in need of updating to a modern context that it's inefficient at best.

Now, very general commentary aside, to move to your more particular point.

For example, if a President were to intentionally violate the law by authorizing the denial of citizens of their Constitutional rights, or other acts that the Supreme Court would deem unconstitutional.

The question that seems to be raised here is whether there is advance knowledge of what SCOTUS would rule (see my point about "whatever it says"). And I'm not sure that any such certainty exists, for any person, adminstration, or entity, at least not in the usually gray areas you seem to be talking about.

FWIW, that p.o.v. probably does connect it's way back to my earlier, more general comment about my overall views of the Constitution & it's status.
By this point in history, it's been subject to other-than-strict interpretation so many times that there's very little that I can't imagine at least having the potential to get approval from SCOTUS. What does/doesn't pass muster with them depends on who is sitting at the time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The Giant Peach has already commented, but my guess would have been that he assumes the victims of the fire were in fact copyright violators, therefore the owner of the club should have been given a fucking medal.

Nice try, but it falls too short of reality to be a top flight one-off comment because of a simple detail you overlooked: under different geography & circumstances, I could very easily have found myself in the same sort of club to see that very show.

Knowing that I could/would have attended, the assumption wouldn't have been made.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I dare say you are probably more of a Constitutionalist (for lack of a better / more accurate term) than I am. Not arguing that part of your point in this case particularly, more like making a general observation. The older I get, the more I see the Constitution as being basically "whatever the SCOTUS says it is". Which is probably just as well, since I believe the Constitution is so badly in need of updating to a modern context that it's inefficient at best.

Now, very general commentary aside, to move to your more particular point.

The question that seems to be raised here is whether there is advance knowledge of what SCOTUS would rule (see my point about "whatever it says"). And I'm not sure that any such certainty exists, for any person, adminstration, or entity, at least not in the usually gray areas you seem to be talking about.

FWIW, that p.o.v. probably does connect it's way back to my earlier, more general comment about my overall views of the Constitution & it's status.
By this point in history, it's been subject to other-than-strict interpretation so many times that there's very little that I can't imagine at least having the potential to get approval from SCOTUS. What does/doesn't pass muster with them depends on who is sitting at the time.

Doesn't every law fall into that gray area, though? Take copyright infringement. It only is enforced due to the courts ruling that it should be. The gray areas that pop up (such as internet issues, which the courts are still trying to hash out) serve to remind us that relatively little on the books draws lines related to moral justice, which would seem to be the justification for capital punishment, and rather relate to issues of commerce, among others.

There is little question, for example, among serious observers that the current President has intentionally violated the law as it stands in at least one and arguably several cases. In at least one case that comes to mind (detainees) it wasn't a matter of the Supreme Court legislating -- they pointed out what the law was, and that it was being broken (though indicating that if Congress WERE to re-legislate, that would be a different matter). The question I'll ask you is this: according to the justice system you espouse, should the President's intentional authorization of lawbreaking make him subject to the same penalty you argue should be applied to all intentional lawbreakers?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The question I'll ask you is this: according to the justice system you espouse, should the President's intentional authorization of lawbreaking make him subject to the same penalty you argue should be applied to all intentional lawbreakers?

1) I don't think (and you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong) that I've ever espoused capital punishment for "all intentional lawbreakers". It's been advocated for several offenses, but I don't think I've ever made that blanket statement you're attributing. Off-hand, I'd say my most notable are drug offenders, treason/sedition & (apparently) copyright violators, although frankly the latter isn't one that has as great an impression on me as it seems to have made on you.

2) In this specific instance(s) you're citing, I'd say no, based on the premise of "the greater good" versus "the specific harm".

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

1) I don't think (and you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong) that I've ever espoused capital punishment for "all intentional lawbreakers". It's been advocated for several offenses, but I don't think I've ever made that blanket statement you're attributing. Off-hand, I'd say my most notable are drug offenders, treason/sedition & (apparently) copyright violators, although frankly the latter isn't one that has as great an impression on me as it seems to have made on you.

2) In this specific instance(s) you're citing, I'd say no, based on the premise of "the greater good" versus "the specific harm".

Fair enough. Was interested enough to want to pin down some specifics about your philosophy...thanks for the responses.