Advocacy & Safety - Palo Alto hit-and-run driver to plead guilty

A sad conclusion to a very sad and tragic incident:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/5975719.htm

Recap: the 18 year-old who ran down two child cyclists, killing one, in Palo Alto in January is going to plead out to vehicular manslaughter and felony hit-and-run.

Personally, I think she should do some jail time.

She's going to plead guilty to avoid jailtime, right?

HTF does that work???

I'm convinced she should do some jail time. If she'd used a gun or a knife she almost certainly would. I also question the appropriateness of plea-bargaining in this instance. It might mean something if there was some doubt over her guilt or if she'd committed some crime that had relied on associates or whatever, but in this case it's just a cheap way to get a reduced sentence. In all probability, she'll just be ordered to undergo "counselling" and told that it wasn't really her fault. What a crock!

Originally posted by Chris L
I'm convinced she should do some jail time. If she'd used a gun or a knife she almost certainly would. I also question the appropriateness of plea-bargaining in this instance. It might mean something if there was some doubt over her guilt or if she'd committed some crime that had relied on associates or whatever, but in this case it's just a cheap way to get a reduced sentence. In all probability, she'll just be ordered to undergo "counselling" and told that it wasn't really her fault. What a crock!

We'll just have to wait and see. But I would add that if she'd used a gun or a knife, that would show much stronger cause to believe her intent was to hurt these kids, when in fact no one is saying that she intended to hurt those children.... and she used neither a gun nor a knife. She actually had baby-sat the surviving child before.

I think it also needs to be kept in mind that it may very well be that the victims' families either pushed for this plea bargain or accepted it as fair from the DA. From comments by family members I've read, that certainly seems very possible.

What I think she should have to do time for is the running part. She made it all the way to her classes at Paly High School and initially denied that she had struck those children. Her selfish act, had it succeeded, would have deprieved the families of her victims any sort of closure or explanation. At any time between the act and her arrest, she could have done the right thing and turned herself in. Yet she did not. I believe that a jail term is more than appropriate for that act. You simply cannot let people think that you can commit felony hit-and-run with impunity.

Either way, it's just a sad, sad conclusion to a sad and tragic event. One child is dead, one has been maimed, and a young woman is going to become a convicted multiple felon, something that she's going to have to live down for the rest of her life along with what she actually did and the stigma of being an ex-con.

I don't envy her, but I do not feel sorry for her, either. Whatever sentence she gets she will have earned.

Originally posted by jatkins679
Either way, it's just a sad, sad conclusion to a sad and tragic event. One child is dead, one has been maimed, and a young woman is going to become a convicted multiple felon, something that she's going to have to live down for the rest of her life along with what she actually did and the stigma of being an ex-con.

That's the terrible end. It's a terrible tragedy for all involved. The best that we can hope for is that perhaps others will learn from this horrible situation.

Originally posted by bac
That's the terrible end. It's a terrible tragedy for all involved. The best that we can hope for is that perhaps others will learn from this horrible situation.

I think jail time for the felony hit-and-run would be part of other drivers (especially young ones) learning about being uncooperative when a crime has possibly been committed and the law is clear about stopping when an accident has occured. A sentence of jail time for such a felony certainly isn't unreasonable, especially given how we so typically jail other non-violent offenders for other crimes so readily.

Panicky or not, it is simply not acceptable for a driver to leave the scene of an accident until cleared to do so under ANY circumstances. You just put it in park until you are otherwise directed that you can leave. When you accept the privilege of having a driver's license, you accept that rule, a rule that isn't unclear or swishy-washy or even against common sense.

Even so, hell, this girl, she could have even driven all the way to school, grabbed a school administrator, and only then admitted what she had done. Personally, I would have accepted that as something a mildly-reasonable but very scared and panicked 18 year-old might have done.

But she didn't. She waited until the police came, got HER out of class, and arrested her... and even then reportedly denied knowledge of hitting those kids in spite of simply undeniable evidence to the contrary. She simply made zero effort to bring to the attention of authorities that she may have severely injured someone with her car. That isn't acceptable or cooperative behavior at all. Had she made any effort before being questioned by the police I think I would personally feel much differently. But her behavior post-accident was such that she sought to hide her action and nothing more.

I don't think her uncooperative behavior should go so easily unpunished. Maybe that will happen, maybe not. It'll be up to the judge. I'll probably attend the hearing on Monday if I can, but I'm not holding my breath.

Originally posted by jatkins679
But she didn't. She waited until the police came, got HER out of class, and arrested her... and even then reportedly denied knowledge of hitting those kids in spite of simply undeniable evidence to the contrary. She simply made zero effort to bring to the attention of authorities that she may have severely injured someone with her car. That isn't acceptable or cooperative behavior at all.

In other words, she wasn't nervous or remorsefull in any way at all. She knew full well what she'd done and she either:

1. Didn't care, or (worse)

2. Was proud of the fact.

As I said before, in a situation like this, no plea-bargaining of any kind should apply. It's absolutely ridiculous. Hey, I'll grab a gun and shoot someone in front of 50 witnesses, then plead "guilty" about it and grab a lighter sentence! Give me a break.

Originally posted by Chris L
In other words, she wasn't nervous or remorsefull in any way at all. She knew full well what she'd done and she either:

1. Didn't care, or (worse)

2. Was proud of the fact.

As I said before, in a situation like this, no plea-bargaining of any kind should apply. It's absolutely ridiculous. Hey, I'll grab a gun and shoot someone in front of 50 witnesses, then plead "guilty" about it and grab a lighter sentence! Give me a break.

I don't know if she was nervous or remorseful or neither or what. From what witnesses (her classmates) were quoted as saying in the paper, she was acting nervous and skittish that morning but apparently denied anything was wrong when asked. When arrested, it was said that she appeared 'relieved'. No one has said or even implied she was proud of what she did.

I think one thing that has to be kept in mind is that she clearly did not intend to injure those chilldren or pre-meditate her actions and those facts are key differences in the grab-a-gun scenario above. People can argue till the cows come home that she was negligent in her driving behavior and that the act of mowing those kids down was criminal... and they'd be right. But to say they were intentional or pre-meditated? No.

Again, what I think she should be severely punished for is the hit-and-run part. To me, that's the part that is difficult to excuse or to suggest should go unpunished.

Originally posted by bac
That's the terrible end. It's a terrible tragedy for all involved. The best that we can hope for is that perhaps others will learn from this horrible situation.

Well, that's the key in my mind: whether her example will effectively serve to deter others from letting this happen when they are behind the wheel. I have my doubts that will be allowed to occur, to be honest, though.

I don't think that much is served by putting her in state prison for five, six, or more years. I think it's difficult to believe that she did this intentionally, that she intentionally hurt those children. That in my mind is a big part of the reason you send people to prison for long stretches: to protect society from people who are indifferent towards other's safety or actively seek to hurt others.

Most people who do not have criminal minds, I believe that committing such a terrible act as to run down two children and kill one of them would be punishment enough. She'd going to have to live the rest of her life with what she's done. If it were me, I honestly don't know if I could live with myself or want my life to go on.

But the hit-and-run part and the not turning herself in part? I do believe that she should be an example of what happens when you commit felony hit-and-run: you will go to jail. Again, those deserves punishment because they constituted what was a deliberate attempt to not be caught or be held accountable for her actions. THAT in my mind is what really needs to be made an example of.

Personally I don't like to read this kind of News in the newspaper, because If I am the Judge and the executioner, I would give her a very swift justice by giving her/him the same suffering of the victims, and snaping their miserable lives all together...

The article talks about how they can't bring back the dead girl or fix the other girl's leg 100%. And yet, what they miss is how the can send a strong message about the duties of a driver, about the rights of a cyclist, about equal and fair justice. Sure, a prision term could ruin the life of the driver, just like she ruined the lives of the cyclists, the lives of their parents, the lives of their playmates.

In the past, as a part of my job, I worked with high explosives. You make a mistake, you pay for it, usually with your life, and perhaps with the lives of others. There is no appeal, no plea bargan, no bail, no time served. Just reality. Our courts should be the same way. You screw up, you pay, and all pay the same price, not innocent until proven bankrupt.

Originally posted by Da Tinker
There is no appeal, no plea bargan, no bail, no time served. Just reality. Our courts should be the same way. You screw up, you pay, and all pay the same price, not innocent until proven bankrupt.

So what do you think the court should have done or should do? Bear in mind, it can reject the plea bargain agreed to be the DA and Coughran. But that is extremely rare and any admission she had made to them already as part of that plea bargain would become inadmissible in court.

I think part of the discussion here is that this incident exposes something which is poorly articulated in our society: just want exactly do we want our prisons and jails to do and what are they for? Are they for rehabilitation or vengence or punishment or a combination of those or none of those?

And whatever the reasons we wish to incarcerate people, what do we do with the inevitable exceptions we deem for those who don't appear to fit the system we've created?

What gets me here is the agreement not to send her to state prison. That is complete bs. Convicted felons go to state prison, period. That's where all the convicted felons without high-priced attorneys and no press coverage are sent without a second thought. She is a (multiple) felon, state prison is where they are incarcerated, that is where she should be.

Think all the felons from nearby East Palo Alto are treated with such deference when it comes to where they do their time? I kinda doubt that the DA gives their families the time of day, much less a say in where their son does his time.

I can appreciate that her family wants her nearby in Elmwood so they can support her. But I say: too bad. Every felon's family wants them nearby, why should they be any different. That is something the DA should not have agreed to.

The DA got part of it right: a plea to vehicular manslaughter and felony hit-and-run seems appropriate. But they sold out their duty with the mimimal sentence and no state prison. For the asst. DA to pompously claim that they got her 'real jail time' is nauseaing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Plea bargins should not even exist. They are used because there are more cases than the courts can handle, and it avoids a trial.

Rehab in most of our prisions is a joke. While some people do learn a legal trade, many learn how to be better criminals. Prisions are punishment and deterrence. Here in the South, such as Texas & Louisiana, prision is nothing like Oz. You work when you are in prision here, either on the farms, with precious few tractors, on in the shops, making goods for the state, like furniture.

I agree that the DA got the right charges, but wimped out on the sentence. Let me guess, the DA is elected official, right? She is playing both sides of the street, to improve her chances of being re-elected, rather than upset anyone with a long, loud trial and a tough sentence.