Grand jury refuses to indict in crash that killed three; so what is a life worth?

What could they have been thinking?
That's what we had to wonder when a Mahoning County grand jury refused to indict the driver of a car in which three teenagers were killed. The grand jurors apparently saw little probability that a trial jury would be able to convict the young driver of a felony charge of aggravated vehicular manslaughter or aggravated vehicular assault.
That strikes us as strange.
We're not suggesting that conviction of the driver would have been a slam-dunk, based on what is known about the accident. But to conclude that it wasn't even an issue worthy of consideration seems strange. The case will now be sent back to Youngstown Municipal Court, where pursuit of misdemeanor vehicular homicide charges would bring no more than six months in jail. We think there may be a better answer, which we'll address a few paragraphs from now.
Background
Christiaen A. Lively, 18, of Parkwood Avenue, has been charged as the driver of a car that went horribly out of control March 27 in Mill Creek Park, slamming into a stone abutment on the Axe Factory Run bridge.
Anthony C. Childs, 18, and Isiah M. Thomas, 16, of Youngstown, and Amanda M. Ferraro, 16, of Austintown, were killed. Lively and three passengers, Lia Kovalchik, 16, and her sister, Karla Kovalchik, 14, and Colleen E. Casey, 17, all of Austintown, were injured.
Charges were filed against Lively in Youngstown Municipal Court, and the case was bound over to the grand jury without a preliminary hearing, which is not uncommon.
Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains says the grand jurors were told that the car was speeding (although under the law, speed alone does not constitute recklessness), and they were told that the car was overloaded and that some passengers were scared and were asking the driver to slow down.
Asked if he knew why the grand jurors refused to indict Lively, Gains noted that because grand jury deliberations are secret, he doesn't know how the grand jury arrived at its no-bill in the case and he's not entitled to know.
And while he acknowledges that there is a clich & eacute; about a prosecutor's being able to get a ham sandwich indicted if he wanted, Gains says his office never works that way. Gains referred to the historic purpose of a grand jury, which is to protect the public against overzealous government prosecutors.
That said, Gains added that there is no more zealous prosecuting attorney than Tim Franken, who presented the case to the grand jury. The prosecutor said he's confident that the grand jury was given all the facts it needed in the case.
What's next
The case will now go back to Youngstown Municipal Court, where the easiest course would be to pursue a misdemeanor charge against the driver.
But in sending the case back, the grand jury has also made it possible for a more open presentation of the case. The city prosecutor should present the full case to a Youngstown Municipal Court judge. The grand jury heard from one witness, a police officer. No one but the prosecutor, the officer and the grand jurors know what questions he was asked or not asked.
But let that officer or other officers or experts testify in open court about the accident. Take testimony from survivors of the accident: How far through Mill Creek Park had the driver been speeding before the accident? Was the car staying on its side of the road? How many times did passengers complain about the speed or caution him to slow down? Let a judge decide whether the case should stay in his court as a misdemeanor or, based on the evidence presented, be bound over to the grand jury for reconsideration.
At issue is whether the driver's behavior rose to the level of recklessness, which would make it a felony, or was simply negligent, which would make it a misdemeanor.
Recklessness involves a heedless indifference to the consequences, with an obvious disregard for a known risk that is likely to cause a certain result.
Negligence is a substantial lapse of due care or a failure to perceive or avoid a risk that may cause a certain result.
Factors to consider
The midsize sedan was loaded with more people than it was designed to hold or for which it had seat belts. It was traveling at night on narrow, winding roads through the park, at more than twice the speed limit of 25 mph. At least some passengers in the car were expressing alarm.
It seems to us that only the most sympathetic reading of those facts could result in a finding of negligence rather than recklessness.
Three young people died needlessly. All four survivors, including the driver, will have their lives changed forever, either by physical injuries or mental trauma.
This case cries out to be prosecuted aggressively and as a felony.
A first-degree misdemeanor carries a sentence of six months in jail. That's not very much for the loss of a young life. A felony conviction would carry a possible penalty of two to eight years in prison.
Under Ohio law, the purpose of sentencing is twofold: to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.
Pursuing misdemeanor charges against a driver who is responsible for killing three people does not fulfill either purpose. It sends the wrong message to other would-be reckless drivers, offering a weak deterrent against homicidal misbehavior. It provides a period of incarceration that is so short that it demonstrates disrespect for the victims, who paid for the driver's indifference with their lives.