Advocacy & Safety - What is a just sentence for running over a cyclist due to inattention?

News here in CO about sentencing a teen for running over a cyclist where he was text messaging and not driving. I doubt if this is a local state issue. It does raise the larger question of what is just.


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3482506

I'm bothered by many aspects of this story:

1. teens name is hidden - why should a murderer be able to hide behind a mask?
2. title: "learns safety lesson", but what where the "penalites" for inattention and running over someone

a- community service
b- no cell phone for 4 years
c- no driving for x years [ I think it was also 4, but not repeated in post article]

Sounds like a slap on the pinkie to me and we need new laws to be on the books.

What do you think should be a just sentence? Is there any bike advocacy group currently pressing for more justice in cases like this. I'm thinking also of the St Louis [creve coure? ] bent rider who was run over also because "I just didn't see him".

Here's some thoughts to get it started:

Thought #1 - is driver considered a responsible or irresponsible person?
How can it make sense for the driver to be responsible enough to drive a motor vehicle and yet not held to mimimum responsible standards, i.e, name recognition. If not old enough to be IDed when commit a murder, regardless of whether intention or not, then those age people should not have the priviledge of driving, period.

Thought #2 - where is the economic leveling for the damage caused?
Ok, for a moment only think about this economically. What was the financial impact of this murder? Victim was 63. Say he had 17 years of expected life span. You'ld have to get the real number based on health and family history, but that's good enough for the illustration. Now, assume he was a minimum wage earner, $2,000 a month. 3 years to retirement, and then retirement income would be, oh, let's say for ease $1,000 a month.

2,000x36 months [3 years] == $72,000
1,000x 168 months [14 years] == $168,000
That's $240,000. But since he would get cost of living increases, say 4%, the total at end would be $363,206.86
How is the wife, 2 daughters and grandchild supposed to replace 1/3 of a million dollars of lost income? The wife is probably near retirement also and can't go out and work harder to generate 1/3 of a million.
Colorado switched back to an AtFault liability, so why wasn't there any mention of economic leveling? Insurance
company could pay it, or teen could pay family support just as adults have to pay child support. It's called being held responsible.

Thought #3 - where is the penalty for releckless homicide?
Remorse should not matter in economic matters. Do we excuse someone for inattention and allow dismissal of child support because we didn't mean to get pregnant and sorry it happened? Haven't heard of any cases like that yet.
Since it was more than just an accident, but was an accident because of inattention the economic recompense to the surviving family should be tripled.

Ok, is that enought to start discussion? What thinkest thou?

I think the real answer is to teach responsibility and to really enforce the laws we already have. The speed limits around here are a complete joke... residential roads that have a 35mph posted limit are commonly driven at speeds of 55+mph. And it seems that the people that are paying the least attention to what they're doing are the people that are travelling the fastest.

I'm not sure stricter sentences are really going to help much. Education seems to be harder to accomplish, but yields far better results.

Az

Crime and Punishment are very difficult areas to appease everyone and do the right thing.

A judge has a certain number of responsibilities to fulfill, not least of which is the end result of all of this as far as the guilty party is concerned and how that will follow through to society.

Here is a teen who, regardless of his actions to date, still has the chance of becoming an upstanding contributing member of society. Despite failing in his legal and social responsibilities this person showed no intent to kill and prior to sentancing has an incredibly low risk of recidivism.

What value is there in a form of punishment that run a significant risk of turning him into a career criminal whose existance will diminsh the value of his environment and make him an economic and aesthetic burden on society?

Crime and Punishment are very difficult areas to appease everyone and do the right thing.

Agreed, that is why I tried to not talk about punishment but only about justice-- bringing the victims family back to a level economic state. Punishment aspects were the lack of cell phone and driving priviledges. The community service is not really punishment but society reconciliation.



A judge has a certain number of responsibilities to fulfill, not least of which is the end result of all of this as far as the guilty party is concerned and how that will follow through to society.

But where is the concern for the victim's family. Why should they be excluded from justice? What is the value of removing society from justice. The only way I know of in the current system for the family to get some justice is to bring a civil lawsuit against the offender. Why must it be set up as Person A[offender] vs State[representative of society] and not PersonA vs State and victims?



Here is a teen who, reg[ardless of his actions to date, still has the chance of becoming an upstanding contributing member of society. Despite failing in his legal and social responsibilities this person showed no intent to kill and prior to sentancing has an incredibly low risk of recidivism.
All true and are valid considerations in sentencing.



What value is there in a form of punishment that run a significant risk of turning him into a career criminal whose existance will diminsh the value of his environment and make him an economic and aesthetic burden on society?

What value is there to society in not repairing the economic damage of this accident to the wife, daughters and grandchild.? Won't the loss of $300,000 mean that their environment, education, and ability to contribute meaninfully to society will be severely curtailed? This is not punishment, it just asking for replacement value of removing a life stream of income. If your house burned, you'd asked for it's replacement value. How is this any different?

I don't see how cyclist's can have it both ways. You can't be for advocating cyclist's rights and then be for tossing away those rights because of special circumstances. If you take that position, this forum has no value.

I don't see how cyclist's can have it both ways. You can't be for advocating cyclist's rights and then be for tossing away those rights because of special circumstances. If you take that position, this forum has no value.

More to follow but first of all you should change every instance of cyclist's to people's. That is how a judge is obliged by law to view things. This is because the teen didn't kill the victim because he was a cyclist. The same would have happened if the victim was a skater, a pedestrian, a pogo-jumper, a horse-rider and a myriad of other things that could have had him at that place and at that time.

Sometimes we need to consider whether the case calls for us to argue for cyclist's rights or the right's of a broader group of people. In this instance and in any others like it I argue for the latter.

The fact one is on a bike should make no difference. Should be the same as killing a pedestarian or fellow motorist. Is it not manslaughter. Usally carries a prison term. What 5 to 10.

I agree that a nice 5 year prison sentence would be a just punishment and deterrent.

Sorry, I think killing of someone with your auto should be enough to throw you out of the driving pool.

In my mind, anyone killing a pedestrian or cyclist should have their license permanently revoked. Make them live a lifestyle in which they become either a pedestrian or cyclist. They have already shown that they do not have the personal responsibility to pilot a heavy powered vehicle.

I think the same should apply to anyone drunk driving who kills someone else.

In the case of two motorists crashing... I am not sure, but I do know that there are about 45,000 folks no longer out there due to auto crashes.

IMHO killing someone due to driving while inattentive is, and should be tried/sentenced, exactly the same as if you were standing around on the street, yakking on a cell phone, and talking (waiving around) with your other hand while holding a loaded handgun with the safety off, and "accidentally" shot and killed someone.

I don't see how operating a motor vehicle (a deadly weapon by any standards, and one for which the barriers to operate are much higher than those for owning and carrying a handgun in most US states) should be held to a lower standard.

If you knowingly take control of a deadly weapon for which you have received plenty of training on how to operate it and been given hundreds of warnings about how dangerous it is, and decide you don't really have to pay much attention to safely handling it, then kill someone as a result, I believe that you are at the very LEAST guilty of negligent homicide. Besides prison time, you really should not be allowed to operate a vehicle again. Ever. Driving is a priviledge, and you just gave it up through your own actions.

There are situations where people should get off lighter. Like, if the accident was not their fault. By that I mean, someone did something that could not be anticipated by an attentive driver, resulting in that person's death, or causing the driver to lose control due to attempting to avoid that person, and killing someone else.

I do NOT include most weather-related situations in this. Freezing conditions do not sneak up on you. "Black ice" should be ASSUMED to be present in freezing conditions, and driving speeds adjusted with the assumption that with no warning you could be on ice. Same with most other conditions. Flash flood/landslide/earthquake victims can be given consideration.

I also don't buy arguments of "I have to drive like a nut, because everyone else does, it's just self defense to go 20 over the limit." I drive the limit if not below and I can tell you that it doesn't take many people driving the limit before the whole expressway slows down. People wanting to do 90 might not like it but it's not like they have a lot of choice.

In the case of two motorists crashing... I am not sure, but I do know that there are about 45,000 folks no longer out there due to auto crashes.

Per year, just to be accurate. More americans died in car crashes in the first half of the 20th century than in both world wars put together. (Sorry I don't have non-US stats). About as many americans are killed every year in car wrecks as died in the entire Vietnam war.

Ok, not manslaughter. I'm not asking for prison term longer than the 9 days given. I don't think a 5-10 year term would have much impact. I don't think teens are impressed that someone got sent to jail. It happens too often. What would make impact is if they/or family had to make economic restitution. They are impressed if someone very young, ie their age has to pay child support. That has more emotional impact than a 50 year jail term. I just don't see jail time longer than 5 days being a detererrent.

I'm just trying to raise the economic argument: restoration of the lost of income.
If I'm driving a Maybach without insurance, and drive into a tree and lose my 300k Maybach,
---that's my bad judgment and my loss.
If someone steals that same Maybach and drives it into a tree,
---they should be held responsible for giving me a new Maybach and it should not be my loss.

What value is there to society in not repairing the economic damage of this accident to the wife, daughters and grandchild.? Won't the loss of $300,000 mean that their environment, education, and ability to contribute meaninfully to society will be severely curtailed? This is not punishment, it just asking for replacement value of removing a life stream of income. If your house burned, you'd asked for it's replacement value. How is this any different?

Apologies, I'm doing this piecemeal, and backwards it would seem.

So where is this $300,000 going to come from? The kid is unlikely to have any assets above a gamestation and a computer and maybe one or two other bits and pieces. If it's more than three grand I'll be surprised. Furthermore the kid is 18, a McJob is not going to turn up $300K any time soon.

Imagine a very generous $10/hour job at 40 hours a week, that comes to $22,000 a year. That's 13.5 years roughly to pay up the $300K. But what are we forgetting? Oh yeah, that kid still needs to eat, live in a house, wear clothes and be stimulated outside of work in order not to go stark staring mad (even serial killers get books and cable and they're already psychologically abnormal). We could get the parents to support him but then we effectively penalise them as well. Not really a fair idea to me so what's your suggestion for economic justice?

Per year, just to be accurate. More americans died in car crashes in the first half of the 20th century than in both world wars put together. (Sorry I don't have non-US stats). About as many americans are killed every year in car wrecks as died in the entire Vietnam war.

Exactly!

I was recently asked what percentage I would find acceptable... and frankly the answer is 0, but we are only human, and will make mistakes. But looking at the statistics, some 30% or so are due to drunk driving, another 30% or so are due to speeding... so immediately it comes to mind that about 60% of the deaths are due to choices these folks made that had nothing to do with a critical decision during a bad situation... these were premeditated bad choices (to drink or to speed); not making those choices could have saved about 30,000 lives a year.

The other 15,000 lives are due to other factors such as reckless driving, poor judgement, bad road conditions, ect.

But simply slowing down, and not drinking can save 30,000 folks a year... such as Ken Kifer, who was killed by a drunk driver.

Ok, not manslaughter. I'm not asking for prison term longer than the 9 days given. I don't think a 5-10 year term would have much impact. I don't think teens are impressed that someone got sent to jail. It happens too often. What would make impact is if they/or family had to make economic restitution. They are impressed if someone very young, ie their age has to pay child support. That has more emotional impact than a 50 year jail term. I just don't see jail time longer than 5 days being a detererrent.

I'm just trying to raise the economic argument: restoration of the lost of income.
If I'm driving a Maybach without insurance, and drive into a tree and lose my 300k Maybach,
---that's my bad judgment and my loss.
If someone steals that same Maybach and drives it into a tree,
---they should be held responsible for giving me a new Maybach and it should not be my loss.


You want to make an impact on a teen... take away their driver's license forever!

You want to make an impact on a teen... take away their driver's license forever!

That's overkill, but strike one of three strikes to permanent licence lost, that would hit home.

Sorry, I think killing of someone with your auto should be enough to throw you out of the driving pool.

In my mind, anyone killing a pedestrian or cyclist should have their license permanently revoked. Make them live a lifestyle in which they become either a pedestrian or cyclist. They have already shown that they do not have the personal responsibility to pilot a heavy powered vehicle.

I think the same should apply to anyone drunk driving who kills someone else.


+1

I think losing your license forever and never being allowed to drive again (in addition to jail time/community service) is a perfectly just punishment for killing someone with your car

We need to think about what message a too light punishment send to the the population at large, and not just other teens.

Getting away with a light sentence turns the act into an incident that occured despite whatever the driver may have done, like "visibility was poor when a tire blew-up and he lost control of the vehicle"..

In this case however, and only judging by the article, the family agreed with the judge on the sentence, meaning that they did not wish to claim or appeal for substential damages or jail, meaning that what they viewed important was rehabilitation and prevention. "The family accepted his apology and asked the judge to spare him jail. The family asked that he become a spokesman and advocate for safer teen driving" .

If this is true, I salute the family for their courage, there is so much of "eye for eye" going on.

I wonder though, what his mission's requirements to become spokesman and advocate for safer teen driving, how long and how deep? One become such by self-conviction, not third party intervention. A little sceptical as to the outcome of the sentence.

Apologies, I'm doing this piecemeal, and backwards it would seem.
No foul. I tossed out many seed ideas just to get the discussion going and the first post was long.



So where is this $300,000 going to come from? The kid is unlikely to have any assets above a gamestation and a computer and maybe one or two other bits and pieces. If it's more than three grand I'll be surprised. Furthermore the kid is 18, a McJob is not going to turn up $300K any time soon.

It's not a lump sum. Kid had a car. The "I don't have the money" doesn't work for child support and yet child support payments continue.




Imagine a very generous $10/hour job at 40 hours a week, that comes to $22,000 a year. That's 13.5 years roughly to pay up the $300K. But what are we forgetting? Oh yeah, that kid still needs to eat, live in a house, wear clothes and be stimulated outside of work in order not to go stark staring mad (even serial killers get books and cable and they're already psychologically abnormal). We could get the parents to support him but then we effectively penalise them as well. Not really a fair idea to me so what's your suggestion for economic justice?

But what are we forgetting? Oh yeah, in 10 years McJob/Walmart will be ancient history and real earnings will begin.
It would be nice for deterent to have the kid make a regular monthly payment of $100 or $200 to the family, but that wouldn't get the family economic justice. What's left? polling a bunch of kids money to pay for accidents that just a few kids have. Oh, wait there a name for that isn't there, insurance. The insurance company could pay out the lump sum to the family, or spread out over expected lifespan, which they would like better. Other kids would see rates go up just a tad, but not enough to keep them from driving. Oh, what about the driver without insurance? Strike 2 of 3 strikes and you never get a drivers license again. Plus 8% or $200/month. This would not return economic justice for the family unless the state had to make up the difference. And what is wrong with that, it's a village task to raise the young. As parents, we just can't write checks, hand over keys and say go and get out of my hair. Tax impact would be small and since this would become some budget item, the local state legislators would have a vested interest in seeing that traffic safety needs were met.

Just toss out ideas and brainstorming. But it does sound more just than the current situation with survivors getting $0.00.

That's overkill, but strike one of three strikes to permanent licence lost, that would hit home.

Sorry, but I tend to think death is "overkill."

Pretty much no second chance for the person killed... which is why I believe no second chance should be given to the driver.

We are in this case talking about the teen who killed Sydney. In another thread on this board Sydney's daughter says that the family is happy with the sentence. They are closer to the situation than we are. Their feelings on the matter hold a lot of weight.

SS

Agreed, that is why I tried to not talk about punishment but only about justice-- bringing the victims family back to a level economic state. Punishment aspects were the lack of cell phone and driving priviledges. The community service is not really punishment but society reconciliation.



But where is the concern for the victim's family. Why should they be excluded from justice? What is the value of removing society from justice. The only way I know of in the current system for the family to get some justice is to bring a civil lawsuit against the offender. Why must it be set up as Person A[offender] vs State[representative of society] and not PersonA vs State and victims?


All true and are valid considerations in sentencing.



What value is there to society in not repairing the economic damage of this accident to the wife, daughters and grandchild.? Won't the loss of $300,000 mean that their environment, education, and ability to contribute meaninfully to society will be severely curtailed? This is not punishment, it just asking for replacement value of removing a life stream of income. If your house burned, you'd asked for it's replacement value. How is this any different?

I don't see how cyclist's can have it both ways. You can't be for advocating cyclist's rights and then be for tossing away those rights because of special circumstances. If you take that position, this forum has no value.

This all assumes the victim (assuming of course he wasn't the victim of this accident) wouldn't have died the next day from a heart attack or slipping in the shower. We don't know how long we have on this earth ....... and "stuff" happens. It was his day to go. We all get hung up on making it to the average life expectancy for our group. There is a reason why there is an average ...... some live long and some don't.

Don't get me wrong here, I hate this for his family and loved ones as much as anybody. But, one thing for sure about this life is ...... there isn't even one of us that is gonna' make it out alive and thank God, we never know when it's coming.

I also don't think being cyclists makes us anymore special than anyone else. Stuff happens to everybody. You try to pay attention the best you can so you can get out of the way when the stuff starts hitting the fan. Some times you make it ...... and sometimes you don't.

We are in this case talking about the teen who killed Sydney. In another thread on this board Sydney's daughter says that the family is happy with the sentence. They are closer to the situation than we are. Their feelings on the matter hold a lot of weight.

SS

Here's her thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=172098

She explains the family's feeling regarding the sentence.

Beej

Sydney's daughter says that the family is happy with the sentence. They are closer to the situation than we are. Their feelings on the matter hold a lot of weight.


Are they happy with the sentence period, or happy with the sentence given the current laws? Is the wife silent because she is very unhappy with the sentence and doesn't want to be in the newpaper and on TV?
Will the daughter be happy in 2 years when the grief period is over?

Make the question bigger than just this one case. What should be the fair response to someone killing someone else because they were not focused on their primary responsibility of driving safely for themselves, their passengers and others around them. For me this is not a moot issue. Some of our 20 somethings have trouble understanding safety is job one and comfort, talking on the phone, being entertained are secondary. So what can we all do to more strongly reinforce the thought that while driving, safety is the prime directive?

Are they happy with the sentence period, or happy with the sentence given the current laws? Is the wife silent because she is very unhappy with the sentence and doesn't want to be in the newpaper and on TV?
Will the daughter be happy in 2 years when the grief period is over?


Sorry I missed the link to the thread from syndey. Note the answer to my questions in post #6 of the thread


I do have to admit I am rather upset with the way the law is written. That being said we decided as a family after much discussion that part of his sentence should include going out sharing his story with others. ..
Kimberlee

What would be interesting would be some suggestions from Kimberlee on what changes in the law she would like to see.
I would have to agree with her the judge was very creative in sentencing and looked beyond crime-punishment and more towards crime-restitution being limited by current laws. I wonder what laws the judge would have liked to have on the books to make his sentencing more just??

We need to think about what message a too light punishment send to the the population at large, and not just other teens.
That is what I thought when I heard of the sentencing on the news last night.



If this is true, I salute the family for their courage, there is so much of "eye for eye" going on.


"eye for eye" is not understood by most Americans. They understand it to mean, you pound me, I pound you back plus some more just for good measure. The "eye for eye" limits retribution and says, whoa, only the eye, not the more and no extra for good measure. For example the farmer who lost a sheep due to his neighbors carelessness, was entitled to one sheep back in return. But not two sheep nor the neighbors entire flock of sheep.

I agree that a nice 5 year prison sentence would be a just punishment and deterrent.
I thought Manslaughter was pretty much defined as unintentionally killing someone.

Quote from the OP's cited article:

"The family accepted his apology and asked the judge to spare him jail. The family asked that he become a spokesman and advocate for safer teen driving."

The judge agreed and honored that request.

Have you never found yourself a little bit over a line while driving, run a red light or missed a stop sign? Have none ever looked at their radio dial and swerved a little bit? A five year jail sentence for those infractions would probably serve to prevent one from hitting a cyclist in the future also. Think about it. Have you never thought, "Thank goodness no one was there!?"

This was a painful, tragic incident which even hurt those of us in these forums that enjoyed Sydney's reparte. Yet, the sad kid's reckless behavior was no more malicious than anyone's occasional lapse except for the extreme misfortune of Sydney's presence.

Webist, that is all true but begs the question, the catastropic economic hit on the family still remains. How would you change the laws/environment so family is economically even, neither ahead or behind because of this tragic incident?

I wouldn't change the law in that regard. Criminal court is not where economics comes into play. I saw nothing in the article which precluded a civil suit. Sure, it may be unlikely that any real payment would result from such a suit, given the circumstances. Then the question becomes, would I (we) somehow be made to pay through taxes, insurance premiums, etc.? I think (hope) not. Neither wopuld I expect to be held financially responsible for someone's heart attack death.

In any event, the OP questioned the level of punishment, not restoration of the economic well-being of those impacted by the man's death.

It does raise the larger question of what is just.Ummm.. first torture him with red-hot pincers; his hand, holding the phone used in the murder, would be burnt using sulphur; molten wax, lead, and boiling oil would then be poured into his wounds. Horses would then be harnessed to his arms and legs for his dismemberment. If his joints would not break, after some hours, representatives of the Court would order the executioner and his aides to cut his joints. He would then be dismembered, to the applause of the crowd. His trunk, apparently still living, would then be burnt at the stake.

After his death his house would be razed to the ground, his brothers and sisters would be ordered to change their names, and his father, wife, and daughter would be banished from America.

Now that sounds like justice, doesn't it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Damiens)

Quote from the OP's cited article:

"The family accepted his apology and asked the judge to spare him jail. The family asked that he become a spokesman and advocate for safer teen driving."

The judge agreed and honored that request.

Have you never found yourself a little bit over a line while driving, run a red light or missed a stop sign? Have none ever looked at their radio dial and swerved a little bit? A five year jail sentence for those infractions would probably serve to prevent one from hitting a cyclist in the future also. Think about it. Have you never thought, "Thank goodness no one was there!?"

This was a painful, tragic incident which even hurt those of us in these forums that enjoyed Sydney's reparte. Yet, the sad kid's reckless behavior was no more malicious than anyone's occasional lapse except for the extreme misfortune of Sydney's presence.+1

Ummm.. first torture him...Now that sounds like justice, doesn't it?

More like revenge and a caricature of justice. Why is it people have so much difficulty raising the discussion from this particular case to a discussion of in these type of situations what would be the ideal just sentence for a tragic situation?

Have you never found yourself a little bit over a line while driving, run a red light or missed a stop sign? Have none ever looked at their radio dial and swerved a little bit? A five year jail sentence for those infractions would probably serve to prevent one from hitting a cyclist in the future also. Think about it. Have you never thought, "Thank goodness no one was there!?"


To have a momentary lapse is a temporary human condition, but to take the time to reply using a cell phone to tap in the tedious code of SMS text messaging (http://c2.com/morse/wiki.cgi?MorseFasterThanTextMessaging) is well beyond "a momentary lapse."

More like revenge and a caricature of justice. Why is it people have so much difficulty raising the discussion from this particular case to a discussion of in these type of situations what would be the ideal just sentence for a tragic situation?Because I think the sentence was just, and some people seem to think the court didn't extract its pound of flesh, so I described an actual sentence from the 18th century that went for the pound of flesh, and then some.

To have a momentary lapse is a temporary human condition, but to take the time to reply using a cell phone to tap in the tedious code of SMS text messaging (http://c2.com/morse/wiki.cgi?MorseFasterThanTextMessaging) is well beyond "a momentary lapse."It's a lapse in judgment, and remember, we're talking about the judgment of a teenager here. As a general proposition, I'm not for lenient sentencing in negligent homicide, or whatever you'd call it, but I don't think of this sentence as being particularly lenient, given the defendant's age, experience, etc.

Just to clarify, Judge Blue Order would hand out a much stiffer sentence to the woman on Hilton Head, again based on the circumstances.

I don't know the Hilton Head reference.

If talking about this instance, I think the sentence was fair according to the current laws however I don't think it was just because there was no attempt to provide justice for the family's economic loss. The family may have had life insurance to cover this type of event, but in this day when people are cutting back on many benefits. I don't think we can assume either there was a life insurance policy in place or that it was adequate in quantity for the family to maintain their current lifestyle. I would think there should have been some financial obligation also paid for by the vehicle insurance company. The amount would be only to cover the shortfall between the family's economic situation in October and current economic situation. I can't imagine it would be improved. It might be even, but highest probability is they will have to cut back spending now because of this incident.

Not being a lawyer, this may be a separate law suit where the family needs to sue the insurance carrier. I just found it strange that this angle of the loss was not addressed.

I don't know the Hilton Head reference.I'm pretty sure it's in this thread. A woman was yakking on her phone (according to the police report-- she denies it), and ran off the road, hitting a cyclist. She showed no remorse whatsoever, she's older than this kid (and thus, presumably, has more experience, should be making more mature decisions, etc. )...



If talking about this instance, I think the sentence was fair according to the current laws however I don't think it was just because there was no attempt to provide justice for the family's economic loss. The family may have had life insurance to cover this type of event, but in this day when people are cutting back on many benefits. I don't think we can assume either there was a life insurance policy in place or that it was adequate in quantity for the family to maintain their current lifestyle. I would think there should have been some financial obligation also paid for by the vehicle insurance company. The amount would be only to cover the shortfall between the family's economic situation in October and current economic situation. I can't imagine it would be improved. It might be even, but highest probability is they will have to cut back spending now because of this incident.

Not being a lawyer, this may be a separate law suit where the family needs to sue the insurance carrier. I just found it strange that this angle of the loss was not addressed.I think generally speaking, there's no financial recompense to families in criminal cases, although there are laws on the books about restitution (say, for example, somebody steals your grandmother's wedding ring). I could be wrong about that, but I think generally speaking, no financial restitution. In a civil case, the family could file a lawsuit and ask for damages based on the loss they've suffered. I dunno-- I could be wrong.

I think, personally, based on the facts of this case, that would be a bit harsh. He's a teenager. It was poor judgment to be texting while driving, but that's all it was. A teenager's poor judgment. Not the same thing as my poor judgment. He's remorseful. He'll be dealing with the results of that poor judgment for the rest of his life. He'll be raising awareness of that poor judgment as part of his sentence. He's not allowed to drive. he's not allowed to use a cell phone. Etc. The sentence handed out is far more effective, in my opinion, than a longer jail sentence. He'll be thinking about this, and more importantly, raising awareness of this, for a long, long time. A very, very effective sentence, more effective, in my opinion, than a longer jail sentence. And I see no reason to go after this teenager for an extra pound of flesh. If he were unremorseful, if he were older-- say 25, like the Hilton Head woman-- I'd say go for the financial compensation. I just don't see the point in this case.

No offense on their part but why should everyone else suffer because one family choose to go easy on an offender?

I'd like to see a 3 strikes rule evoked. Also, rather than a meager 9 day jail sentence, it should be significantly longer, enough for him to see the horrors of prison and then some. Afterwards, enough financial penalty to stick with him for another decade or so.

Teenagers forget just as easily as they lose their judgement.


We are in this case talking about the teen who killed Sydney. In another thread on this board Sydney's daughter says that the family is happy with the sentence. They are closer to the situation than we are. Their feelings on the matter hold a lot of weight.

SS

I

I think generally speaking, there's no financial recompense to families in criminal cases, although there are laws on the books about restitution (say, for example, somebody steals your grandmother's wedding ring). I could be wrong about that, but I think generally speaking, no financial restitution. In a civil case, the family could file a lawsuit and ask for damages based on the loss they've suffered. I dunno-- I could be wrong.


So auto accidents are civil cases between the 2+ parties. Why isn't there a combo where there is automatically restitution. Seems like the system needs to be improved.



I think, personally, based on the facts of this case, that would be a bit harsh. He's a teenager. It was poor judgment to be texting while driving, but that's all it was. A teenager's poor judgment. Not the same thing as my poor judgment. He's remorseful. He'll be dealing with the results of that poor judgment for the rest of his life. He'll be raising awareness of that poor judgment as part of his sentence. He's not allowed to drive. he's not allowed to use a cell phone. Etc. The sentence handed out is far more effective, in my opinion, than a longer jail sentence. He'll be thinking about this, and more importantly, raising awareness of this, for a long, long time. A very, very effective sentence, more effective, in my opinion, than a longer jail sentence. And I see no reason to go after this teenager for an extra pound of flesh. If he were unremorseful, if he were older-- say 25, like the Hilton Head woman-- I'd say go for the financial compensation. I just don't see the point in this case.

The point for financial is to get the word out to not just those who hear of his community service, but others as well that there are both financial and emotional costs of not driving in a careful manner.

If because of the laws financial is off the table, then in general I think the judge made a very good judgment. The only thing I would have changed is reduce the jail time. I would want to give a flavor of life in a jail but not long enough to develop hardening. Thurs, Fri, Sat, sun, Mon would make the point as well as 9 days, but I'm not going to split hairs.

So auto accidents are civil cases between the 2+ parties. Why isn't there a combo where there is automatically restitution. Seems like the system needs to be improved.



The point for financial is to get the word out to not just those who hear of his community service, but others as well that there are both financial and emotional costs of not driving in a careful manner.

If because of the laws financial is off the table, then in general I think the judge made a very good judgment. The only thing I would have changed is reduce the jail time. I would want to give a flavor of life in a jail but not long enough to develop hardening. Thurs, Fri, Sat, sun, Mon would make the point as well as 9 days, but I'm not going to split hairs.If the financial restitution isn't a possibility in the criminal trial-- and it may be, I'm just not sure-- then it's certainly a possibility in a civil trial.

I think because of the circumstances, that would be a harsh sentence-- a young kid working for the rest of his life to pay for his poor judgment. He's a kid, and by definition, uses poor judgment. That's why he's not allowed to sign contracts, for example (I'm assuming he's a minor). I understand the concept of restitution, but I don't think it would be just in his case. As you said earlier (paraphrase), we don't want revenge masquerading as justice.

Well, some people here do, but I clearly don't agree with them.

The only thing I would have changed is reduce the jail time. I would want to give a flavor of life in a jail but not long enough to develop hardening. Thurs, Fri, Sat, sun, Mon would make the point as well as 9 days, but I'm not going to split hairs.

No jail. Prison. State prison. With the crotch binders.

IMHO, there needs to be more restitution of what was lost in cases like this--and about every other crime. That teenager didn't commit a crime primarily against the state, it was committed against the family of the retired geologist. Any service he does ought to have been aimed to that family and any fines paid be paid to that family. Our justice revolves so much around an offense against the state, when it was really not the state that was offended. Just a little word from your local libertarian.

I think, personally, based on the facts of this case, that would be a bit harsh. He's a teenager. It was poor judgment to be texting while driving, but that's all it was. A teenager's poor judgment.

I have a hard time with having it both ways. If teenagers make such poor judgments, then they shouldn't be driving. If they don't understand the incredibly dangerous power at their control, they need to be educated better about it.

I grew up in a hunting family. All us kids were shooting guns way before we were driving. All the other kids I knew who were 10 years old with guns were as I was, incredibly responsible with the guns. We knew that the moment our hands touched that gun, screwing around stopped, and we were stone cold serious about it. Peers would correct, forcibly if necessary, someone who didn't keep the muzzle down and downrange, was careless with the safety, etc. If they wouldn't shape up, we'd rat them out to their parents, and they'd lose their gun priviledges. We were NOT going to be around someone who was a danger to themselves and us.

This is exactly analogous to cars and drivers, IMHO. If a 10 year old kid can learn to be that serious with a responsibility, a 16 year old can. If they can't, then they can wait until 18, or 20, or 50 to drive.

As a related aside, we were also operating pretty damn dangerous, heavy equipment at the age of 13 or so (some earlier, though I don't like kids much younger than that doing so, I don't think they're ready).

I wish someone would come up with an objective way to measure responsibility. With kids and guns, the parents did it, and it didn't have to be objective, but the parents knew the kids and were pretty good judges of them, IMHO. But I can't imagine many parents saying "No, I'm not going to allow you to drive this year. Maybe next year you'll be more responsible."

IMHO, there needs to be more retribution of what was lost in cases like this--and about every other crime. That teenager didn't commit a crime primarily against the state, it was committed against the family of the retired geologist. Any service he does ought to have been aimed to that family and any fines paid be paid to that family. Our justice revolves so much around an offense against the state, when it was really not the state that was offended. Just a little word from your local libertarian.

I'm hoping that little word should be restitution, not retribution. They rhyme but the meanings differ slightly.

I'm hoping that little word should be restitution, not retribution. They rhyme but the meanings differ slightly.

I meant restitution, but retribution came out--don't know why I made that mistake--editing. I do know the difference--sorry about that.

IMHO, there needs to be more restitution of what was lost in cases like this--and about every other crime. That teenager didn't commit a crime primarily against the state, it was committed against the family of the retired geologist. Any service he does ought to have been aimed to that family and any fines paid be paid to that family. Our justice revolves so much around an offense against the state, when it was really not the state that was offended. Just a little word from your local libertarian.


And the choir sings AMEN. Same problem in dog attack case. It was the state vs the dog owner and attackee was not a party to the court case. No wonder American society is so much me, me, me. You never have to answer in court to your neighbor or the offending party. Bad system, really bad. The judge in this case is making the kid explain himself and warn others. He is responding to the community and the family. That is good, but what is not good is that this is the exception and not the rule of law.

IMHO, there needs to be more restitution of what was lost in cases like this--and about every other crime. That teenager didn't commit a crime primarily against the state, it was committed against the family of the retired geologist. Any service he does ought to have been aimed to that family and any fines paid be paid to that family. Our justice revolves so much around an offense against the state, when it was really not the state that was offended. Just a little word from your local libertarian.I agree. Restitution built in to judgements like this would do two things. One, it would help the families of the victims in cases like this by providing financially without having to drag the case through civil court, plus the restitution would be part of the criminal record. And, two, it would lighten the burden on the civil courts if the restitution was arrived at reasonably and carried out properly.

SS

I'll repeat what I suggest in another thread:

Operating a motor vehicle while talking on a phone is the same as one who is drunk!

Drunk: sluggish response, loss of concentration
Talking on phone: sluggish response, distracted, loss of concentration

Obviously, a drunk who is at 0.2 alchohol level is worse off than a cell phone user. But a drunk who is at 0.08 to 0.12 or so is, in my opinion, comparable to a person using a phone while driving.

(Certainly, when the guy hangs up he is no longer at risk--that is something a drunk can't do.)

I think punishments for a killer who was distracted by a telephone call or other such device should be treated comparably to that of a drunk driver. Particular attention needs to be paid to easily prevented deaths like these.

However, there is a slippery slope here with your word "inattention." Someone falling asleep is a very different thing than one talking on a phone. That is something the government has a hard time preventing.

I'd prefer a phrase like: "due to multi-tasking with a cell phone, or other communication device." In my opinion these are special, since they require 2-way communication.

I have a hard time with having it both ways. If teenagers make such poor judgments, then they shouldn't be driving. If they don't understand the incredibly dangerous power at their control, they need to be educated better about it.I agree.

I think there needs to be a curve for learning. Young people aren't immature on the eve of their 18th birthday, and mature the day of. Maturity, and judgment, and experience are developed over time. Licensing considerations for something as dangerous as operating a motor vehicle need to take that into consideration. I know in some states there are learning curves, with limits on when kids can drive, how many passengers they can have, etc. I think that's a good idea, but still operates too generously. For example, there are exceptions for kids who have to work late at night. The limits on driving aren't long enough to allow skill and maturity to develop. Etc.

I think that's the real solution to the overall problem of poor driving skills amongst all members of the driving population: It needs to regain its status as a privilege, and one that can be lost easily. There needs to be a longer training period and more education before a full driver's license is ever issued, and there needs to be more enforcement of the traffic laws-- including enforcement of the traffic laws that apply to bicyclists. Where the law is insufficient, it needs to be strengthened. For example, distractions like cell phones should be banned outright. No excuses.

That would do a hell of a lot more good for society than sending some kid who didn't even know any better off to State prison.