Table of Contents
The case of interest in today’s paper is the drowning incident involving a girl victim, her brother as well as two adults. The victim’s name was Dina Nuccio. She was sitting on the edge of the boat platform without wearing a life vest as required. A personal watercraft being tagged by the boat after falling overboard hit her. She sunk from sight until rescue crews recovered her body on July 15. One prosecutor, Paul Sequeira, took the case. He stated the guardians Carla Nuccio as well as her boyfriend Roger Marks were guilty of negligence by not ensuring that the child wore a safety vest.
Role of the prosecutor
It is necessary to do so in such an event in order to prevent future accidents such as this. The role of the prosecutor in this case would be to appear in the courtroom and present a reasonable case against the defendants, which would the victim’s mother and her boyfriend. The attorney that represented the defendants claimed that it was a shame for them to have charges filed against them, reason being they had already gone through a traumatic event. The other thing is that drugs and alcohol usage during the accident was not in play.
Personal take on the case: prosecutor was neither lenient nor harsh
It seems unsympathetic, but in this case, I would plausibly act similar. This would set an example for people to be careful in a comparable situation. The prosecutor was a little harsh, but it was unavoidable. From a technical standpoint, he was right. In the end, the prosecutor is supposed to perform his duties as an objective administrator of justice (Max Planck Yearbook of the United Nations Law, 2003). He is an impartial and independent organ that makes sure that the rule of law is followed.
In this regard, he fully adhered to the universal principles of neutrality. If one were to consider the “winnability” of the case, it would be wise to choose the other side. The reason is that it is the side most likely to obtain sympathy from the jury. In this particular case, there was no sign of foul play from the parents. Therefore, it was unlikely that they had a hand in the death of the child in a conscious capacity. In this case, they will probably come off as the victims of the incident that were to be supported instead of being assailed with charges.
Case to be retried
Nonetheless, the judge was to act, in an objective capacity, to evaluate the evidence from both angles. Therefore, the case was better placed from the perception of the defense attorney. If I were given a chance to evaluate both cases, I would prefer to retry the second one with a different approach this time from the first case. The second case illustrates a classic example of company neglect that suggests negligent homicides on numerous victims. The point of incrimination implies that the company admitted in an internal memo that compensation of the victims in such cases would be much cheaper than restructuring their vehicles.
It is suggestive of a deliberate irresponsibility and warrants immediate prosecution because it gives adequate grounds arguable in a court of law. The daunting task involves an established firm with a lot of backing including financial advantage as well as best legal representation that money can afford. Therefore, charges would be negligent homicide in this regard. It is the prosecutor’s job to be impartial and ensure that law and order is upheld in the interest of all.