The guy is without doubt absolute scum, but that wasn’t the charge. There was nowhere near sufficient evidence produced at Gabe Watson’s trial to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he murdered his wife. The judge had no choice but to direct an acquittal, without sending it to the jury.
To secure a murder conviction, the prosecution needs to prove that the accused did something illegal which caused the victim to die. The intention part is more complicated than simply that the intention of the action(s) was to cause the victim to die. For example, in Queensland, where the events occurred, it’s still murder under the Crimes Act if the accused was trying to hurt someone else, but accidentally killed the victim. Most jurisdictions have a similar murder definition.
In the United States, where Gabe Watson was eventually tried for murder, distinction is made between first degree murder, which requires premeditation, and second degree murder, where premeditation is absent.
However, in each of these jurisdictions’ definition of murder, the accused has to actually do some action which causes the death. There is nothing in the definition which says that inaction directly leading to death is murder, in the sense that an action was available which would almost certainly have prevented the death.
An example of the latter: Suppose a person sees a very heavy object falling and about to hit someone else. It is sufficiently heavy that any reasonable person would believe that the person would be killed if the object hits them. The first person could easily pull the second person out of the way, without risk to themselves, but chooses not to and allows the other person to be killed.
A pretty nasty thing to do (or not to do). Most people would believe it should be a serious crime of some sort but I can’t see how it fits any definition of murder. It comes down to a reasonable and practical definition of action versus inaction. Colloquially, I said “a pretty nasty thing to do” and many other people might use a similar phrase in this context. But the first person didn’t actually DO anything at all: just stood there and let it happen. That’s not the same as causing something to happen.
In the Queensland Criminal Code, there is Section 290, which says:
Duty to do certain acts
When a person undertakes to do any act the omission to do which is or may be dangerous to human life or health, it is the person's duty to do that act: and the person is held to have caused any consequences which result to the life or health of any person by reason of any omission to perform that duty.
It’s supported by Section 293, which says:
Definition of killing
Except as hereinafter set forth, any person who causes the death of another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person.
These are probably the closest the QLD criminal code comes to punishing inaction, but it still doesn’t cover the above example, because the first person never undertook to save or even look after the interests of the second.
There was no conclusive evidence presented that anything Gabe Watson did caused his wife to sink to the ocean floor and become unconscious, which was what directly caused her death. If the prosecution can’t even demonstrate direct cause and effect, intent is a moot point.
Obviously he has done something very seriously wrong and deserves some kind of punishment. Despite his lies, he left her there to die.
In diving, there is a buddy system. He was supposed to stay with her. He could have inflated her buoyancy vest to stop her sinking. Even if the valve was faulty, he could have held onto her and inflated his own. The story about swimming against the current because they were surprised at its strength doesn’t ring true. You’re supposed to drift with the current, then put up an inflatable flag (fill it with your expelled air) and the boat will come and get you. After 55 dives, he must have done this at least several times before, otherwise he wouldn’t have gotten his Advanced Open Water Certificate which let him go below 20m to the wreck. His story just doesn’t add up.
I suggest most juries would find beyond reasonable doubt that Gabe Watson could have saved his wife, but left her to die. But what crime is this?
Could it be argued Gabe Watson undertook to save her life if he could, by virtue of both his marriage vows and the fact he agreed to be her diving buddy and therefore under Sections 290 & 293 or something similar (if it exists in Alabama), he is held to have caused the death? Then you can start examining evidence for premeditation and intent.
It’s a bit of a stretch to get to murder though.
Had the prosecution brought more sustainable charges, which may have supported an argument along the above line, instead of going for the bullseye, maybe the judge would not have had to acquit. Some form of manslaughter? If the judge had been able to send it to a jury, I’ll bet Gabe Watson would be in prison now, where he probably belongs.
If we are going to review the law to make clearer and particularly to extend the criminalization of inaction leading to death, we need to think and argue very carefully though any proposed legislation prior to enacting it. Such a law has the potential for all manner of activism, both from the police and the judiciary.
People do not necessarily have a tacit duty of care toward one another. It may be argued that in a civil society, such duty does exist, however even if it did, it would not necessarily be universal.
In a situation where a person made an explicit undertaking for the care of another, without duress, then laws such as Sections 290 & 293 of the QLD Criminal Code above may work well. But attempting to extend them to an assumed, general duty of care would be the kind of social engineering and Trojan horse of activism so abused by the left and their egregious rule making enterprise.
Suppose you walk around the corner and see a man who has been stabbed. It is late at night and there is no-one else around. If you call an ambulance, he will probably live, but if you walk on, it is likely no-one else will come and he will almost certainly die. Should it be your legal duty to help him?
Most people would stop and help and many would say that it should be one’s legal duty. But now suppose the man had molested your kids or raped your wife in a home invasion and was acquitted on a technicality. Why should the law force you to help such a person? You didn’t stab them. Let them save themselves.
People would react in a variety of ways in this situation. Some would still call an ambulance. Some would offer an observation about karma and walk on. Some of those would feel guilt later, some would not.
My point is that this last situation is one of personal ethics and philosophy. People who try to criminalize failure to help in such a situation are attempting to impose their personal philosophy on others. There is no reason why they should be able to. There is no clear right or wrong here. It is not even a situation where the overwhelming majority of society supports a particular ethical position and so imposes it on the small minority, whose opposition is deemed antisocial or even pathological eg. crimes like murder, rape, theft.
Where do Gabe Watson’s actions fit on the spectrum?
Murder? I can’t see how.
No case to answer for any crime? Does his responsibility to his wife disappear because he decides he’s made a mistake in marrying her?
She went diving with him down to 30m in a strong current. He agreed to be her diving buddy. He also recently married her. He explicitly gave her reason to trust him to help her and then they both entered a potentially dangerous situation.
In my opinion, he had a duty of care. She had a reasonable expectation he would help her if she got into trouble. He basically tricked her and she died. He should have faced criminal charges of some description; probably some type of manslaughter.
This is one situation where America’s absurd litigiousness may result in some form of justice: her family can sue him into bankruptcy in a wrongful death claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment