Michael Canipe was speeding down the center lane of a highway towards a local shopping mall, with his wife and child aboard. Losing track of his place for a moment, he realized that he was about to miss his exit. He swerved over to the ramp, and in the process cut off another car. As both cars proceeded toward the mall, the drivers took turns passing each other, engaging in a game of "cat and mouse," each getting increasingly angry with the other.
Upon reaching a left turn lane for entrance to the mall, Canipe exited his car, approached the other car, and began kicking the door while baiting the driver to get out of his car. The other driver pointed to the nearly empty mall parking lot, and Canipe returned to his car. Both drivers drove into the parking lot. The other driver stopped his car, jumped out, threw down his jacket, and walked toward Canipe's car. Canipe, realizing the other driver was much larger than he was, decided to avoid the confrontation. Instead of backing away or driving in another direction, Canipe drove directly into him at 15 miles per hour. The other driver crashed into the windshield, smashing it in, rolled off the hood of the car, and landed on the ground. He died three days later from his injuries. Canipe did not stop to check the victim's condition; he drove directly home and, after becoming aware of media coverage of the encounter, hid in his car in the garage. He was apprehended after he purchased a new windshield from a shop that was under police surveillance.
Canipe was tried and convicted of second degree murder. He appealed alleging, among other things, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that he had "malice" when driving into the victim.
Holding: The conviction was affirmed. The court first noted that malice was the element that distinguished between the two types of homicide, murder and manslaughter. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter, the killing must have been done in the heat of passion and with reasonable provocation. The court reviewed the evidence of Canipe's conduct before, during, and after the altercation and held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Canipe acted with malice toward the victim.
 | Michael Welner, M.D. Chairman The Forensic Panel |
Dr. Welner comments: The very name road rage has the decidedly unclinical sound you'll only find when a lack of research prohibits acceptance of a condition as a real illness. We may quickly dismiss the psychiatric significance of cases like Canipe. But still, state departments of transportation have recognized an escalating number of motor vehicle injuries arising from hostilities between drivers. The coverage is tabloid; the phenomenon is real.
Is there a psychiatric component to this public health issue? Yes, and in the same case by case manner of violence. Like other violence, there are numerous contributing psychosocial factors which impact the individual's brain chemistry. Government officials have identified several of these: congested roadways, increasing time sensitivity, relaxation of driver training standards, influx of foreign trained drivers, and the romanticization of aggressive driving in entertainment and advertising media. Aggressive driving is meant to include sudden lane changes, passing on the right, speeding, tailgating, honking at slower traffic ahead of you, and cutting into lanes without having been given courtesy.
When these incidents lead to violence, it is a result of the accident that results from the driving itself or the reaction of a motorist affected by the aggressive driving. We concern ourselves here with the tragedies that develop after a motorist reacts.
Reactions that lead to tragedy are reactions of poor impulse control and poor regulation of anger. What makes cases like Canipe so disturbing is that the perpetrators involved are as much like the rest of us as anybody in the criminal justice system, with due consideration of white collar criminals. Motorist violence reminds us of the vulnerabilities of many otherwise healthy functioning adults (in age) which provide a spark to the dynamite on wheels.
The righteous indignation, the explosive rage response, the choice to retaliate, the grandiose belligerence, the lack of consideration of other motorists' safety in retaliating by breaking or throwing things, or of passengers (his wife and child) in Canipe's own car are all reminiscent of narcissism and the narcissistic response to indignity. It is the ugly side of narcissism that fosters the confident, outspoken and moralistic motorist who seconds earlier may have dutifully been rushing to work to perform what he regards as especially important work.
Each violent act, and road rage is no exception, needs to be carefully deconstructed to determine the specific state of mind that led to the crime. In Canipe, the defendant was burned by picking a fight with someone much larger. The same thing is said to have recently happened to seven foot former basketball star Kareem Abdul Jabbar, charged with assault after he responded to a challenge issued to him while he was still in the car. Mr. Canipe got more than he bargained for when he decided to show what a tough guy he was. In this case, the death may have happened in the course of his panic over the mess his self-indulgent anger got him into.
As in other violence, the availability of a lethal weapon makes the difference for many. The typical motorist responsible for an aggressive driving accident does not envision that a crash or a fatality will result. He is too consumed with his own need for expressing and discharging an overflowing septic tank of anger. This is the major distinction of psychiatric criminal responsibility between the gun user and the rageful motorist. The gunman knows what guns are for, even if he seizes one because it is close at hand. In accidents that follow these automotive dogfights the offender motorist sees another driver, not someone he can kill by forcing off the road. In this regard, public safety initiatives that remind motorists of the rights of other drivers and of the criminal consequences of destructive driving are equally effective as the limit setting on narcissistic pathology that we exercise in clinical practice.
