I would imagine this event made most of the news across the country. Yesterday morning, two Metrolink trains collided and derailed, killing 11 people. The cause of the crash was Juan Alvarez, a guy who wanted to commit suicide by parking his truck on the tracks and letting the train hit him. He changed his mind at the last minute, jumping out of his truck and watching as the northbound train hit it and derailed, crashing into a parked freight engine, causing the commuter cars to accordian and knock into a southbound train, causing IT to derail and hit a signal pole.

Several of the victims were sheriff officers, city or county workers and fire department employees on their way to work. Sheriff Lee Baca was so angry I thought he was going to explode.

In my time riding Metrolink, I remember 3 suicides on the line I rode (the Palmdale line, which runs between Palmdale and Union Station) where individuals jumped in front of the train and at least 2 or 3 collisions with vehicles. A weird confluence of events combined to create the horror yesterday.

I have never understood why a person who wants to kill him or herself puts hundreds of other, innocent people in harm’s way. This is not the first time this has happened on Metrolink, but I believe it is the first time the “suicider” has survived.

One of Juan Alvarez' friends said in a TV interview that Juan had been talking about doing just exactly what he did; park his truck on the tracks to kill himself. Um, hello, did you ever think about telling someone? Maybe getting your “friend” some help?!

This is the rather surreal beginning of an article about the incident:

Side Note 1: My warped sense of humor wonders if putting a suicidal person to death is a punishment; or granting that person’s wishes?

Side Note 2: Kudos to the Costco workers who rushed to help.

Are these appropriate charges (multiple murder with special circumstances) for the crime?

Do you agree with the Los Angeles DA that the death penalty should be invoked?

Should Juan Alvarez’ friend be held liable for not mentioning anything to anybody about Alvarez’ intent?

Bonus question for local concerns:
How devastating will this be to the already troubled Metrorail system in Los Angeles?

Do you agree with the Los Angeles DA that the death penalty should be invoked?


This creates a interesting logical dilemma. You have a man who attempted suicide (a crime), but failed. So, to punish him, the DA is proposed that the state complete the act...which both grants his wish, and is somehow supposed to be legal? Wouldn't this then fall into the category of assisted suicide, which is also a crime? I'm sure the state would bypass this argument by stating that they're merely applying the law...but, if you look at what they're really proposing doing, it is helping someone complete their suicide. Which doesn't seem to make much sense (not that that surprises me).

Since the guy changed his mind about dying, I think its terribly appropriate to kill him. I also hope he is horribly guilt-ridden. The fact that he had such an appalling lack of concern for his fellow human beings that he would willingly risk another's life in an already selfish attempt to take his own is horrifying. I don't know what kind of problems he was having that he felt he needed to die, it still doesn't excuse risking someone else. I don't understand why the guy couldn't use pills or a gun, except maybe he wanted to go out with bang... which again points to a lack of concern for the welfare or lives of others.

As to his friend.. I think some action must be taken. He either needs to be charged as an accomplice or... something. For him to 1. ignore his friend's "cries for help" and 2. allow his friend to place others in danger, is inexcusable, and again, if he is any kind of human being he should feel horribly guilty.

These kinds of actions are senseless wastes. This guy needs to be made an example of, so that others who want to go out in a "blaze of glory" will think twice.. such as, what happens to me if I don't succeed in killing myself?

Are these appropriate charges (multiple murder with special circumstances) for the crime?I have been following the story with horror. My answer must heck yes, execute the guy. Personally I think that suicide is just fine. I have no problem with it. It is the ultimate of control of one's live. But not at the expensive of other people.

Do you agree with the Los Angeles DA that the death penalty should be invoked?The sooner the better. There is no question that he did the crime, the only question should be when.

Should Juan Alvarez’ friend be held liable for not mentioning anything to anybody about Alvarez’ intent?As much as I hate him for not doing anything, that is not a crime. It is too bad that it is not one, but he did nothing criminal.

I will leave the bonus question because I do not know anything about MetroLink, but I ride the RTA in Cleveland 10 times a week and so I have a vested interest in this matter.

Reading some posts above relays the perfect reason why the death penalty is not a good thing. People still just love the idea of killing someone who commits a crime, even when the crime is not murder.

Did Juan do something idiotic...yes!1 Should he go to jail....yes. Forever..no, maybe 10 to 15 years. Should he get the death penalty?? For what??... being stupid?? Let's observe some legal definitions

Murder (1st Degree)



Murder (2nd Degree)


Manslaughter (Voluntary/involuntary)



Now I ask, which category best describes Juan?? A cold-hearted murderer who thought by parking in front of a northbound train and cause it to be "derailed, crashing into a parked freight engine, causing the commuter cars to accordion and knock into a southbound train, causing IT to derail and hit a signal pole."

That only happens in comic books. There is no malice here... to me it isn't even reasonable to calculate this freak tragedy could occur!! Oh well, logic will not likely prevail; the masses are headed to the town square itching for a beheading.

Yes. This man had NO regard for human life [including his own until he realized that his life was worth saving while everyone elses was not] and was responsible for the death of 11 people. I can't imagine that this man didn't realize that chances are his actions would result in death.

Yes, he knowingly [in all likelihood] took the lives of 11 people.

No, as stupid as they were for not telling someone that there friend was disturbed [nuts, he was nuts], they do not deserve jail time.

CP

He definitely killed another person – 11 of them, to be exact. As for malice and premeditation; he knowingly put his vehicle on a train track, with the wheels trapped between the rails. He talked about doing it two weeks before.

It was pretty deliberate, he did it intentionally and definitely with recklessness and disregard for the lives of those on the train.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but suicide is also a crime, is it not? So, he perpetrated murder while committing a crime.

I’m ambivalent about the death penalty, but this sad sack o’ poop doesn’t deserve any sympathy, and taxpayers shouldn’t support him for the rest of his sorry life.

Are these appropriate charges (multiple murder with special circumstances) for the crime?

Well, I am glad the charged him with the murders. As Droop pointed out, the question is, at what degree? Murder generally requires proof of intent. I doubt intent to kill those passengers can be proven in this case. However, there is such a thing as negligent homicide, which would seem to apply here, though I don't know if the punishment will be bad enough in most peoples opinions (including my own).

Do you agree with the Los Angeles DA that the death penalty should be invoked?

I don't agree with the death penalty at all, for anyone period. So that is a obvious no. However, as Hobbes pointed out, that is what the guy wanted (it was his third suicide attempt of the day I believe). How can you classify giving the man what he wants as punishment.

Should Juan Alvarez’ friend be held liable for not mentioning anything to anybody about Alvarez’ intent?

Hmmmm, interesting. There ill likely be a large number of civil cases that make this argument, however I doubt criminal charges will be involved. After all, is there a law on the books Requiring that you report a crime, or someones criminal intent if you have knowledge of it? None that I know of. The only laws that come close are the laws requiring you to answer investigator's questions truthfully, and there are the laws preventing people for actively impeding an investigations.

Now another ethical dilemma is the the accountability of the government. The government feels that people should not be at liberty to end their own lives if they want to. As a result, there are no mechanisms available to people to safely end your own life, at least there are not many, available to average people that are fast and thus unlikely to result in emergency personnel saving you. As a result, people jump from buildings, park in front of trains, commit crimes and then confront the police, etc, etc, in order to end their lives quickly. All of those actions would be unnecessary if people were considered to TRULY have liberty over their own bodies and choose when they want to leave this world. For whatever reason, the right to choose is restricted. Of course there are those that would do things this way anyway, after all, if your considering suicide seriously then you are seriously mentally ill. However, if there was an organization out there you could go to to end your life (Kills-R-Us?) wouldn't it be likely that these types of suicides that risk the lives of others would at least decrease in frequency?

So, should the government be held accountable in some way for making suicide illegal and denying people the liberty to choose when they want to stop being a part of this circus we call life?

Are these appropriate charges (multiple murder with special circumstances) for the crime?

Well, we could look at this two ways. If the case was made that he knew beforehand that placing the car on the tracks would result in the injury or death of others, specialcircumstances being the manner in which he comitted the act, it's a possibility he could get 1st Degree pinned on him.

The other way is depraved indifference, something that falls under 2nd Degree murder. He's guaranteed of that if the other charges fell through.

Do you agree with the Los Angeles DA that the death penalty should be invoked?

I think since the act cause several fatalities and exponentially more injuries, yeah, I think that we could make an exception.

Should Juan Alvarez’ friend be held liable for not mentioning anything to anybody about Alvarez’ intent?

No. I mean, how many times do suicide attempts result in nothing happening. And when they do, (and since both attempted and succeeding in suicide is illegal, im not kidding) is the friend who knew but blew off the warning an accessory as well?

Bonus question for local concerns:
How devastating will this be to the already troubled Metrorail system in Los Angeles? I'm sure you'll probably find security measurse being put together to ensure no one gets on the tracks by car at the crossing.

It's what he wanted, yet he had to try three times, while still failing I might add, to kill him self. So that makes me question how much he really wants to die. If he really wanted to commit suicide there would've been one attempt. Because he keeps almost killing himself I would be more inclined to say he either wants attention, or is just very bad at this type of thing.

While I don't think you can show that this was premeditated or that he had intent to kill other people, I do think that he should be charged with homicide or something of the sort. But how can you plan to kill yourself by train, and not think that anything else will happen? Was his plan: park car on tracks -> train hits me -> I'm dead end of story? That's pretty bad planning.



Exactly.

I dunno OverlandSailor...I'm not so sure this guy really wanted to die. What else but self-preservation would compel him to jump out of his car and avoid death? By doing that alone he nullified the "you're giving him what he wants" defense.

CP

The death penalty isn't appropriate in this case, even for those who support it. There was no clear intent to take someone else's life. There's no reason to believe this guy was in touch with reality enough to even have considered the possibility of a train wreck and innocent casualties. He wanted to die, big train vs SUV, no contest in his mind.

I have severe reservations about the death penalty in general, but it just isnt called for here in any case.

Are these appropriate charges (multiple murder with special circumstances) for the crime?

In my opinion, no. I think voluntary manslaughter is probably more appropriate. On the questions of malice aforethought and premeditation, I don't think Alvarez fully considered the reckless consequences of his actions. After seeing countless movies depicting a train slamming into a car and plowing right through it, he probably thought the train would continue right through after demolishing him inside his vehicle.


I'm sure plenty of others would have had the forethought to consider that parking a vehicle on the tracks might result in something more dangerous happening (like trains derailing). Interestingly enough, the subject reminds me of a friend who once recounted to me that earlier in her life, when she often contemplated suicide (and actually tried it on a couple occasions but failed), she said she often discovered things were much harder to fully think through and realize all the potential consequences in connection with any given "plan" for ending one's life. Beyond the basic considerations of wanting it to be quick, painless, and without risk of regret in the middle of the process (such as overdosing, or taking poison, or hanging oneself, only to decide too late shortly before death that this was a mistake and suddenly a reason had materalized to want to go on living), she said she also thought a lot about trying to avoid harming others, even psychologically. For example, she said she often thought about going out on the train tracks near her apartment, but she thought it might permanently psychologically scar the engineer behind the controls to see a young woman standing on the tracks, jamming on the breaks 100% but watching helplessly as the train annihilated her. So then she thought she would get a big cardboard box and put it on the tracks (with her hiding inside it), so that the engineer would think it was just garbage and plow right through. She was satisified with that idea until she thought about what would happen later to the railtrack groundskeeper who would inevitably find the mess left behind, etc...

I am happy to report that today she is much happier and has not attempted suicide in many years. Still, the things she told me stuck in my mind and remind me that when it comes to ending one's life, some will rationally think through all the consequences and some won't. I think Alvarez deserves to be charged with the killings, but as voluntary manslaughter rather than premeditated murder.

Do you agree with the Los Angeles DA that the death penalty should be invoked?

No. I think talk of the death penalty in these early stages by the D.A. has more to do with gratification for people who are angry and would like to see some revenge dished out.

Should Juan Alvarez’ friend be held liable for not mentioning anything to anybody about Alvarez’ intent?

Not under any criminal law or civil law theory that I can think of.

This sort of thing is, of course, what one can expect from this particular sort of person. Spanish language television has reported that Alvarez is an "undocumented" immigrant (perhaps the family dog ate his documents).

As the U.S. becomes more and more like the Third World countries to the south, expect more of this sort of thing. We're in post-American America, not your grandfather's America. BTW, keep an eye on American Patrol for more info on this matter.

Suicide is not against the law. Sorry, I am just sick of people perpetuating somethat isnt true, and now trying to pin the death penalty on some guy because he was "breaking a law" (er, suicide, not killing people)

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html



I dont see CA on that list...

I do think this guy should be punished, but the death penalty is never the answer. Im sure its punishment enough that he caused so many deaths and injuries.

So by your logic, if I am in my apartment and for some reason decide to intentionally throw a bowling ball on the floor, (maybe I'm mad about losing a game) if the ball goes through the floor hits my neighbor in the head and kills them..... I'm a murderer I intentionally and recklessly threw the ball on the floor, therefore any deaths that occur make me a murderer.

How about this??

I throw some water ballons from a hotel room (picture Michael Jackson and the home alone kid) but something goes wrong; some one dodges the ballon, bumps into another person who falls into the street and gets hit by an oncoming resort bus. I'm a murderer!!

Agreed he intentionally and pemeditated to park his car on the tracks for the purpose of suicide. But do you believe he parked his car with the intentions of killing the people that died, because that's what matters. Did he plan the chain of events that occurred?? It's not whether the act that caused death was intentional. A kid that intentionally leaves his skateboard out isn't a murderer, just because his mom slips on it and cracks her skull on the counter. It's whether the intentions of the act was to cause death of others. If the kid puts the skateboard at the top of the stairs and removes the ight bulb so Mom can't see.... He's a murderer!! Was it even forseeable??

There was an interesting tidbit on the news tonight regarding the charges against Alvarez. In California, there is still a law on the books dating back to “wild west days” (I swear, that’s the term they used) that sets a precedent for charges of murder against someone who causes a train wreck. Also, they mentioned “reckless indifference” as another means of implementing the murder charge.

Well, gee whiz, kick my heinie around the block! I had always heard that was the law. My bad and mea culpa. Sheesh. (and psst, by the way, I wasn't "trying to pin the death penalty" on him, just providing an argument for the murder charge.)

Aside from the fact that that is a blatantly racist and bigoted statement, it has absolutely nothing to do with the incident. Would you have said the same if the guy was “of European descent”?

The difference in your analogies, droop, is that by any reasonable standard, by leaving your vehicle on train tracks, you can be fairly certain that injury or death will ensue. That's not initiating a chain of events....its causing an event to surely happen.
Personally I wish he had chosen another suicide method and been successful. The gene pool doesn't need him.

This is a clear case of why every civilized country except this one has eliminated the death penalty, It too often becomes a tool of vengence rather than justice. While nothing about this case indicates intentional premeditated murder with special circumstances, the DA has to keep raising the level of the charges to satisfy the virtual lynch-mob that forms whenever a high profile incident like this takes place. If no-one had been killed, with his self-inflicted slit wrists and chest stab wound, he'd be in the psych ward instead getting help.

As for JAT's race-baiting xenophobia, watch for lots more of that kind of talk in coming days on right-wing radio.

Tony

My example are right on in my opinion. But let us think on this for a second.

So you're telling me that by ANY standard it is reasonably foreseeable that by committing suicide by way of parking a truck in front of an on coming train that the train would derail... and that at that time a southbound train on tracks that you aren't parked on would be in the vicinity to hit the train that your parked vehicle managed to derail and cause a massive tragedy of 11 deaths and hundreds of injuries!!!

Yeah... that sounds a whole lot more predictable than my analogies.

Being intellectually honest with me here DTOM.... what do you think is more likely the case of the deaths and injuries The train hitting the jeep or the train hitting the train??

Your analogies are still night and day. Leaving your vehicle parked on train tracks is far different than a kid leaving a skateboard out, or throwing water ballons out the window. He intentionally left his SUV on tracks, the train derailed because the SUV was on the tracks. Mind you, I never called for 1st degree murder, it will probably wash out as manslaughter.

Indeed, and there wouldn't be 11 funereals for friends and family to attend. Are we supposed to feel pity for this guy? Poor sad man.........this guy is an oxygen thief.

Nope my analogies are night and night and here is why. You won't address intent.

In my analogy with the bowling ball I am intentionally throwing it on the ground. It unexpectedly goes through the floor and busts my neighbor's head like a grapefruit.
In my analogy about the water ballon I am purposefully throwing the balloons out the window. The person moves, unexpectedly bumps someone, who unexpectedly falls out into the street to meet face on with the resort bus.
In my analogy about the kid with the skateboard he intentionally leaves his skateboard which unexpectedly causes his mother to die when she steps on it and busts her noggin on the counter
What actually happens is a man decides at the last minute that he does not want to commit suicide, he jumps out his vehicle, the train, as expected, hits the vehicle, but unexpectedly derails, then unexpectedly goes off into another train coming south.

In all my analogies I address intent. In every case I or someone in the analogy intentionally did something stupid, but the tragic outcome was totally unintentional or unexpected. Now do you believe Juan parked his vehicle on the tracks with the intentions of derailing the train??? Because that what it means to have intent. If parking on train tracks is a felony give him manslauhter with concurrent sentence.

Following this logic, two kids are street racing, one spins out of control and hits a mother and kids in the family minivan, killing them all, but, because he didn't INTEND to kill anyone, he's not guilty of murder?!?!

That dog won't hunt.

Actually, that dog will hunt. Show me one case where someone got convicted of murder for street racing. Without intent it is manslaughter. Just because the guy killed eleven people doesn't change the fact that his intent was only to kill himself. There is no reason to give him the death penalty. I would, however, be fully in favor of finding out if any of the eleven people that died had relatives doing time, and if so, the most violent one out of them should get this waste of matter as a wife... I mean cell mate.

That being said, this guy is a moron of epic proportions. What happened to just putting a gun in your mouth? Is that out of style? Is there not a reason the trigger guard on shotguns is big enough for your toe? Not only would he successfully kill himself without hurting anyone, but he would also create an abstract art masterpiece on the wall behind him.

What makes you assume the death penalty, if it is gone for in this case, is
merely a "tool of vengeance." It's a tool of consequences for outrageously
heinous actions. If a man gets in a car, parks his car on a railroad
track, and waits for the train to hit him, he's not going to die alone.




IF his intent was to only kill himself he could have taken a bullet to his brain.
He parked his vehicle on a railroad track, with the intent of having a train
collide into it.

It baffles me, the lengths that people will go to, on behalf of low-life criminals,
and at the same time, totally disregard the violation of human rights that
occurs at the hands of such individuals.

The guy wants to die, but wait, no, we must not let him die. We must pretend
like we, as a society, value his life. This guy's life has probably never been
valued by anybody, ever. And, now, after the fact, people come rushing to
fight for the cause "save the suicidal from himself." It's ridiculous.

What makes you assume that less intelligent people wouldn't think that the train would simply kill them in their car, and keep right on going? As a society, we inaccurately portray this in movies and television shows all the time.

"Tool of consequences" is a thinly veiled euphemism for vengeance in this case.

(edited to fix quote)

Even if it was his own stupidity, he is still responsible for his actions.
Every action has consequences. The guy makes a terribly stupid decision,
and it costs 11 innocent people their lives, and injures hundreds of others.

At what point should he be accountable? And, to what degree?
That will vary, depending on who you ask. Obviously, those opposed to
capital punishment will say the guy was dumb and didn't know any better,
therefore he's not truly responsible (and, maybe he is that dumb).

Others will say his own stupidity is no justification for his actions, and he
should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and if that means the
Death Penalty, so be it.

Personally, I don't see much difference between putting this guy behind
bars for the rest of his life, or giving him death. But, one thing is for sure,
he IS fully responsible for what happened, regardless of his IQ.

P.S. Vengeance is infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed;
retribution...... What is so wrong with that?

There are four reasons why we inflict punishments for crimes:

1. Deterrence
2. Incapacitation
3. Rehabilitaion
4. Retribution

Deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are morally defensible in a civil society.

Retribution, however, is not. If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill out of retribution as well; i.e., two wrongs do not make a right.

The question is, what punishment adequately fits the crime? And, it
was a crime that was committed. The man's actions resulted in the
death of 11 individuals. Obviously, the courts will make the final decision.
But, if it were up to me, I'd treat this as a multiple-homicide. It is more
than manslaughter because, unless this man is a documented retard,
it is common knowledge that parking one's car on a railroad track could
result in major fatalities. And, it did.

That is the question, since this about retribution to you.

How do you morally defend retribution, if we are a civil society?

My idea of a civil society is one that protects the ethical and conscientious
individuals who follow the law. If someone takes it upon himself to break
the law then he should be punished in whatever capacity is appropriate.
This is a case where death is an appropriate punishment, given the circumstances.

Morality is quite subjective. I don't know how to defend something to
someone whose moral code may be quite different from my own. It's
a personal belief system we are debating here.

I agree that if someone breaks the law, then they should be punished in the appropriate capacity. I only take issue with the concept of retribution as being appropriate punishment.

I also agree that morality is very subjective. However, if you think retribution is okay and should be carried out by our laws, please entertain the following:

Suppose a mother with two kids is watching them play in the sandbox. The kids get into a fight over a favorite toy and one of them accidentally puts out the other's eye. Later, the injured child demands that the parent poke out one of the eye's of their sibling, so that they can have their retribution for losing their eye.

Suppose in the foregoing example, the two children are unrelated and one belongs to the mother while the other is the next door neighbor's child. The same unfortunate incident takes place, but it is the neighbor's child who loses an eye. The next door neighbor comes over and demands to be allowed to poke out the eye of the first mother's child, so that they can have their retribution.

Suppose instead of children, we're talking about adults. Suppose a woman is out shopping and she parks her car on a hill, but negligently forgets to put on the parking break. The car subsequently rolls down a hill and crushes a hapless pedestrian. The family of the killed pedestrian demands to be allowed to put the woman to death, so that they can have their retribution.

If you think that the concept of retribution is legally acceptable, how do you tell any of the people in the above scenarios that they can't have their retribution?

This one hit close to home for me - both literally and figuratively. The accident site is a little less than 2 miles from where I live now, and this was the train I rode for a number of years back when I lived in Simi Valley. One of the perils of being engaged to a person who works for television news is that when something like this happens close to home, you end up at the scene covering the story and that's where we were. It was a horrific scene made all the worse by the fact that I knew some of the people that were on that train. I can't begin to imagine the nightmare they experienced that morning and subsequently.

So having said that and in the interest of "full disclosure" that I have a personal connection to what happened, I still have to wonder if the death penalty is appropriate in this case. From what I have heard, from a strictly legal standpoint there are adequate laws on the books to support asking for the death penalty. However looking at this as a potential juror, and I very well could be, I come up for jury duty before too long in Glendale, I have to wonder if this is truly the kind of a case where I would support the death penalty. As of right now, I'd have to say no. It seems to me that such an extreme penalty should be reserved only for the most heinous and viscious crimes. Crimes for which there is no doubt the criminal intended to inflict not only death on another, but did so in such a fashion as to demonstrate a complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of life. I don't believe at this time, based on what I've heard that this rises to that level. To be sure this was a horrific crime in terms of the end result of it, but I don't think the intent was there. To raise this crime to the level of a Charles Manson or a Ted Bundy or a Jeffery Dalmer just doesn't seem to be justice in my opinion. (All three white males by the way, JAT.)

As far as the bonus question is concerned, there will probably be a lot of talk about improving the safety of the MetroLink, not sure that much is going to come from them though. I have a couple of ideas on things that might work to protect people better without breaking the bank and I'll forward my suggestions to the appropriate people, but I don't think this is going to have any long term impacts on MetroLink. It's an important part of the Los Angeles mass transit system and I think it's here to stay. I hope so at least, I hate driving on the freeways.

Wow Looms! I mean, I understand that making jokes in the face of tragedy is a common/natural human response, but...well thanks for the visuals.

Don't get me wrong man, I too might have laughed at your attempted levity but for the fact that my father was apparently no "moron" and was in "style" when he put a pistol in his mouth and blew his brains out back in 1991. I was 25 at the time. He told no one of his intentions and left no "suicide note". He gave no signs to the family, his friends, or his co-workers that he was contemplating this act. All we know is that his second marriage was "on the rocks" and he was suffereing accute pain from widespread arthritis.

Following his death I learned quite a bit about suicide, and there is still so much left unexplained. It is a very selfish act in terms of the pain and confusion it causes to those left behind. I try to rationalize that he would never have "done this to us" unless he was in so much pain that it was just unbearable, but then imagining my father in that much pain and not knowing it or being able to help him and prevent it is...well, you can imagine.

Another thing I learned (and the reason I shared all this) is that many people "attempt" suicide. They talk openly about it or give subtle "hints" ahead of time. They perform superficial "cuts" to their wrists, or swallow a mouthful of pills not really knowing what a "lethal" dose would be. These and other things are done, and more often than not are done in a place/timeframe where someone is likely to rescue ("save me from myself") the "attemptee".

These people don't really want to die. Sure, they are in some kind of emotional or physical pain, but they are either truly "crying out for help" and/or seeking attention, or maybe even trying to create a sense of guilt in certain people ("and won't they all be sorry"). Many fantasize about all the sobbing and grieving there will be at their funerals.

On the other hand you have those who actually "commit" suicide, with little or no warning, just put a pistol to the head (or a "toe in the triggerguard of a shotgun") and bang!...Lights out! Game over! No replay! No "do-overs"! Likewise the guy who jumps (no, not the guy who sits for hours talking to the cops), who actually jumps off the roof of a ten story building to the concrete below. Or the gal who carefully researches and calculates and ingests a lethal overdose of some pharmaceutical. And of course there must be many various combinations of these and other scenarios, but in the case of our subject Juan Alvarez this much seems clear.....In the end, he did not want to die.

While we are now in a period of speculation, we know this much: He indicated to others that he was pondering the act. He inflicted what police report were "superficial" (non-life-threatening) cuts to himself. At the last minute, he jumped out of the vehicle and "saved" himself. Self-preservation won out.

I believe this last act undermines the theory offered by several in this thread that imposing the death penalty in this case would be giving Alvarez "what he wanted".

Be that as it may, I frankly don't care what this guy "wanted" regarding his own life. The relevant questions to me are (1) Could he have known that his act (could/would) cause injury/death to others? (2)Should he have known? (3) Did he know? As has been said, the crime will be something between involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder. Time will tell.

Having said that, I could speculate that unless this guy is extremely ignorant, retarded, mentally ill, or insane, then any charges less than 11 cases of "voluntary manslaughter" and several hundred cases of "assault" resulting in a very long (perhaps life) prison term would be a travesty of justice! If he admits that he was fully aware that his actions could/would kill others and he didn't care, then we've moved into the realm of first degree murder and perhaps the death penalty.

I think it's just too early to make a sound judgement on what the final charges should be. Over the next hours, days, and weeks, more information will come out that will (hopefully) answer the questions posed above and help determine a level of guilt and appropriate punishment. And many of us will also ponder and perhaps debate the way our society differentiates and determines levels of crime and punishment. If someone kills their spouse because they "hate" them and want them out of their life for good, should they receive a lesser punishment than someone who kills another because they "hate" their race/sexuality/etc...? Perhaps victims should have a greater say in punishment (are "crimes" committed against "society" or individuals)? Should there be the same punishment for leaving a vehicle on busy commuter train tracks compared to strapping a vest of explosives to oneself and blowing it up at the local pre-school?

For now I guess we can only hope that we get as close to "justice" as is currently possible. How sad and awful and depressing this whole thing is! Enough for now! I think I'll go to Blockbuster and rent a comedy and try to laugh for a couple hours.

Are these appropriate charges (multiple murder with special circumstances) for the crime?
No, I don't think they are - manslaughter, certainly. For those who seek further appropriate punishment, I suggest that he be forcibly reeducated as a train driver and forced to work as same as part of his re-habilitation..

Do you agree with the Los Angeles DA that the death penalty should be invoked?
No. While I oppose CP anyway, I have to agree with those that have said that this particular crime doesn't really fit the legal definitions of murder 1 in California's penal code. It could be made to fit, but only tenuously, and then the risk will be that a conviction won't be secured and the guy will walk, which I don't think anybody (even him?) will think is justice.

Should Juan Alvarez’ friend be held liable for not mentioning anything to anybody about Alvarez’ intent?
Yes, I think he should be, as it goes. Quite what the charges would be I don't know - is their such a concept as "negligent conspiracy"? If so, that would be ideal.

All in all, it's just a pity that Alvarez didn't find himself severed from his gonads by a piece of flying debris, securing him a much-needed Darwin award. But he's not a murderer in any meaningful sense I can see.

So then when someone is speeding and a accident results and someone other then the speeder is killed, should the speeder be charged with murder one?

According to the the law, to convict of murder one, and in most states murder 2 you HAVE to prove intent. Also, in murder one the act of murder has to be premeditated, meaning you planned the deaths of those victims.

There are other charges, like manslaughter and the like where intent is not a requirement.

Unless we are willing to abandon the law, this man can't be convicted of murder one, or likely murder two because because you can't establish that his intent was to kill people on the train.

As for these kinds of accidents being inaccurately portrayed as not resulting in derailment, it's not so inaccurate. I see stories of cars being hit by trains at least a few times a year. In most cases the train does NOT derail.

Should he be punished to the full extent of the law? Absolutely!

However, something I learned here is that in all but a few states suicide is NOT illegal. So no charges there. You cant prove premeditation of the murders or intent to kill others so murder one is gone, and thus the death penalty should be gone, and murder two is likely also gone because you can't establish intent.

That leaves one of the various degrees of manslaughter.

The man should receive the maximum sentence for that crime because of the cost of lives and the grave negligence that caused their deaths, but his crime simply does NOT fit the definition of murder one or two.

Why is it being soft on crime, or making excuses for criminals when someone simply wants the person prosecuted to the full extent of the law and does not want the law to be side stepped?

Okay London2LA please define civilized country. Because unless I miss my guess Japan and Israel will make the list and both of those countries have the death penalty as well.

I agree that placing a vehicle on railroad tracks was with malice. With the number of vehicle to train accidents and the results being plastered all over the news the spurious claim that it was unforeseeable is pure bunk. Derailment is a very likely result and has occurred several times recently.

AC I disagree with your list. I do not feel that any of the above are reasons why we inflict punishment for crimes, that is at least in my mind.

I have but one reason - prevention.

Especially in murder they have already done it once, so they are punished so that they will not repeat the offence. It is not as a deterrence for others or retribution but simply they won't be able to do it again.

Azure Citizen has a very good point. Speaking for myself, I am horrified at what this slimeball did, and think he is a waste of human life. But, separating emotion from law, I guess the death penalty may not really be appropriate in this case. Like I said, I am torn over whether I agree with the death penalty (state-sanctioned murder/he’ll never do it again dichotomy), but I do know for sure that I don’t want my tax dollars spent keeping this cretin alive, warm, fed with free medical care, counseling and education. Dilemma.

I have some legal questions for Azure-Citizen. Hopefully this won’t stimulate the race-baiting out there, but how does Alvarez’ illegal status fit into the equation? Do American citizens pay to incarcerate citizens of other countries? Can we legally put another country’s citizen to death? If not, do we deport him to Mexico, where who-know-what happens, and the families of the 11 victims receive no justice? (Yes, I know, vengeance. But what is justice if not a form of vengeance?)

Addendum: I heard this morning that Alvarez' wounds were inflicted after he jumped out of his truck. I guess he ran to someone's house and stabbed himself with a scissors.

OK, I promise this is the last time I'll edit this post.

Those are some rather inappropriate analogies, Droop. There is a difference between involuntary, "negligent" homicide and reckless murder (purposely creating substantial, unjustifiable risk that someone else will die or suffer serious injury). In the first case (your examples), the negligent person was unaware of the risks involved, whereas in the second (the train case here), he was aware of the risks.

I don't know enough about the law (or California law), to understand what "special circumstances" mean in this case. I'd expect the person to be charged with reckless murder on all counts, and take the consequences (whatever they are in CA). Probably not the death penalty, but something much larger than involuntary manslaughter.

Do you agree with the Los Angeles DA that the death penalty should be invoked?

Definately not. I don't believe in the death penalty anyway, but even if I did, it is completely rediculous in this case. I mean, what purpose does it serve? Absolutely none. Deterrent? Not really. It says that if you try to commit suicide and change your mind and end up killing other people you will be killed. I don't think someone who is about to commit suicide is going to think about what might happen to him if he changes his mind, and even if he does, death doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. Neither is this person unreformable. Obviously he didn't even intend to kill anyone. He is obviously not a demented killer never capable of good in his life. Sure, he deserves to be punished, because people need to see that you can't just do what you want without regard for someone else's life, but I don't think the death penality is needed to do this. Obviously you are not going to deter someone trying to kill themselves, and if you park a truck in front of a train, for, say, a practical joke, jail time is going to deter you.

So really the death penalty doesn't serve any purpose except that of punishment for the sake of punishment. And supporting punishment for the sake of punishment implies the opinion that human suffering is a good end in itself. I personally don't take that sadistic approuch.

Aquilla, thanks for sharing your perspective - I was wondering if you might be very close to the scene of the accident.

Argonaut, your thoughts on suicide were also very enlightening.


Hi Loreng,

Please reconsider that prevention is simply a generic quality of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. I'll elaborate:

Deterrence is the concept that by punishing the criminal who committed the crime, we will specifically deter him or her from repeating the crime, and generally deter the public at large from committing the same crime. Thus, prevention of future crimes is part of deterrence.

Incapacitation is the concept that by seperating the criminal from society through punishment, we make him or her unable to inflict harm on others during the period of incarceration. Thus, prevention of crimes during incapacitation is part of incapacitation.

Rehabilitation is the concept that by reeducating and correcting the behavior of an incarcerated criminal, they may be less likely to offend again upon their release and reentry into society. Thus, prevention of future crimes is part of rehabilitation.

Retribution is the concept that by punishing the criminal we can help bring some measure of closure and justice to the victims by granting them vengeance against the person who harmed them or their loved ones, typically by killing them.


Hi Daffy,


Let me ask first, are we sure that Alvarez is an illegal alien? Does anyone have a credible link or news report? Based on anti-Hispanic immigrant tone of JAT's post, I'm a little skeptical about his statement that he heard it on television. However, if he is an illegal alien, it really doesn't impact the situation too much. Our justice system will prosecute him just the same.


Yes, we certainly pay the tab.


Yes. The laws of the jurisdiction of a given country generally apply to every person found within that country.

Thanks for the update, by the way, about the 1905 law.

(edit: spelling)

I do not believe "that prevention is simply a generic quality of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation". But I will accept that you do believe that and that is enough.

But when all is said and done this person caused a train to derail, and I have seen enough crash scenes of late where they were caused by vehicles on the tracks. This being a crime which then caused multiple deaths (a special circumstance under California law causing death while committing another crime). That makes the crimes eligible for a capital penalty under the laws of the State of California.

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, those analogies are
not befitting to this case. We are talking about an adult who knowingly drove
his car onto railroad tracks, with the intent to have a train collide into him.

When a woman parks her car on a hill and forgets to put the parking
break on she is being negligent, but it is due to forgetfulness.

This man parked his vehicle on a railroad track! He intended to die, and he
didn't take into consideration who else would die along with him. He could
have chosen a way to die that would not harm others. He was selfish and paid
absolutely no mind to what could and undoubtedly would happen to
innocent passengers on trains.

I'm not saying every death, due to negligence or otherwise, should be avenged
with capital punishment. I am saying that in this case, given these
circumstances, the death penalty would be appropriate.

Those hypotheticals were not meant to be analogized to Alvarez's case; they were meant to elaborate part of the problem with legally sanctioned retribution. Retribution seems right to us when we're angry and upset, and we want to see a perpetrator suffer harm in return for the harm he or she inflicted on us or someone else. We feel it will only be "fair" if they are killed too, or we feel that if we can harm them, it will make us feel better about our own loss. This often applies whether the harm inflicted was deliberate, or accidental; to the victims, it is all about the devastating impact of the harm.

Remove emotion from the picture, and the flaws of the concept of retribution may begin to come into focus. If it is wrong to kill, how is it not wrong to kill for revenge? How do two wrongs make a right? How does it undo the harm that was done? When we ascribe to the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the whole world ends up blind and toothless.

Human beings are emotional creatures. We feel what we feel, and can not remove emotion from the picture with a sudden snap of our fingers and suddenly see everything on a purely ration basis. But perhaps those who want to see Alvarez sentenced to death should stop and reflect on what emotions are driving that train. Is Alvarez really some sort of inhuman monster?

Since I consider myself in the philosophically "pro-death" camp, perhaps I can give some of my thoughts on this question. I agree that the death penalty is all about vengeance and retribution. I also understand the merits of the hypothetical examples you've given, Azure. However, I do not believe that anyone is suggesting a general policy of retribution amongst all segments of society. The death penalty is only applied in special cases where egregiously criminal acts have been perpetrated. More importantly, it is only applied by the state and not by individual members of society. Thus, while your examples are interesting (and ones which I have contemplated), they are not particularly salient to the specific case of state-imposed capital punishment.

So, the questions come down to: (1) can the state (and its agents) do things which individuals cannot do and (2) if so, does this mean, by permitting this, the state is "setting a bad example" to those individuals (i.e. us)?. The answers are: yes to (1) and no to (2). For example, the highway patrol breaks speeding laws in order to enforce the law. This does not mean that individuals may use this "behavior" on the part of highway patrol to justify speeding. This is where I'm coming from with regard to capital punishment. That said, while I am philosophically "pro-death", I am pragmatically against capital punishment. Of course, that's another debate.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled debate....

I do not believe that this would-be suicider qualifies for first degree murder charges and therefore does not qualify for capital punishment. Though, the 1905 law is interesting, I'm not sure it applies either. I cannot conceive how a case could be demonstrated for intentional derailment of the train. At best he could get second degree murder (11 counts). More likely, it'll be manslaughter.

What does the immigrant status have to do with this suicide attempt? This is a very bigoted statement. People in all societies, countries and of all backgrounds commit suicide, and many by this same method. "American Americans" as you would probably put it try to commit suicide by this method.

I find this logic particularly intolerable because, except for Native Americans, all Americans are of immigrant backgrounds, once you trace it back far enough. Yes, we are in post-American America, since the Native Americans no longer have the run of the land, and are shoved off onto reservations. It became a post-American America during the colonization process, but that is not what you meant by the comment was it?



Exactly. "Extreme disregard for human life" -- that certainly sounds what parking your car on train tracks is to me. While he couldn't have foreseen the complete chain of events, the derailing of a train is a foreseeable possibility, and when a train derails a likely consequence is injury or death. The guy just didn't CARE about those he was endangering. Which to me, shows sociopathic tendencies -- a lack of concern for the well-fare and lives of other human beings.

Eleven people killed due to this guy's "thoughtlessness." What a stupid waste! So "thoughtlessness" is a defense? I don't think so. I personally think that someone that thoughtless just running around is a horrible idea. What else doesn't he think through? How many other ways could he endanger the lives of others?

Should he be charged with murder?

Absolutely. No question that he committed the act. Now let's examine the mens rea. It would be a hard case to say he purposely intended to kill people on the train, but I think there is a strong case that he knowingly killed them. He parked his car on the track KNOWING what that would do. (Otherwise, why would he have thought it would be a method of suicide?) Wilfull blindness is not a defense. This is more than consciously disregarding a known risk (recklessness).

Should he get the death penalty?

No. While I am a supporter of the death penalty, I only believe it is appropriate in certain cases with a purposely mens rea. So unless they prove this guy killed those people purposely, I think he should get LWOP.

And to the poster who said he did something "stupid" and should only get 10-15 years...I'm speechless.

He purposely parked his car on a railroad track. He might as well have
set a bomb on those tracks. Really, what more do we need, as far as intent goes.

You guys still don't like my analogy right. So did the intent part match up for you?? Alright let's address the discrepancy you have with my analogy. From what I gather your saying, my analogy doesn't fit because he knew the repercussions...correct??

O.K. when was the last time you heard of a car in the way of tracks where there was a derailment that took place that caused massive deaths. I am by no means saying "it has never happened" but it's not common if it has. Because being completely honest with you I have never heard of it before this time. The closest thing I can remember is some years back (couldn't remember the year) a train collided with a semi and caused it killed the driver of the truck and the conductor I believe. My point is... when did trying to commit suicide by train in your car become "oh, it's common sense you are gonna cause deaths or even likely to cause deaths."

If cops are chasing me and I take my car and drive it down a crowded sidewalk, every person I kill should be reckless murder. Why?? If a car hits a person... most likely the car wins. Now in return are you going to say if a car goes against a train the train loses? That the car will like cause the deaths on the train.

There is another aspect.... the other train. How many deaths were on that other southbound train?? How many deaths did the collision with the other train cause versus the collision with the vehicle?? Why is this important? Because now this has to be foreseeable too. It's one thing to say he should have KNOWN it would derail a train(which I disagree) but now you would have to be saying he should have KNOWN the other train would hit the train he derailed. Why would he know all this.... when did all this become reasonable to know. How many tons does a train way compared to a vehicle??

It is not that I am excusing his stupidity, because I don't care about him. If he dies tomorrow I won't lose sleep. What I worry about is the mob mentality that suggests he should have seen the grand likelihood of this tragedy. Which, to me, is absurd. You want this to be reckless murder because you believe that if a car runs into a train there is "substantial risk" to people on the train dying, yet, this is the first time I have heard of a train hitting a car and any of the deaths being on the train. (Again, not saying it never happens, just it's the first I heard of it)

Now, going to my analogies and to my point. If I throw a bowling ball on the floor its not likely it goes through the floor, and if it does go through the floor it's not likely to hit my neighbor in the head.

If I drop water ballon it is not likely someone dodging my balloons bumps someone in the street, and if someone does it is not likely that a bus will be coming at the exact time to hit the person bump.

If I leave a skateboard in the kitchen it is not likely that my Mom will step on it, and if she does step on it, it is not likely that she will fall in such a way to cause death.

If I try to commit suicide by waiting for a train to crush me in my car it is not likely the the train flies of the tracks, and if it does it is not likely that another train going the opposite direction will be there to greet it.

All these things are in the realm of possibility, but unlikely. But conversely let's look at true reckless murder....

If I take my car and ride it on a sidewalk avoiding police, it IS likely that someone will be walking on it and get hit , and if someone is hit, it IS likely they will be serious injured or killed.

Would people just think for a second.... if this guy wanted to take other people out wouldn't he have gone to a bank or something with guns blazing??