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?