The bill would hold drug sellers responsible for deaths caused by their distribution of laced drugs, even if doing so was down to mere carelessness.
By Norah White
The Senate Committee on Judiciary is hashing out whether a drug dealer who sold illegal, laced drugs that killed another person can plead ignorance in their defense.
It’s an issue of whether they can use the defense of, “‘Well, I thought that was cocaine. I didn’t realize it had fentanyl,’” said Michele Childs, legislative counsel, when she testified in the committee Jan. 11 on a bill to prohibit that defense.
On top of the policy related to laced drugs, S.58 would require anyone found guilty of selling an illegal drug that killed someone to serve at least two years in prison without the possibility of parole or probation, unless a court decides an alternative sentence will serve equal justice. The bill doesn’t say how judges should reach that finding.
But most testimony on the bill has centered on a loosely related provision: The legislation would again delay the rollout of a 2018 bill that moves 19-year-olds charged with crimes from criminal to family court.
Holding dealers accountable
There were 212 “accidental and undetermined” opioid-related overdose deaths among Vermont residents in November 2023, according to the Vermont Department of Health — up from just 69 deaths reported a decade earlier in 2013.
The bill would hold drug sellers responsible for deaths caused by their distribution of laced drugs, even if doing so was down to mere carelessness, Childs said at the meeting.
“I know of a case where somebody took a drug that contains the animal tranquilizer, and the people that gave it to this person couldn’t care less that he overdosed,” Childs said.
That person died, she said.
Childs said the bill, stricter than current law, will heighten drug sellers’ awareness of the consequences of handing out laced drugs and lessen the likelihood of deadly overdoses.
Delay ‘Raise the age’
In July, Vermont is set to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to include 19-year-olds. If S.58 passes, that start date will get pushed back to April 1, 2025.
Vermont was the first state to identify 18-year-olds as juveniles in the eyes of the courts in 2018 by passing Act 201. It was a step in the right direction, said Tyler Allen, adolescent services director for the Department for Children and Families.
“Brain science indicates that it’s the way to work with the youthful population,” he said.
But Allen said his department needs more resources before they bring the age up another notch.
“Right now we’re at a point in time that we have an unprecedented challenge level against DCF in terms of meeting youth needs across the whole breadth of the youth we serve,” Allen said.
A delay like the one included in S.58 will allow officials to gather more resources to help 19-year-olds, Allen said.
Gov. Phil Scott, who supported Act 201, agrees.
“This bill again delays the ‘raise the age’ provision, which has put older, more violent offenders into our system and creates a number of unintended consequences that harm, rather than help, our youth,” Scott said in a March 26 statement.
Act 201 proposed a 2022 date for raising the age to 19-year-olds. But it was put on hold after requests from the children and families department because of limited resources.
Scott said in his statement that the delay is attached to S.58 because drug sellers tend to target young people to move their products.
“We have observed drug traffickers are preying on young adults, using them because they know accountability is less likely,” Scott said.
The Community News Service is a program in which University of Vermont students work with professional editors to provide content for local news outlets at no cost.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Drugs and Crime, Law Enforcement, State Government
Two years in jail for basically killing someone? That’s the crackdown?
and get out on good beviour in 3 months….you weren’t supposed to read the article or notice what they are actually doing…go back to sleep…..eat your bugs…..be happy.
if they don’t have a permit to operate a pharmacy, if they aren’t trained to be a pharmacist, if they aren’t prescribed drugs by a medical doctor,
They are dealing drugs illegally, and heaven forbid without a zoning permit or license.
Of course, when you get really big, like Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, etc. you can make drugs, buy off the legislature and get a pass and unable for anyone to collect damages when your “vaccine” aka experimental drug handicaps and kills many millions of people.
When you get that big, you can make governor do all sorts of dumb stuff.
I wonder how severe the crime would be if you made your own vaccines? Probably life in prison, more for competing with big guys , surely
My son died of fentanyl poisoning. As far as I know the drug dealers are still walking the streets and selling. Two years in jail and then back out to sell more.
G.E.T. R.E.A.L. The death sentence is what they should get.
when all is said and done, big pharma is the drug lord//// think covid kill shot///
>>>”Vermont was the first state to identify 18-year-olds as juveniles in the eyes of the courts in 2018 by passing Act 201.”<<<
Legally an adult at 18, but do a criminal act and you can still be treated like a child. Be careful during the "achult" age, you can have your Nintendo taken away! Such ba.
Isn’t it amusing when liberals pretend to demand a higher level of personal responsibility from people? The devil is always in the details however. They will always be obsessed with “root causes and rough upbringing” and make exceptions.
If someone is dealing drugs laced with ingredients which kill the user, it matters not one whit whether the dealer knew about it or intended it or not. He/she shouldn’t have been dealing drugs. The drug dealer obviously doesn’t care about the welfare or safety person to whom the drugs were sold, or he/she wouldn’t be doing it.
If a drunk driver kills a passenger or another motorist, should his/her defense be, “I didn’t intend to kill someone?” Once that drunk person puts that vehicle in drive, whether or not he/she intended to hurt or kill another person is way past moot. The recklessness and irresponsibility opens the door for much worse unintended consequences.
Perhaps this is why felonies committed during other felonies are so heinous.
If folks don’t deal drugs or drive drunk, the issue of intention to kill someone is never part of the equation.
The reality is that in the twisted world of the left, some of those who deal in dangerous opioids are excused by our legal system because they are simply doing it to “manage their own addiction, which is an illness and hence a victimhood”. We as a society in liberal Vermont are doing everything we can to enable, make excuses and subsidize the living expenses for junkies. We will soon no doubt be providing comfortable places for them to use their drugs, and have medical staff on hand. We provide free narcan to bring them back from the abyss of death, repeatedly, as many times as required. Meanwhile, just about every IV drug user is committing crimes against others to finance their habits. At the same time, our hypocrite lawmakers and other public officials treat those addicted to nicotine as second-class citizens, who are told to indulge in their filthy habit far away from doorways, out back, behind the dumpsters, in the rain. We taxpayers fund advertisements and special programs that tell tobacco users to “just quit” while we fund tremendously expensive “medication assisted treatment” drugs for the opioid users to MAINTAIN their addictions. People who make bad life choices (and addictions IS A CHOICE) should not be allowed to drag the rest of us down. The left is all about making bad decisions free of consequences. This bill in the senate is going nowhere and is just moonbat posturing
in an election year.
YES!
I just read a terribly tragic story yesterday in which a woman who was driving her 2024 Corvette at 155 mph on a highway in Arizona slammed into a man who was riding his Harley and killed him. She managed to get her car down to 87 mph at the moment of impact.
Did she set out on her drive intending to kill someone? Probably not.
Will she be able to use the defense that she didn’t plan or intend to kill that motorcyclist?
I would say that her “intention” is a moot point in this case. To engage in illegal and grossly reckless and irresponsible behavior, one must realize that he or she must then be ready to accept and take responsibility for whatever horrific “unintended” consequences might occur.
But Marxist ideology, which now pervades our legislatures and educational institutions, refuses to acknowledge the inherent dignity of human beings by virtue of our being created in God’s image. Part of this dignity is our ability and responsibility to make moral choices.
Marxist and atheistic ideology denies human dignity by excusing our poor or wrong moral choices, insisting that we are either incapable of making moral choices (because there is no objective truth and transcendent standard of right and wrong), and, therefore, the state must make those choices for us; or we are simply victims (of: pick your poison) who should not be held accountable or responsible for the choices we make, even when they harm us and others.
We’re free to break the law—both God’s and man’s—but there are consequences when we do.
Sadly, it’s almost surprising now when our prosecutors and judges actually enforce the law by convicting and sentencing violators with consequences substantial enough to allow both retributive and redemptive justice to obtain in society.