110 YEARS FOR VEHICULAR HOMICIDE: AFFLUENZA DEFENSE NOT FOR HIS KIND?

ICHEOKU says what would ordinarily pass for vehicular manslaughter, with reasonable prison sentence, turned out to be overly punished and you wonder why? He is being punished for not thinking clearly in the heat of the moment when he lost the control of his timber-laden truck due to brakes failure; and did not have the presence of mind to take an immediate exit which would have assumedly prevented the accident. The ill-fated truck then rammed into other vehicles causing a fire which incinerated four people. The truck driver, Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos, was sentenced to 110 years in prison for the accident.

A very hard working 23 year old young man who was making a living driving a truck and hauling goods and commodities to help support his family. But he is of the wrong skin type, a Hispanic and not white; and also poor, and therefore not privileged of the Aflluenza defense. Recall that a rich underage white Texas boy, Ethan Couch, who was not even supposed to be drinking at his age, was driving drunk on his birthday when he rammed his brand new truck, a birthday gift from his wealthy parents, into some people trying to change their flat tire by the roadside, killing four of them. He was completely inebriated, high on drugs and drunk on alcoholic beverages at the time he was operating the vehicle (driving while intoxicated) killed four people and yet walked. 

Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was not driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol as none was found in his blood. He was not over-speeding nor otherwise driving too dangerously and/or recklessly when the accident happened. It was an accident, his truck brakes failed and mechanical things do fail sometimes. Yet he was convicted on 27 counts including felonious vehicular homicide for an accident which was caused by brakes failure. But the Texas rich white spoiled kid, who did everything the opposite way, and killed the same number of four people as perished in this accident, walked away a free man. Really? Where is the justice in this case, juxtaposed with the Texas Affluenza defense kid. 

It is yet another example of the slanted application of justice in America or the perception of it; which fueled last year's summer destructive BLM's riot over the death of George Floyd by asphyxiation under the knee of convicted former police officer Derrick Chauvin. Such disparate, inexplicable and irreconcilable sentencing violates people's conscience and everything we hold dear about a fair justice system and should be discouraged. Two people caused two accidents, killing the same number of people, yet one walked away free and the other was sentenced to prison for more than 100 years, how interesting is this inequity.

The only major difference between both cases is the varied life circumstances of the two vehicle operators who caused the accident. One is a spoiled rich white kid with no real clue about life; and the other is an overworked and underpaid, struggling Hispanic young man who had a job, a duty and responsibility of providing for his family. Unlike the oblivious Texas spoiled white kid, this Hispanic guy Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was very remorseful for causing the accident and even wished that the accident had claimed his own life instead of the deceased four people. 

But a judge claimed that her hands were tied by a sentencing guideline and you wonder why was an exception not made in this case by varying the said guideline, afterall as the name says, it is a mere guideline and not a binding obligation and judges are known to vary, amend and tweak rules with likely unjust outcome. Even in the Texas Affluenza defense case, the judge decided suo moto to rule as he did, despite the mountain of culpable evidence that would have sent the spoiled brat to prison for a long time. So, why did the judge in this Colorado case decide to rigidly tie the decision to the sentencing guideline.

ICHEOKU says if any case ever merited an appeal or the Colorado's governor's intervention this case sure does, as under no circumstances can the punishment be said to fit the crime. 110 years for vehicular manslaughter or homicide, however they may denote it. It is an overkill and simply outrageous and inexplicable; otherwise where is the callous mind of the driver in causing the accident that should operate as an aggravating factor. He wasn't on a joyride nor celebrating his birthday either; but was on duty, working hard to make some money with which to take care of his family and he was sober. Guideline or no guideline, the sentence does not make any rational sense no matter the prism it is seen.

So what if he missed an exit, millions of people miss their exits frequently; sometimes due to temporary distraction or not being in the right lane at the time they approached the exit or even for simply going at a speed that was impossible for them to make a safe lane change to accommodate an exit. Is this why a 23 year old young man will be going away for such a long time when even mass murderers sometimes don't get that many years in prison. It was an accident and four people died, alright; but it still does not justify the lengthy prison sentence. The 110 years prison sentence touches every fiber of the notion of justice for all, especially the circumstances considered in the light of the Texas Affluenza kid.