Accountability

[Cross]

he doesn't care about intent, which is wrong.

Is it, though? "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it" cannot be an excuse for murder. Negligence is criminal, as it should be. You really can't put an 80 year old woman serving 20 to life, granted. But a line must be drawn, here. I can't even imagine what it must be like for the parents of this kid, who get to hear that the person who murdered their son got to spend a whole 24 hours in prison and may even be allowed to drive again so she can maybe butcher someone else's kids. It is wrong.

This is not a simple case. To say that it's difficult to deem appropriate punishment to a person who genuinely didn't mean to and that might even be too senile to comprehend what they've done is a massive understatement. But it is neither black nor white. It being an accident doesn't allow you to ask for a slap on the wrists for the exact same reason that you shouldn't ask for capital punishment. But it must be somewhere in between.

A car is a weapon and it must be treated as such. Yet another kid lost his life to remind us of that. "Ok, she just killed a child and forever branded the lives of his parents and siblings, but she says she didn't mean to and that she'll never do it again, so that's enough, right?" It's not. And nor should it be.

Nothing you do will ever bring the person back or even make up for the fact that you ended their life. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable.

The point of prison is rehabilitation. If the judge believed that the woman was too far gone to be rehabilitated or that prison was too harsh a sentence, then there are other, less intrusive methods. Take her license, send her to compulsory psychological/psychiatric appointments, ship her off a mental facility, put her in a home, anything. But using scare tactics on the elderly like that is not just mocking the parents of the deceased, it's scaring the life out of an 80 year old woman just to be able to say you did something about it.

Apologies if this sounded angry in any way, shape or form. I am not. Simply wanted to use a tone to make a point.

And yes, **** old people just about sums it up.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

This is not a simple case.

You sort of lose the case for nuance when you say things like

murder

and

murdered their son

and

butcher someone else's kids

and

A car is a weapon

The woman should be held accountable, but let's not sensationalize a minor albeit tragic local news story.

 

[Clayton]

Ok, let's all take a step back here.

She was charged with careless driving resulting in the death of another. Which is not murder. What does that mean? It means she drove carelessly, but without the intent of violating any of the rules of the road. And because she didn't notice something, a person died.

So we have no bad intent towards any facet of the law at all. Which means it's a lesser sentence, which it should be, she didn't willfully break any law.

Instead of trying to plead not-guilty, she admitted responsibility for the accident, and took a plea deal. Which further reduces the sentence because that shows willingness to abide by the law and take responsibility for ones actions. Reasonably we can assume that because of that, she's going to pay a lot more attention when/if she drives again in the future.

 

[Mesa]

But really, **** old people.

 

[Clayton]

The woman should be held accountable, but let's not sensationalize a minor albeit tragic local news story.

Yeah, and Cross, I don't think you understand what murder is.

 

[Cross]

If you want to get technical, the judicial term is Homicide in the Fourth Degree, more commonly known as "Involuntary Manslaughter". Murder is the act of killing a person without valid justification or excuse. In the eyes of the law, negligence is neither of these things. It's just not Homicide in the First, Second or Third Degrees, all of which require intent. (First Degree requires intent, premeditation and malice, the Second Degree requires intent and malice, and the Third "only" requires intent and is known as Voluntary Manslaughter).

A car is an instrument that can be used to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures or systems. As I'm sure you've realised by now, that is the textbook definition of "Weapon". We're far too desensitised about what we do on the road and are, generally speaking, more aggressive when we're behind the wheel in any other scenario of our lives, which is part of the reason why this happens so often.

Reasonably we can assume that because of that, she's going to pay a lot more attention when/if she drives again in the future.

Like I had explained earlier, the sensationalism was put into effect to prove a point. That point was precisely that this particular reasoning, is completely mistaken. Reasonably, we can't assume that at all. That is considered to be common knowledge and a logical conclusion but, sadly, none of these things make it true. The fact is that a "That almost ended badly for me" scenario is usually not enough to change a person's mind. People who pass out drunk by the side of the road and don't get assaulted/whatever are very likely to continue drinking. Those who fall asleep at the wheel nearly crash will probably not even stop driving while exhausted, let alone stop driving. I mean sure, they'll stop... for a while. Then time passes, and it's back to the status quo.

It is in our nature to assume that "this kind of thing will never happen to me". And even after it has, it is still within that very nature to believe that lightning never strikes twice. Life would be much too frightening if we spent each day considering all of these horrid possibilities, so our minds hide them. The human brain's purpose is survival, not being an upstanding citizen. And all of that is absolutely fine. But the fact remains that lightning does strike more than once. And what happened to her can happen to you, and it can just as easily happen to her again. Even consequences won't guarantee a lasting a paradigm shift. But what we do know that no consequences will most likely lead to no shift at all.

None here is saying that this (probably sweet) old lady meant to do what she did, or that she's some form of monster that cannot be allowed on the streets, or even that she be sent to prison. But she is did commit a major crime: she killed a child. These are not bombastic headlines, they're facts of life. Laws exist because people cannot be trusted to be judge, jury or executioner to any of their own wrongdoings. And although the circumstances must of course be taken into consideration, this is a question of morality and fairness, in the eyes of the law. Whether you're a sweet old lady, a sociopath or an ordinary twenty-something year-old under the influence, you simply cannot get away with taking a life like that.

 

[Clayton]

The fact is that a "That almost ended badly for me" scenario is usually not enough to change a person's mind.

In this case it did end badly for her, though.

 

[Cross]

Because she went to prison for a full 24 hours before being allowed to continue about her normal life? I'd rather she'd not gone to jail at all than have this happen.

Wasn't able to contain that one, and I will apologise for it. But like I've said before, it might look it at times, but I'm neither trying to milk this, nor am I particularly angry. Annoyed by it, sure, but I'm not sure I'd know which side was up if I were a judge or a member of a jury in a case like that.

Anyway, above all else, it's not my place to try and change anyone's minds. I've said what I had to say, and you've done the same. So, if none of us have come around yet, I think it's safe to assume that it's probably not going to happen. So before I back off, like I did, I'll let you take one final crack at it and then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Please don't interpret this as condescending or anything of the sort, I just dislike leaving arguments "unfinished", so to speak. Really can't tell you why, just enjoy a sense of closure, I guess.

Finally, this may be a lot of things, but it's not certainly reason enough for me to burn some bridges, especially in a server I've only recently arrived at. In spite of where we stand, right now, I'd like to extend an olive branch and state that there are no hard feelings from my end. Hopefully, there won't be any on yours.

Cheers

 

[Skyway]

She killed someone, beer can too, cars are weapon, and pot is Ok to many. This could been the old woman only crime in her life so, 25 years in jail - life, Why. Cars are weapons, so should we treat them like Guns and freak out every time someone turns them on. And pot is use in some states and some of states you can be put to death by it, US is dumb.
The judge may had feel sorry for the old woman, she has to live with that for the rest of her life. That kids family does too it sad, yes but punishing the old woman will not bring the kid back ether. She old and may be a little blind or that family rush the sidewalk before the old woman had time to stop. We will never now.
Let her do the commilty service and take her license away. done done. It sad but there nothing you can do.

 

[Clayton]

Because she went to prison for a full 24 hours and was then allowed to continue about her normal life?

Because she friggin killed someone.

Regardless, this may be a lot of things, but it's not certainly reason enough for me to burn some bridges, especially in a server I've only recently arrived at. In spite of where we stand, right now, I'd like to extend an olive branch and state that there are no hard feelings from my end. Hopefully, there won't be any on yours.

Absolutely. No ill feelings.

 

[Miz]

I see what you mean now, Silver.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if she were an inner city youth.

 

[Clayton]

I wonder what the outcome would have been if she were an inner city youth.

Now you're just trolling.

 

[Miz]

Now you're just trolling.

No, I'm genuinely curious if the judge would give out a harsher sentence if that person looked like this.

Of course our society believes an old lady is less likely to offend than one of those whippersnappers.

 

[Cross]

She killed someone, beer can too, cars are weapon, and pot is Ok to many. This could been the old woman only crime in her life so, 25 years in jail - life, Why. Cars are weapons, so should we treat them like Guns and freak out every time someone turns them on. And pot is use in some states and some of states you can be put to death by it, US is dumb.
The judge may had feel sorry for the old woman, she has to live with that for the rest of her life. That kids family does too it sad, yes but punishing the old woman will not bring the kid back ether. She old and may be a little blind or that family rush the sidewalk before the old woman had time to stop. We will never now.
Let her do the commilty service and take her license away. done done. It sad but there nothing you can do.

As I had written before, you are free to stand on whichever side of the argument you see fit I won't be making any judgements towards it, but some of these are facts and they're not exactly right.

Involuntary Manslaughter has a maximum penalty of 5 years, if memory serves me right. Do correct me on that. The only reason I wrote 25 to life was to, as Brandon put it, sensationalise the situation. I have, however, also written that I don't think jail was the answer, be it a day or a year. Needed to make that clear.

Beer can kill, yes, but it can only kill the drinker and suicide is not a crime, negligent or otherwise. Alcohol consumption might be part of why things happen, but it'll only be considered a weapon in the crime if they were actually used to harm the victim.

No state in the US will apply the death penalty for the possession of drugs (please God don't tell me I'm wrong on this), and the possibility of her being blind as a bat and still choosing to get in a car only makes it sound less like an accident which, again, we all firmly believe it was. The story does not mention that her driver's license was revoked.

And finally, it is very sad, yes. But there was something that could have been done about it. That is the reason we have courts of law. We all agree that the verdict could have been different, the argument lied on whether it should have been, or not. I understand that english might not be your first language and that the difference may appear small, but believe me when I tell you that it is huge.
If, on the other hand, you mean that there was nothing we, people of this site could do, then I have to say I disagree. It is one of these judgements I promised I wouldn't make, so I'll try to make it short: I am a firm believer that discussion can actually change things. Even if it's not this one particular case is out of our hands, it could still make a difference in the future.

Miz, in spite of disagreeing with his choice, I actually think the judge/district attorney was sensible, so the situation would've probably been the same. The only difference would've been in the media. Because when a not-so-innocent guy dies, the story's not that worth it anymore. What a wonderful world, eh? lol.