Advocacy & Safety - 18 Months in jail for killing a cyclist.

Michael Vu was hit and killed from behind by a coward who ran. Now the coward has been convicted and sentenced to the max sentence in Oregon - 18 Months. The killer will have 3 years of probation, and 5 years of a suspended license.

Justice? Or a slap in the face to Michael Vu's family. :mad:

When will the punishment fit the crime? :notamused:

Family irate over 18-month sentence in deadly hit-and-run (http://www.kgw.com/news/Family-protests-sentence-in-DUI-fatal-150789965.html)

When will the punishment fit the crime? :notamused:



It'll eventually will, as traveling by bicycle becomes more and more recognized as a legit means of transportation in the US public's mindset.

my question is: is the penalty any different from what the driver would have gotten for killing another motorist or pedestrian?

I don't have stats but in reading the local papers it seems that the penalties on drivers are in general in the lower side of what one would I would expect or hope for.

And those who get convicted with sentincing almost alway involved hit and run, no drivers license, dui or history of dui, or reckless driving (speeding etc) before the accident.

On the other hand, locall a guy was sentenced for 3 years for hitting a cyclist, who was singificantly injured. His case was hit and run, no licenxe, past history of dui, and actively trying to hide evidence.

That is terrible. You would think that felony hit and run would have a stiffer penalty.

In California, the maximum penalty is four years in jail, fine, plus restitution if leaving the scene of the accident caused more damages. I'm not sure if four years is jail is sufficient but I'm no legal expert.

I don't see a problem here. He's going to prison for over a year. Further prisons are overcrowded and prison time won't make this guy a better driver.

Should the penalty be more harsh? I think so. But not with more prison time. Mandatory driver education course? PSA about safe driving? Community service, say giving talks at schools about the person you killed? Paying damages to the family? Those would all be fitting.

If you want stupidly long, tax wasting prison sentences, then maybe this will cheer you up: http://www.kptv.com/story/18099984/d

I wish we could look at justice as something that rights wrongs, rather than simple punishment.

I don't see a problem here. He's going to prison for over a year. Further prisons are overcrowded and prison time won't make this guy a better driver.

Should the penalty be more harsh? I think so. But not with more prison time. Mandatory driver education course? PSA about safe driving? Community service, say giving talks at schools about the person you killed? Paying damages to the family? Those would all be fitting.

If you want stupidly long, tax wasting prison sentences, then maybe this will cheer you up: http://www.kptv.com/story/18099984/d

I wish we could look at justice as something that rights wrongs, rather than simple punishment.

Your post shows how acceptable killing people with an auto has become in the US. Letting motorists off with a short sentence, and some short term fixes, half heart financial restitution, hasn't been sending much of a deterrence signal. If a longer prison sentences won't deter motorists from driving poorly, at least it will keep the more dangerous ones off the roadway for a much longer time.

Michael Vu was hit and killed from behind by a coward who ran. Now the coward has been convicted and sentenced to the max sentence in Oregon - 18 Months. The killer will have 3 years of probation, and 5 years of a suspended license.

Justice? Or a slap in the face to Michael Vu's family. :mad:

When will the punishment fit the crime? :notamused:

Family irate over 18-month sentence in deadly hit-and-run (http://www.kgw.com/news/Family-protests-sentence-in-DUI-fatal-150789965.html)

That my friend is a very good question. The companion to that question, is why does riding a bike devalue a person's life? Another question, if a person hits another person (be they a cyclist, pedestrian or in another car) and turn themselves in is it still a hit and run? Or I guess the better way to phrase that question is how much time has to pass between hitting someone and turning oneself in for it not to be a hit and run?

I don't see a problem here. He's going to prison for over a year. Further prisons are overcrowded and prison time won't make this guy a better driver.

Should the penalty be more harsh? I think so. But not with more prison time. Mandatory driver education course? PSA about safe driving? Community service, say giving talks at schools about the person you killed? Paying damages to the family? Those would all be fitting.

If you want stupidly long, tax wasting prison sentences, then maybe this will cheer you up: http://www.kptv.com/story/18099984/d

I wish we could look at justice as something that rights wrongs, rather than simple punishment.

At what point would longer jail sentences be warranted?

Your post shows how acceptable killing people with an auto has become in the US. Letting motorists off with a short sentence, and some short term fixes, half heart financial restitution, hasn't been sending much of a deterrence signal. If a longer prison sentences won't deter motorists from driving poorly, at least it will keep the more dangerous ones off the roadway for a much longer time.

Agreed, the current system obviously isn't working. If it was people would know/understand that there a consequences to their actions.

Right now, as most of us know, it seems like all a motorist has to do is to say that they "didn't see us" and the most that they'll get is a slap on the wrist.

Why does it take drugs and/or alcohol, or something as outrageous such as what happened out in LA with that "good" doctor and his history of endangering cyclists lives for it to be taken seriously?

Of course in his case his own words to both the 911 operator as well as the officer on the scene helped to convict him.

Your post shows how acceptable killing people with an auto has become in the US. Letting motorists off with a short sentence, and some short term fixes, half heart financial restitution, hasn't been sending much of a deterrence signal. If a longer prison sentences won't deter motorists from driving poorly, at least it will keep the more dangerous ones off the roadway for a much longer time.

I'm sorry at what point did I indicate that killing people was "acceptable"? Ok, send the guy to prison for ten years. What use is that? What do we get out of it? Oh wow he'll feel really sorry! Yeah awesome, oh and society has to pay for him to feel sorry? GRAND. What a brilliant, and useful form of justice. Not to mention exceptionally practical since prisons are overcrowded. Maybe we can let out some murderers and ******* to make sure there's room for this guy to stay there that long.

What is wrong with thinking that maybe he ought to be required to do something FOR society? Prison isn't the end all, be all solution for every crime.

I'm sorry at what point did I indicate that killing people was "acceptable"? Ok, send the guy to prison for ten years. What use is that? What do we get out of it? Oh wow he'll feel really sorry! Yeah awesome, oh and society has to pay for him to feel sorry? GRAND. What a brilliant, and useful form of justice. Not to mention exceptionally practical since prisons are overcrowded. Maybe we can let out some murderers and ******* to make sure there's room for this guy to stay there that long.

What is wrong with thinking that maybe he ought to be required to do something FOR society? Prison isn't the end all, be all solution for every crime.

Again, I ask you at what point do you think a more lengthy stay in the "pen" is warranted?

And there is a simple solution to the cost of incarceration. Require ALL inmates to work in a prison run industry. Be it doing the prison (and other business) laundry, making license plates, making furniture. Require all prisons to grow their own food and require the inmates to work the prison farm.

That serves two purposes, it defrays the cost of their stay in the "pen," AND it gives them a usable skill for when they are released. Isn't that a win-win situation?

Again, I ask you at what point do you think a more lengthy stay in the "pen" is warranted?

When somebody has repeatedly committed a crime that endangers society and seems incapable of, or unwanting to reform then I think they deserve to be locked up for as long as necessary to keep them out of society. Sending somebody to prison for a year or two I think is plenty punishment under most other circumstances.


And there is a simple solution to the cost of incarceration. Require ALL inmates to work in a prison run industry. Be it doing the prison (and other business) laundry, making license plates, making furniture. Require all prisons to grow their own food and require the inmates to work the prison farm.

That serves two purposes, it defrays the cost of their stay in the "pen," AND it gives them a usable skill for when they are released. Isn't that a win-win situation?

No it's not a win-win solution. Because it would also give us incentive to lock up more people for the sake of extracting free slave labor out of them.

But perhaps this tangent is a little bit too political for this particular forum.

At what point would longer jail sentences be warranted?

I think the key issue with jail time is that it focusses on only one aspect of the justice system.

As I see it the justice system needs to do three things. It needs to punish the offender, it needs to rehabilitate the offender as far as possible, and it needs to protect society from the offender for as long as is necessary.

Punishing the offender can be done in many ways. Depriving them of their freedom is just one way - in some cases it may be more appropriate to impose a financial or convenience penalty. A heavy fine (the kind of fine that will make a significant impact in the offender's budget for some time) may be a more appropriate punishment than locking them up. Likewise taking away their driving license for an extended period may represent a better punishment.

Rehabilitating the offender can potentially be done in many ways, in or out of prison. In the context of drivers who kill other road users the detail of the event is crucial. With the best will in the world, accidents happen. The driver who has been involved in a genuine accident, even an at-fault accident, may not need to be rehabilitated in the same way as a driver who has been involved in multiple accidents and potentially needs to be retrained or taken off the road for a time (and possibly permanently).

Protecting society from the offender is where things can get thorny. The driver who is habitually dangerous may need to be taken off the roads, and if they continue to drive despite having their license revoked they must be prevented from doing so in the future. A driver who commits a genuine error, even if the result of that error is tragedy, is not necessarily someone from whom society needs to be protected.

Of course the worst part of the justice system is that in cases involving severe bodily injury or death there is no punishment that can restore the victim to how they were prior to the incident.

I think the key issue with jail time is that it focusses on only one aspect of the justice system.

As I see it the justice system needs to do three things. It needs to punish the offender, it needs to rehabilitate the offender as far as possible, and it needs to protect society from the offender for as long as is necessary.

Punishing the offender can be done in many ways. Depriving them of their freedom is just one way - in some cases it may be more appropriate to impose a financial or convenience penalty. A heavy fine (the kind of fine that will make a significant impact in the offender's budget for some time) may be a more appropriate punishment than locking them up. Likewise taking away their driving license for an extended period may represent a better punishment.

Rehabilitating the offender can potentially be done in many ways, in or out of prison. In the context of drivers who kill other road users the detail of the event is crucial. With the best will in the world, accidents happen. The driver who has been involved in a genuine accident, even an at-fault accident, may not need to be rehabilitated in the same way as a driver who has been involved in multiple accidents and potentially needs to be retrained or taken off the road for a time (and possibly permanently).

Protecting society from the offender is where things can get thorny. The driver who is habitually dangerous may need to be taken off the roads, and if they continue to drive despite having their license revoked they must be prevented from doing so in the future. A driver who commits a genuine error, even if the result of that error is tragedy, is not necessarily someone from whom society needs to be protected.

Of course the worst part of the justice system is that in cases involving severe bodily injury or death there is no punishment that can restore the victim to how they were prior to the incident.

Eloquently stated and reasoned.

I find myself agreeing with Mos on this one. There's little societal purpose to jailing these guys forever or even for years. What I would vastly prefer in these case is large fines, very long suspended sentences (about thirty years in this case) and a lifetime revocation of driving privelige. Drive again, the sentence gets unsuspended and you are jailed pending any appeal. Plus the vehicle you are driving is impounded unless the owner swears out grand theft charges against you.

You probably get more jail time for stealing a car than killing someone with one. But sticking every offender in jail is costly and largely pointless, unless you want to feed the prison industrial complex a few more public dollars. The Damoclitian sword of a long jail sentence hanging over your head if you drive again would stop all but the most sociopathic drivers from ever driving again.

Good luck with anything like this in our current society however.

When somebody has repeatedly committed a crime that endangers society and seems incapable of, or unwanting to reform then I think they deserve to be locked up for as long as necessary to keep them out of society. Sending somebody to prison for a year or two I think is plenty punishment under most other circumstances.

And in many of these cases that we've read about here show that the motorist has had an extensive history of such behavior. Take the case of that "good" doctor out in LA. He had a well documented case of "brake checking" cyclists because he apparently didn't like cyclists driving on "his" road through "his" neighborhood. And he was given if I remember correctly a rather extensive jail sentence.

As dynodonn said your responses seems to mirror those of most people who for whatever reason see the loss of life on America's roads as an acceptable part of driving. That is really sad.


No it's not a win-win solution. Because it would also give us incentive to lock up more people for the sake of extracting free slave labor out of them.

But perhaps this tangent is a little bit too political for this particular forum.

Really? This isn't the days of the "old south" with chain gangs. Prison is suppose to PUNISH people as well as REFORM people. Part of reforming people involves providing them with the training to teach them the skills so that once they are released from prison they do NOT have to return to a life of crime.

How are they being punished if they're allowed to sleep all day, or work out, or watch TV all day? NOT being a criminal myself I can't say what their mindset is. But I would suspect that for a career criminal that they see it as a "risk" of doing "business," and/or see it as a "vacation." So how are they being punished and/or reformed?

Working in a prison run industry would punish them, AND it would teach them skills to become a productive member of society. And as the word working would or should imply they would be paid for their work. Just not cash in their hand as after all they are in prison and it would likely be stolen by other inmates.

It would be put into their commissary account, their room and board, their meals, their electric/cable, etc. would be deducted from their paycheck.

As it is now when someone goes to prison they're pretty much given a free ride as it were (as I understand it as again I am not a criminal myself). They get free room and board, free meals, free medical, free education (if they elect to avail themselves of that option). Whereas if they're working in a prison run industry then they're earning a living, they're paying into Social Security, they're learning skills that they can use when they're released and become productive members of society.

How is that a "bad" thing?

Digital, I'm kind of thinking not only have you never been to prison, you don't know anyone who has. I am pretty certain no one views it as a "vacation". They are nasty and overcrowded places. The privately run ones are often more brutal than the publicly run ones, which aren't exactly tea and cake all the time. And education programs in the prisons have been cut to the bone, the better to punish offenders. Some of whom are in for unrealistically long times for what are minor offences. See the "War on Drugs," for example.

And yes, I've had more than one family member (cousins) serve time, as well as several friends. I've also worked with a dog training program in one of our state pens. It got out that one of the trainers was training dogs, and it became a political football-- she was a murderer who needed to be "punished." So she can't train dogs anymore. Too bad, she was good at it. One of my dogs came from this program-- he was kicked out by a guard who didn't like the trainer, so he wanted to punish her. Good move. Next stop for the dog would have been the needle. Yeah, people really want to go to prison.

And in many of these cases that we've read about here show that the motorist has had an extensive history of such behavior. Take the case of that "good" doctor out in LA. He had a well documented case of "brake checking" cyclists because he apparently didn't like cyclists driving on "his" road through "his" neighborhood. And he was given if I remember correctly a rather extensive jail sentence.

Yes, but this particular man is not the "good" doctor.


As dynodonn said your responses seems to mirror those of most people who for whatever reason see the loss of life on America's roads as an acceptable part of driving. That is really sad.

Well if you and he are going to make such heavy accusations, you might want to back them up with one wit of reason. It's not reasonable at all for you to claim that because I'd rather see one form of punishment take the place of another, that I'm saying it's acceptable for people kill with cars. I didn't even say that he should pay damages and do service in place of prison time he is serving - but in addition to what he serving, so the very claim is completely absurd.

I'm just saying that I think he owes society something more useful than feeling sorry and bored, and I'm not talking about license plates.

I think the key issue with jail time is that it focuses on only one aspect of the justice system.

Agreed.


As I see it the justice system needs to do three things. It needs to punish the offender, it needs to rehabilitate the offender as far as possible, and it needs to protect society from the offender for as long as is necessary.

Again, agreed. And as part of rehabilitation should involve re-education, i.e. providing them with the education to learn new skills so that when (if) they're ultimately released that they are now productive members of society.


Punishing the offender can be done in many ways. Depriving them of their freedom is just one way - in some cases it may be more appropriate to impose a financial or convenience penalty. A heavy fine (the kind of fine that will make a significant impact in the offender's budget for some time) may be a more appropriate punishment than locking them up. Likewise taking away their driving license for an extended period may represent a better punishment.

Again I agree. But in imposing a financial penalty while it needs to be steep we don't want it to be so steep that their only "choice" is to continue a life of crime. How many drivers do you have over there in England who continue to drive after having their license revoked? Sadly, over here we have way too many people who do not see not having a license as being an impediment to being able to drive/continue to drive. If they want to drive they're going to drive whether they have a license or not.


Rehabilitating the offender can potentially be done in many ways, in or out of prison. In the context of drivers who kill other road users the detail of the event is crucial. With the best will in the world, accidents happen. The driver who has been involved in a genuine accident, even an at-fault accident, may not need to be rehabilitated in the same way as a driver who has been involved in multiple accidents and potentially needs to be retrained or taken off the road for a time (and possibly permanently).

Agreed, up to a point. But in the event of an at fault "accident." The driver should be held to higher standard vs. a driver who while swerving to avoid hitting a "salmon" and ends up hitting another cyclist who is riding in a legal manner. And in that case the "salmon" cyclist is probably the one who needs to be charged, as if they'd been riding legally themselves then the car wouldn't have had to swerve to avoid them.

Late last night I was coming home from having had dinner with several friends from the group that I've started riding with last year. At one point I saw a "dark mass" against the dark of the night. It was so far ahead of me that my Stella 150l nor my four Cateye Uno's could light it up. And I wasn't 100% certain that I was seeing something way down the road in front of me. I eventually catch up to them and discover that it is a semi-ninja (they had reflectors on the back of the bike as well as on the pedals but were wearing dark colored clothing). At about the time that I caught up to him there is a car traveling in the correct direction for the lane that they were in. I stepped up my speed so that I could pass him before the car had to swerve into my lane, this is a narrow two-lane road, one way each direction and the car would have had to swerve into my lane to avoid hitting the cyclist. And I didn't want to get hit. Had I been hit, it would have been more the cyclists fault then the drivers.


Protecting society from the offender is where things can get thorny. The driver who is habitually dangerous may need to be taken off the roads, and if they continue to drive despite having their license revoked they must be prevented from doing so in the future. A driver who commits a genuine error, even if the result of that error is tragedy, is not necessarily someone from whom society needs to be protected.

Again, agreed, and again I ask how many drivers do you have in England who are driving without a license? Either because it's been suspended or they just never bothered to get one in the first place? The last sentence I can't really agree with. If they've allowed themselves to become distracted because they were answering their cell phone, changing CD's or looking up a location on their GPS is someone that we need to be protected from.


Of course the worst part of the justice system is that in cases involving severe bodily injury or death there is no punishment that can restore the victim to how they were prior to the incident.

Sadly, as you say this is the worst part of the justice system. The victim is still dead and nothing is ever going to bring them back. But making the punishment fit the crime and/or filing a wrongful death suit does go (in theory at least) a long way to making the family of the deceased whole.

I find myself agreeing with Mos on this one. There's little societal purpose to jailing these guys forever or even for years. What I would vastly prefer in these case is large fines, very long suspended sentences (about thirty years in this case) and a lifetime revocation of driving privilege. Drive again, the sentence gets unsuspended and you are jailed pending any appeal. Plus the vehicle you are driving is impounded unless the owner swears out grand theft charges against you.

You probably get more jail time for stealing a car than killing someone with one. But sticking every offender in jail is costly and largely pointless, unless you want to feed the prison industrial complex a few more public dollars. The Damoclitian sword of a long jail sentence hanging over your head if you drive again would stop all but the most sociopathic drivers from ever driving again.

Good luck with anything like this in our current society however.

A big part of the problem though is how many motorists are out there driving on suspended licenses? How many are driving with a permanently revoked license? How many are driving with a license that they bought because they bribed someone? How many just never bothered getting a license? The short answer is that there are too many. And obviously the existing penalties are not sufficient to deter people from doing so.

Sadly, you're probably right in that a person will get a steeper sentence for stealing a car vs. hitting and killing someone with said car.

I recently lost my brother when he died after a collision when a truck pulled directly in front of his motor scooter. Guy said he didn't see him in the sun and no charges were filed. And frankly, I don't much care. Putting the guy in jail wouldn't bring my brother back nor would it make the highways any safer for two wheeled vehicles. We imprison more people per capita in this country than in any other nation on the planet. (We used to trail South Africa and China, but they've modified their ways). This means that either we as a people are some really nasty folks, or we're going about solving our criminal justice problems in the wrong manner. Most of our states are in budget crisis and prison costs play a huge role in that. If California could roll back prison costs to 1990 levels, their entire budget deficit would vanish. We need to get over our compulsion to lock people up.

(Having said all that, I'll add it's a good thing I'm not likely to ever come face to face with this guy. If I did, I might end up looking at some serious time for manslaughter. I may not think from a philosophical perspective that jail is the answer, but that does not mean I have any forgiveness in my heart.)

Maybe he'll get around by bicycle after getting out of prison. What is the penalty for driving before he gets his license back?

I do find that I'm more aware of bicyclists on the roads after starting it up again myself than I was before. I do think that primarily being a motorcycle rider did a lot for my awareness too, though.

What do cyclists get charged with when they hit and kill a pedestrian?

Digital, I'm kind of thinking not only have you never been to prison, you don't know anyone who has. I am pretty certain no one views it as a "vacation". They are nasty and overcrowded places. The privately run ones are often more brutal than the publicly run ones, which aren't exactly tea and cake all the time. And education programs in the prisons have been cut to the bone, the better to punish offenders. Some of whom are in for unrealistically long times for what are minor offenses. See the "War on Drugs," for example.

As I've already said I am not a criminal, so no I have never been to prison. And yes, I know that they're no walk in the park. But still I think it is not too big of a stretch to say that they probably still have it better on the inside then they did on the outside.


And yes, I've had more than one family member (cousins) serve time, as well as several friends. I've also worked with a dog training program in one of our state pens. It got out that one of the trainers was training dogs, and it became a political football-- she was a murderer who needed to be "punished." So she can't train dogs anymore. Too bad, she was good at it. One of my dogs came from this program-- he was kicked out by a guard who didn't like the trainer, so he wanted to punish her. Good move. Next stop for the dog would have been the needle. Yeah, people really want to go to prison.

I never said that people "wanted" to go to prison. But it would not surprise me if particularly for the career criminal. That they see it as part of the "cost" of their "career."

Yes, but this particular man is not the "good" doctor.

I was using the "good" doctor as an example, I know that this person isn't the "good" doctor. And also as we have seen/heard here many of these drivers do in fact have a history of passing close to cyclists, or brake checking cyclists, or engaging in other anti-social behavior towards cyclists.


Well if you and he are going to make such heavy accusations, you might want to back them up with one wit of reason. It's not reasonable at all for you to claim that because I'd rather see one form of punishment take the place of another, that I'm saying it's acceptable for people kill with cars. I didn't even say that he should pay damages and do service in place of prison time he is serving - but in addition to what he serving, so the very claim is completely absurd.

I'm sorry, but that is pretty much how you're coming across, i.e. the loss of a life isn't worth a lengthy prison sentence. If the loss of an innocent life isn't, then what is?


I'm just saying that I think he owes society something more useful than feeling sorry and bored, and I'm not talking about license plates.

Agreed, but we've seen time-and-time again that suspending a license, revoking a license, fines, or community service hasn't been up to this point, been an effective deterrent.

What do cyclists get charged with when they hit and kill a pedestrian?

There's a case pending in SF where it's possible that the cyclist will be charged with felony vehicular manslaughter.

What do cyclists get charged with when they hit and kill a pedestrian?

Like drivers hitting a car, cycliest or pedestrian it depends on the situation.

A year ago in SF a cyclist that hit and killed a pedestrian when running a red light plead to a misdemeanor

Currently in SF the DA has indicated that they will file felony manslaughter charges agains a cyclist that hit and killed a cyclist.

The charges in the second case seem to be based on a pattern of reckless cyclinging, speeding ,etc.

I don't know if it make a difference, but in the first case the pedesrtrian died a month or so later and in the second case the pedestrian died same or next day getting hit. I don't know if that make a difference.....but it might.

... The Damoclitian sword of a long jail sentence hanging over your head if you drive again would stop all but the most sociopathic drivers from ever driving again. ...

If this is true, and I hope it is, why not poise that sword there in the first place? Before someone gets killed, not after. Suppose, for example, that breaking any traffic law meant that it wasn't an "accident". One mph over, failure to signal, unsafe lane change, anything at all, and it's your fault not an accident. Then suppose that any killing, if it's your fault, meant a long jail sentence and lifetime suspension of driving privileges. Wouldn't that also stop all but the most sociopathic drivers from driving aggressively, intimidating with their vehicle and fleeing the scene?

If this is true, and I hope it is, why not poise that sword there in the first place? Before someone gets killed, not after. Suppose, for example, that breaking any traffic law meant that it wasn't an "accident". One mph over, failure to signal, unsafe lane change, anything at all, and it's your fault not an accident. Then suppose that any killing, if it's your fault, meant a long jail sentence and lifetime suspension of driving privileges. Wouldn't that also stop all but the most sociopathic drivers from driving aggressively, intimidating with their vehicle and fleeing the scene?

Probably less effective if the person hasn't experienced prison before... and again it flies in the face of practicality when we're already sending too many people to prison for too long. It simply wouldn't be feasible. It also presumes that prison is the best punishment. But it isn't.

....Good luck with anything like this in our current society however.

....leading back to the fact that killing someone in the US with an auto has become rather "acceptable".

Probably less effective if the person hasn't experienced prison before... and again it flies in the face of practicality when we're already sending too many people to prison for too long. It simply wouldn't be feasible. It also presumes that prison is the best punishment. But it isn't.

But if the deterrent is what prevents them, asPogue said it would if they violated the suspended sentence, then it wouldn't matter as much how much prison costs or whether it's the best punishment. It would be the deterrent value that counts.

A slightly off topic but related angle on this issue is the fact that as vehicle safety has increased, the percentage of bad drivers has also increased. This is due to the simple fact that the bad drivers are more likely to survive the accidents that they cause. Not only do they survive, but they usually survive with only minor injuries.

I don't have the statistics but I know that a small number of bad drivers are responsible for a significantly disproportionate number of accidents. IMO anyone that gets more than one DUI or causes more than one major auto accident should be required to drive a vehicle less than 3500# with only a lap belt and no air bags for five years. The next time they wreck, it will hurt if it doesn't kill them.

Punishment not enough? What was the civil finding against the driver?

Oh, wait, there hasn't been a civil suit against the driver yet...?

But if the deterrent is what prevents them, as Pogue said it would if they violated the suspended sentence, then it wouldn't matter as much how much prison costs or whether it's the best punishment. It would be the deterrent value that counts.

You're missing the point on a fundamental level.


There's little societal purpose to jailing these guys forever or even for years. What I would vastly prefer in these case is large fines, very long suspended sentences (about thirty years in this case) and a lifetime revocation of driving privelige. Drive again, the sentence gets unsuspended and you are jailed pending any appeal. Plus the vehicle you are driving is impounded unless the owner swears out grand theft charges against you.

My emphasis added. I'm not going to speak for him, but it seems that the big point is to keep people out of prison unless they willingly drive again when they're not supposed to.

To actually put people into prison for 30 years for a first offence would be monumentally stupid considering the practical problems of doing so.

And again, prison time in cases like this, is I think not the ideal means of justice. Society could be better served through other means. There are much better things to do than pay for somebody to feel sorry and bored for years on end.

My emphasis added. I'm not going to speak for him, but it seems that the big point is to keep people out of prison unless they willingly drive again when they're not supposed to.

To actually put people into prison for 30 years for a first offence would be monumentally stupid considering the practical problems of doing so.

And again, prison time in cases like this, is I think not the ideal means of justice. Society could be better served through other means. There are much better things to do than pay for somebody to feel sorry and bored for years on end.

You can speak for me on this anytime. That is exactly the point. Make the costs high enough, and hopefully they won't drive ever again. But why make the cost higher for society? Why make us pay to imprison some buffon when there are better ways?

However, as I said, at present this is unlikely. About as unlikely as the US getting it's head around the fact our prison system probably causes far more problems than it solves. Our prison system looks to me to be strictly punitive and not rehabilitative. Some mix would be better. And cheaper.

Again, agreed. And as part of rehabilitation should involve re-education, i.e. providing them with the education to learn new skills so that when (if) they're ultimately released that they are now productive members of society.

This depends on who it is who is responsible for the act. An uneducated person who turns to crime to make ends meet may require different treatment to a high-earning professional who has been careless.


Again I agree. But in imposing a financial penalty while it needs to be steep we don't want it to be so steep that their only "choice" is to continue a life of crime. How many drivers do you have over there in England who continue to drive after having their license revoked? Sadly, over here we have way too many people who do not see not having a license as being an impediment to being able to drive/continue to drive. If they want to drive they're going to drive whether they have a license or not.

I honestly have no idea how many people are driving without a license. Truth be told I think it's the kind of statistic that can only ever be guessed, and anyone taking a guess is likely to have a vested interest one way or the other. Again the nature of the perpetrator (I specifically don't use the term "criminal" here, on the basis that a genuine error of judgement can have consequences just as tragic as active and premeditated malice) changes a lot. Telling someone who sweeps the floor for a living that they have to pay $1000/month for the next 25 years pretty much forces them into crime to fund it. Telling a lawyer they have to pay $1000/month for the next 25 years is perhaps less of an issue for them.

That's not to say the lawyer should get a free pass to buy their way out of prison, just to acknowledge that in cases where a financial penalty is more appropriate it perhaps serves more purpose to let the lawyer continue to work and pay restitution by way of an ongoing financial penalty than to lock them up and therefore deprive them of their career in the future. If anything locking up the lawyer will make them more likely to turn to crime when they are released, on the basis there's probably not much demand for lawyers with experience in prison.


Agreed, up to a point. But in the event of an at fault "accident." The driver should be held to higher standard vs. a driver who while swerving to avoid hitting a "salmon" and ends up hitting another cyclist who is riding in a legal manner. And in that case the "salmon" cyclist is probably the one who needs to be charged, as if they'd been riding legally themselves then the car wouldn't have had to swerve to avoid them.

In theory I agree. In practise it's not always clear-cut who is at fault, especially when there are only two witnesses to the accident and one is dead. If drivers are automatically assumed to be at fault they end up being penalised for hitting a ninja salmon. If hitting a cyclist without lights after dark is deemed to be automatically the cyclist's fault then a driver who does hit a cyclist has an obvious interest in removing their lights before calling the emergency services.


Late last night I was coming home from having had dinner with several friends from the group that I've started riding with last year. At one point I saw a "dark mass" against the dark of the night. It was so far ahead of me that my Stella 150l nor my four Cateye Uno's could light it up. And I wasn't 100% certain that I was seeing something way down the road in front of me. I eventually catch up to them and discover that it is a semi-ninja (they had reflectors on the back of the bike as well as on the pedals but were wearing dark colored clothing). At about the time that I caught up to him there is a car traveling in the correct direction for the lane that they were in. I stepped up my speed so that I could pass him before the car had to swerve into my lane, this is a narrow two-lane road, one way each direction and the car would have had to swerve into my lane to avoid hitting the cyclist. And I didn't want to get hit. Had I been hit, it would have been more the cyclists fault then the drivers.

Agreed. Had such a collision taken place you can be pretty sure the ninja cyclist wouldn't have stopped to accept responsibility.


Again, agreed, and again I ask how many drivers do you have in England who are driving without a license? Either because it's been suspended or they just never bothered to get one in the first place? The last sentence I can't really agree with. If they've allowed themselves to become distracted because they were answering their cell phone, changing CD's or looking up a location on their GPS is someone that we need to be protected from.

As I said before it's the kind of statistic that can only really be guessed at. If someone is distracted by answering a cellphone, texting, fiddling with GPS etc the consequences can be tragic, as I'm sure we all know very well. But is prison time for being distracted really a proportionate response? If so where do we draw the line? Given how difficult it can be to judge the speed of a cyclist, should we be locking up drivers who misjudge the speed of an approaching cyclist? If a cyclist is coming downhill at speed (possibly in excess of the speed limit) and a driver turns in front of them assuming they will be going at or below the speed limit, should that attract a jail sentence?


Sadly, as you say this is the worst part of the justice system. The victim is still dead and nothing is ever going to bring them back. But making the punishment fit the crime and/or filing a wrongful death suit does go (in theory at least) a long way to making the family of the deceased whole.

How does it make the family of the deceased whole? My brother was knocked off his motorbike and nearly killed by someone who hit him head-on. He was in a filter lane waiting to turn right across the traffic, the guy coming the other way was in the lane overtaking a truck (in case that makes little sense, in the UK we drive on the left). The result was a head-on collision at 90+mph and time in the hospital being put back together again. The driver was given a fine for careless driving and 9 points on his license. In the UK attracting 12 points within 3 years results in disqualification, so if the driver committed another driving offence of any type within those three years he would lose his license. We (my family) thought it was an eminently fair punishment on the basis that if it was a one-off error of judgement it wouldn't destroy his life and livelihood but if he did anything like it again he'd lose his license (and given the nature of his work he'd have been fired as soon as he was no longer allowed to drive). Locking him up for a first offence wouldn't have helped my brother, wouldn't have helped us, and would just have put him and his family on the streets.

You're missing the point on a fundamental level.



My emphasis added. I'm not going to speak for him, but it seems that the big point is to keep people out of prison unless they willingly drive again when they're not supposed to.

To actually put people into prison for 30 years for a first offence would be monumentally stupid considering the practical problems of doing so.

I'm fully aware of the point, but I'm looking into it from a different angle, maybe a little deeper is all. I even sympathize with the underlying sentiment that it's better to rehabilitate offenders than to simply incarcerate them.

First, I'm not convinced that recidivism is eliminated or even diminished by successively harsher penalties. I don't ask why or why not about that, but that's human nature and I think the facts bear me out on that. People who commit violent crimes, murder and armed robbery and things of that nature overwhelmingly cycle back through the system. Giving them more chances doesn't stop them. It's true that harsher penalties don't necessarily lower these crime rates either, but this is where these two subjects diverge.

Killing someone with a car usually isn't deliberate mayhem. It's not, normally, just using a different tool to blow someone away or threaten them with deadly force. Usually, and I don't have hard data but again I'm confident that facts will bear me out, it arises from a combination of impairment and just not caring. Impairment including but not limited to intoxication and other chemical impairments, inattentiveness, medication, absorption with some electronic device, out of control emotional states including aggression. Not caring, accepting higher risks for others for some personal reason. In short, the majority of these incidents which can be prosecuted are avoidable.

It's the risk judgment that's out of skew with these offenders. This idea of slapping them with a long suspended sentence and draconian consequences should they again cross the line seems fair and it comes up again and again, but it never seems to really work. Harsher penalties do work, in some cases, and that's really what we're addressing here isn't it? That the Justice system is too lax on people who kill cyclists?

What triggered this was when poguemahone mentioned that surely someone with a suspended sentence would never dare sit behind the wheel again. I said that "I hope that's true", but I fudged a little because I really don't think so. I think it would be harder for those offenders to give up driving than to have given up their impairment while driving (whatever it may be) in the first place. But IF it's true that the deterrent would prevent them from driving, it's MORE true that the deterrent would have stopped them in the first place and avoided the whole thing. And IF he's right and the deterrent works, THEN the prisons won't be more crowded because the crime won't be committed. This is the essence of our criminal system including law enforcement, to deter crime rather than to rehabilitate criminals, even if we feel that fact is regrettable. We need to treat this like a crime and not like a lapse in judgment or indiscretion.

But IF it's true that the deterrent would prevent them from driving, it's MORE true that the deterrent would have stopped them in the first place and avoided the whole thing.

Except that is an unreasonably large jump in logic to make.


And IF he's right and the deterrent works, THEN the prisons won't be more crowded because the crime won't be committed.
Yes but again you miss the point, deterring somebody from returning to the wheel after they've been found guilty of negligence is a very different thing from suggesting that harsh sentencing will magically eliminate negligence because people would be too scared to be negligent in the first place.


This is the essence of our criminal system including law enforcement, to deter crime rather than to rehabilitate criminals, even if we feel that fact is regrettable. We need to treat this like a crime and not like a lapse in judgment or indiscretion.

Yes but simply putting deterrents in place is not going prevent lapses of judgement, negligence, recklessness, etc. That's a rather naive thought to have.

Yes but again you miss the point, deterring somebody from returning to the wheel after they've been found guilty of negligence is a very different thing from suggesting that harsh sentencing will magically eliminate negligence because people would be too scared to be negligent in the first place.

Actually I didn't say negligence was one of the causes. Nor lapse in judgment.

What I did say and believe is that these are preventable, because the prosecuteable incidents are due to impairments and value judgments. Since these are discretionary behaviors, it is no leap at all that harsher penalties are an effective deterrent.

We're talking about crimes, and we need to criminalize the behavior rather than brushing it off as negligence or lapses of judgment. That IS the point.

I recently lost my brother when he died after a collision when a truck pulled directly in front of his motor scooter. Guy said he didn't see him in the sun and no charges were filed. And frankly, I don't much care. Putting the guy in jail wouldn't bring my brother back nor would it make the highways any safer for two wheeled vehicles. We imprison more people per capita in this country than in any other nation on the planet. (We used to trail South Africa and China, but they've modified their ways). This means that either we as a people are some really nasty folks, or we're going about solving our criminal justice problems in the wrong manner. Most of our states are in budget crisis and prison costs play a huge role in that. If California could roll back prison costs to 1990 levels, their entire budget deficit would vanish. We need to get over our compulsion to lock people up.

(Having said all that, I'll add it's a good thing I'm not likely to ever come face to face with this guy. If I did, I might end up looking at some serious time for manslaughter. I may not think from a philosophical perspective that jail is the answer, but that does not mean I have any forgiveness in my heart.)

Sorry about your brother, jon C. I wouldn't have forgiveness in my heart either.

That sentence is about par for killing someone on a bicycle. As many have said, if you want to kill someone, give them a bike and then run over them. You probably wont get more than a slap on the wrist.

The family can get a good bike lawyer and sue in civil court.

Since these are discretionary behaviors, it is no leap at all that harsher penalties are an effective deterrent.

Well I dunno the course of human history over the past say, 500 years seems to prove otherwise. Decapitation, hanging, public humiliation, inconceivably cruel torture - all proved to be really lousy deterrents compared to education for instance. The plainly obvious truth is that punishment is a lousy deterrent.

Back in the 1800s it was still practical to lock everybody up, there were after all fewer than one billion people on the planet. But today is not the 1800s, and I think our society needs to get out of that simplistic mindset and find more practical, useful means of punishment.

The costs of our prison addiction is a huge (and in my opinion largely unecessary) strain on our society. Literally, we cannot afford to go any further down the road of locking more people up for longer terms. We tried that and it is ruining us. The end and the means are screwed.

His jail time is probably due to the hit and run which is a felony, not for killing the cyclist. The accident was just that, an accident, you can't throw people in jail for a simple accident tragic as that accident was. We don't throw car drivers in jail if their involved in a fatal car accident if it was just a mistake. If the person was drunk, or purposely tried to kill the guy, etc then there would be some serious consequences. The driver's insurance will have to pay out the max liability coverage to the cyclist's family, and the family could sue the driver personally, but that will be and should be the extent of it, though even then I would disagree with suing the driver personally beyond what his insurance would pay, but that's just me.

Yes but even in accident, somebody is still at fault.

Yes but even in accident, somebody is still at fault.

Didn't I say that? OF COURSE THE DRIVER WAS AT FAULT, I said that. But it's still an accident. God forbid someday you have an accident that kills someone, maybe you spending 10 years in jail will make up for it, would that be fair for you? Get real man, they never send anyone to jail for being at fault in an accident unless there was illegal activity involved like drunk driving, assualt with a car, etc. Running a stop sign or a light does not merit jail time if you weren't doing something else illegal at the time. Civil court handles accidents, criminal court handles everything else, and you don't go to jail for a civil case.

Didn't I say that? OF COURSE THE DRIVER WAS AT FAULT, I said that. But it's still an accident. God forbid someday you have an accident that kills someone, maybe you spending 10 years in jail will make up for it, would that be fair for you?

I take it you haven't read the thread.

I take it you haven't read the thread.

Obviously not. You've been in favour of beheading random drivers the entire thread :) .

I think in the case of at least some fatal incidents, the driver is not a repeat offender or a hardened criminal. I would hope the threat of punishment if they "misbehaved" again would be sufficent to stop them, but I think the potential punishment would have to be pretty heavy. Right now, they're not in jail (okay) but there are little or no repurcussions from their actions on their future actions. In other words, even if they drive on a revoked lisence after killing someone, the potential punishment is often ridiculously low (a couple hundred dollars). There's no consequence if a killer drives again. That's why I think suspended jail sentences which go into effect once you break the terms of your sentence might actually do some good. People really do not want to go to jail.

I think we are far to punitive in this country as a rule. Long jail sentences cost society. Obviously, there is a point at which they're a benefit to society as well. But the equation is completely out of whack. The key here is to get the bad drivers off the road and keep them off the road, not stick them away in a box forever.

You're missing the point on a fundamental level.



My emphasis added. I'm not going to speak for him, but it seems that the big point is to keep people out of prison unless they willingly drive again when they're not supposed to.

To actually put people into prison for 30 years for a first offense would be monumentally stupid considering the practical problems of doing so.

And again, prison time in cases like this, is I think not the ideal means of justice. Society could be better served through other means. There are much better things to do than pay for somebody to feel sorry and bored for years on end.

Yes, I agree that putting "everyone" away for a first offense would be monumentally stupid. BUT in order to send the message that these things ARE being taken seriously some people DO need to be sent away for first offenses, otherwise where is the deterrent?

This depends on who it is who is responsible for the act. An uneducated person who turns to crime to make ends meet may require different treatment to a high-earning professional who has been careless.

The problem with that logic is that it would show that the rich and/or educated have a separate "justice/legal system" then does the poor and/or uneducated. Justice as the old saying goes should and needs to be blind. It shouldn't matter if the person who commits a crime is an "uneducated janitor" or is a "highly educated lawyer." If they have both committed the same crime then they should have to face the same penalty.


I honestly have no idea how many people are driving without a license. Truth be told I think it's the kind of statistic that can only ever be guessed, and anyone taking a guess is likely to have a vested interest one way or the other. Again the nature of the perpetrator (I specifically don't use the term "criminal" here, on the basis that a genuine error of judgement can have consequences just as tragic as active and premeditated malice) changes a lot. Telling someone who sweeps the floor for a living that they have to pay $1000/month for the next 25 years pretty much forces them into crime to fund it. Telling a lawyer they have to pay $1000/month for the next 25 years is perhaps less of an issue for them.

Nor do I, but I would think that it is much higher than most people tend to think. Agreed, if we fine a person so much that they're then forced to turn to a further life of crime in order to pay their fine then we haven't done anything other than to make a more hardened/professional criminal.

What probably needs to happen in the case of a fine being levied is that the individual's expenses need to be reviewed. And the fine that is levied against them is large enough so that it hurts in that they cannot engage in as many leisure activities as they would like to or as often as they would like to, but can still afford to pay their rent/mortgage, buy their food, medication, insurance, etc.

As for a "well paid lawyer" the fine should maybe be somewhat higher. Or maybe they should be forced to more pro bono work then they're already required to do. Because aren't they already required to do a certain amount of pro bono work per year?


That's not to say the lawyer should get a free pass to buy their way out of prison, just to acknowledge that in cases where a financial penalty is more appropriate it perhaps serves more purpose to let the lawyer continue to work and pay restitution by way of an ongoing financial penalty than to lock them up and therefore deprive them of their career in the future. If anything locking up the lawyer will make them more likely to turn to crime when they are released, on the basis there's probably not much demand for lawyers with experience in prison.

But depending on their crime, maybe the best course of action IS to imprison them, even if it is one's first offense. As an example, we have a lawyer out in their "shiny new" BMW. They're flying down the road at 3 or 4 times the posted speed limit. They also run either a red light or a stop sign and "T-bone" another car. Crippling the driver of the car depriving them of their career.

Would it be fair then to say allow the lawyer to pay restitution when they've thoroughly ruined the life and career of their victim?


In theory I agree. In practice it's not always clear-cut who is at fault, especially when there are only two witnesses to the accident and one is dead. If drivers are automatically assumed to be at fault they end up being penalized for hitting a ninja salmon. If hitting a cyclist without lights after dark is deemed to be automatically the cyclist's fault then a driver who does hit a cyclist has an obvious interest in removing their lights before calling the emergency services.

Agreed, and sadly as we've seen from numerous news articles. There are too many LEO's out there who ONLY talk to the driver and/or the witnesses who support the drivers story and/or ignoring the cyclist and witnesses that back their story.

That is also where having friends, family members and neighbors who know that one "rolls" with x-number of lights could come into play. I have a neighbor and friend who even if he wasn't at the scene would be more than willing to stand up in court and tell the court that he knows (based on how he sees my bike when I leave for my daily rides) that I have x-number of headlights and x-number of taillights. And that anyone who claims that I didn't have lights on my bike is lying.

And in a case like that we need to make tampering with evidence an even more serious charge than it already is.


Agreed. Had such a collision taken place you can be pretty sure the ninja cyclist wouldn't have stopped to accept responsibility.

Agreed, that is if he himself didn't end up as a victim as well. Or if the driver isn't/wasn't able to detain the salmon cyclist. Of course there is also a better than good chance that the driver would step up and say that they swerved to avoid the salmon cyclist.


As I said before it's the kind of statistic that can only really be guessed at. If someone is distracted by answering a cellphone, texting, fiddling with GPS etc the consequences can be tragic, as I'm sure we all know very well. But is prison time for being distracted really a proportionate response? If so where do we draw the line? Given how difficult it can be to judge the speed of a cyclist, should we be locking up drivers who misjudge the speed of an approaching cyclist? If a cyclist is coming downhill at speed (possibly in excess of the speed limit) and a driver turns in front of them assuming they will be going at or below the speed limit, should that attract a jail sentence?

IF the only way to drive the message home that that is a dangerous practice then sadly that is what we would have to do. I'm not saying that every offense needs to be treated as a "capital offense" but the punishment needs to be steep enough that everyone knows that if they engage in said activity that they could face a significant penalty. And it needs to be applied equally across the board regardless of who it is that committed the crime/infraction.


How does it make the family of the deceased whole? My brother was knocked off his motorbike and nearly killed by someone who hit him head-on. He was in a filter lane waiting to turn right across the traffic, the guy coming the other way was in the lane overtaking a truck (in case that makes little sense, in the UK we drive on the left). The result was a head-on collision at 90+mph and time in the hospital being put back together again. The driver was given a fine for careless driving and 9 points on his license. In the UK attracting 12 points within 3 years results in disqualification, so if the driver committed another driving offense of any type within those three years he would lose his license. We (my family) thought it was an eminently fair punishment on the basis that if it was a one-off error of judgement it wouldn't destroy his life and livelihood but if he did anything like it again he'd lose his license (and given the nature of his work he'd have been fired as soon as he was no longer allowed to drive). Locking him up for a first offense wouldn't have helped my brother, wouldn't have helped us, and would just have put him and his family on the streets.

I apologize, I may have choose the wrong words in saying that it makes them "whole" it gives them a sense of closure.

I'm fully aware of the point, but I'm looking into it from a different angle, maybe a little deeper is all. I even sympathize with the underlying sentiment that it's better to rehabilitate offenders than to simply incarcerate them.

First, I'm not convinced that recidivism is eliminated or even diminished by successively harsher penalties. I don't ask why or why not about that, but that's human nature and I think the facts bear me out on that. People who commit violent crimes, murder and armed robbery and things of that nature overwhelmingly cycle back through the system. Giving them more chances doesn't stop them. It's true that harsher penalties don't necessarily lower these crime rates either, but this is where these two subjects diverge.

Killing someone with a car usually isn't deliberate mayhem. It's not, normally, just using a different tool to blow someone away or threaten them with deadly force. Usually, and I don't have hard data but again I'm confident that facts will bear me out, it arises from a combination of impairment and just not caring. Impairment including but not limited to intoxication and other chemical impairments, inattentiveness, medication, absorption with some electronic device, out of control emotional states including aggression. Not caring, accepting higher risks for others for some personal reason. In short, the majority of these incidents which can be prosecuted are avoidable.

It's the risk judgment that's out of skew with these offenders. This idea of slapping them with a long suspended sentence and draconian consequences should they again cross the line seems fair and it comes up again and again, but it never seems to really work. Harsher penalties do work, in some cases, and that's really what we're addressing here isn't it? That the Justice system is too lax on people who kill cyclists?

What triggered this was when poguemahone mentioned that surely someone with a suspended sentence would never dare sit behind the wheel again. I said that "I hope that's true", but I fudged a little because I really don't think so. I think it would be harder for those offenders to give up driving than to have given up their impairment while driving (whatever it may be) in the first place. But IF it's true that the deterrent would prevent them from driving, it's MORE true that the deterrent would have stopped them in the first place and avoided the whole thing. And IF he's right and the deterrent works, THEN the prisons won't be more crowded because the crime won't be committed. This is the essence of our criminal system including law enforcement, to deter crime rather than to rehabilitate criminals, even if we feel that fact is regrettable. We need to treat this like a crime and not like a lapse in judgment or indiscretion.

If I am reading what you've said correctly. That is why I said before that inmates need to work in a prison based industry. Such as the laundry room, the library, a prison farm, building furniture to be sold through stores to the general (non incarcerated) population. If an inmate doesn't have their high school diploma/GED then they are provided with classes at the expense of the taxpayers.

On the other hand if they want to get a higher education be it some sort of college education or vocational training then they pay for that themselves. Also as I had said before their living expenses would be deducted from their pay. As well as they would be paying into the Social Security program. Also depending on the nature that they committed they would also pay restitution out of their paycheck. Such as say they stole your car and while being chased by the police they run into a light pole totaling your car. By working in a prison run industry they will have the money to pay restitution to you. Likewise if they're a divorced parent who had been ordered to pay child support then because they are working in the prison run industry they'd also be able to continue to pay child support.

Isn't it better to put them in a place where not only being punished, as well are the separated from the rest of the population but are also given the chance of bettering themselves so that when they are eventually released that they become a productive member of society?

Of course if an inmate has been given a life sentence or is on death row. They would still be required to work within some sort of prison industry (of course with higher security) and they'd have to pay for their room and board and food, etc. And in the case of death row inmates any "excess" money remaining in their commissary account would first be divided amongst their victims, and any that remains after that goes to their estate.