By: Courtney Lyons, Opinion Editor
On March 2, 2022, the town of Lancaster and Buffalo at large were shaken as the lives of two nineteen-year-old women — Mackenzie Mycek and Molly Kaminski — were taken in a one-car crash.
That March night, slick road conditions prevailed over Warner Road in Lancaster as the driver, Ryan Stencel sped, lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a tree. The car went up in flames as Stencel escaped through the sunroof, but Mackenzie and Molly were fatally trapped inside.
Stencel survived.
It was reported that Stencel made no mention of Mackenzie or Molly in the car as responders appraised the scene. It took almost a year for Stencel to be indicted on two counts of criminally negligent homicide.
Last week, the charges against Stencel were dropped.
Per WIVB News 4, a technicality arose regarding Stencel’s toxicology reports. THC was in Stencel’s blood, but the medical expert would not testify that the THC impaired Stencel’s driving, thus causing the collision. Stencel’s attorneys argued that the grand jury was “misled” by hearing evidence regarding those toxicology reports, resulting in an improper indictment.
It is an egregious lapse in our justice system that Stencel may live without this stain on his record. As a student interested in criminal law, I understand how a defendant ought to be afforded their right to due process, receiving structural fairness in the criminal justice system. Yet, I question the propriety of allowing a technicality to prevail.
My sentiments rest with the statement from the Kaminski family that “All the technicalities and lawyers in the world don’t change the fact that Ryan Stencel was responsible for the deaths of Molly and Mackenzie and showed no concern for their lives as they burned to death in front of him … He needs to live with that shame.”
While personal penitence is necessary, legal repercussions are likewise essential. I fear the implications for driver safety if Stencel escapes this predicament scot-free. As such, I am a proponent of a utilitarian philosophy championed by John Stuart Mill regarding punishment. Under this worldview, punishment should bring about what Robert Baird and Stuart Rosenbaum in Philosophy of Punishment refer to as “socially desirable consequences” — namely deterrence. I do not want Stencel’s situation to lead one to believe that their reckless driving will not have consequences. Negligence without consequence is unacceptable. The likelihood of getting ‘caught’ or reprimanded has in itself a deterrent effect on society that dropping the charges against Stencel would decrease.
Canisius has a large commuter population, with students and faculty often trekking the fretful Buffalo conditions for half the year. We rely on each other to respect the crosswalks on Main Street and Jefferson Avenue or check surroundings before reversing out of Lyons Hall after class. We all have a vested interest in keeping our roads safe and understanding the gravity and power of the wheel we sit behind everyday. Stencel’s case is not against Mackenzie and Molly, but ‘the People,’ whose responsibility it is to maintain accountability when norms are broken. A violation without punishment may set an unfortunate precedent for driver safety.
It is reported that prosecutors will appeal the decision and for the sake of the Kaminski and Mycek families in particular, and Buffalo driver safety in general, I hope Stencel is held accountable for his reckless actions.
Molly and Mackenzie were one year my senior during our time at Lancaster High School. They were two women whose kindness and beauty radiated beyond comprehension. The world was robbed of their light prematurely by Stencel’s reckless driving.
In remembrance of Mackenzie, Molly and all others who have been impacted by reckless, distracted or impaired driving, please drive safe, because someone loves you.