Number400

F%&K, the most obvious reaction should be "Wow, I am so glad I did not kill another human being despite driving around f*&ked up AND getting caught trying to cover up evidence of the collision." She was given a gift of not having to deal with killing for the rest of her life and it's a slap in the face for the injured party when someone is weaseling out of their sentence. Had she stopped and even tried to help, sure. Since she ran and covered it up, it should be the full term.

Jeez, I felt horrible for weeks when I rear ended a pickup truck once and dented his bumper. I don't think I could live with myself if I killed someone.

SHBR

Some people have no feelings of remorse, often times they work in one of the many establishments setup up to protect the public.

Fairly sure this isn't the case here.

FBinNY 

While we may feel offended that anyone would have that kind of chutzpah, we need to be mindful of how our legal system works.

The defense attorney is obligated to pitch the case (as bad as it is) for a reduced sentence. Failing to do so is shortchanging his client.

avole

This is the Australian legal system, with lawyers and solicitors, not attorneys.

Nooner

The should just allow the cyclist to use a car to run over the druggie, and call it a day.

noimagination

You seem to arguing that intent is what matters when a criminal act is committed, and not the consequences of the act. You also seem to be of the opinion that the purpose of incarceration is preventive, for the criminal (treatment or other rehabilitation) and for other would-be criminals (jailing people deters others form committing similar acts).

I don't agree with the first. Sorry, but I don't agree that it's appropriate to give the person who runs someone over the same sentence as someone who is stopped for impaired driving. I can sympathize, I have a loved one with a substance abuse problem, and I agree that there is no intent to harm others and that they are often not fully in control of their actions. However, actions have consequences, and it does no one any good to shield someone from those consequences. That reduces the importance of the harm that the person has caused, in the mind of the person causing the harm (thus increasing the likelihood that they'll commit the same act in the future), in the mind of the person harmed, and in the minds of the general populace.

I also don't think that, in the U.S. anyway, the primary purposes of incarceration are rehabilitation and deterrence. The primary purpose, it seems to me, is to remove a source of risk to the general population. The best predictor (not an infallible predictor, just the best) of future outcomes is past actions. Someone who has harmed another is, in general, more likely to harm someone again than a random person selected from the population. Ideally there is a secondary benefit of removing the person from the situation that surrounded the incident, but at least the U.S., putting someone in jail does not, unfortunately, isolate them from access to drugs or a culture of criminality. There may well be some correlation between the severity of punishment for a particular crime and the rate at which that crime is committed (MADD's success with reducing drunk driving is a case in point), but the effect of the severity of punishment on the rate of crime is probably pretty weak, and is also probably affected by many other factors. If MADD stopped their crusading efforts tomorrow, for example, I'd be willing to bet that drunk driving rates would start to climb even if the punishments remained the same.

As others have said, I have no problem with this lady trying to get her sentence reduced - it's her money (or her parents'). And I wouldn't have any problem with a judge revising the sentence based on a review of the circumstances, the defendant's actions since, etc. (If I was the injured party, I might have a different take - who knows?) I also wouldn't have a problem with the judge saying that he followed sentencing guidelines and telling the lady to pound sand.


-------------

FBinNY 

Same basic concept, different names and specific rules.

So, regardless of his personal distaste (if any) the lawyer has to make an argument for leniency on his client's behalf.

BTW - it's not all that unreasonable. Criminal law provides for different charges and sentences depending on whether or not an assault victim dies.

Chris0516

She deserves the maximum for leaving the scene of an accident, and for trying to hide evidence of the accident.