Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ian on July 22, 2010 at 1:50pm

victim's family not upset with the sentence, why are you?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vxla on July 22, 2010 at 2:31pm

Ian said:

victim's family not upset with the sentence, why are you?

Let's stop and think about the precedent it sets...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on July 23, 2010 at 3:15am

It doesn't quite feel like enough of a sentence. At least it's some jail time.

Howard - Too close to the truth, unfortunately.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arrak Thumrs on July 23, 2010 at 5:23am

The wording is confusing---possibly misleading---in the link. From what I understood on the television news last night, when she is allowed to "leave for work", what she is only allowed to do is complete her community service duties. That is entirely different, I feel, than leaving jail to make money on your normal day job. For the record, once that detail was understood, I have no issue with the sentence. I also agree with Ian; the victim's family is happy with the sentence. That is a large step toward affirming that justice was served here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris B on July 23, 2010 at 6:32am

Arrak from what I read it is both work and community service. Actually it's good that she is allowed to work to make money, because now when the family files a civil wrongful death suit, she will be making money in order to pay them. Even though money cannot replace a life, there are tons of things that your spouse or children do for you that will cost you money and/or time to do yourself or hire someone. And often you need that right away, not 5 years later when they are out of jail.

So yes she should keep on working, then they should garnish her wages.

I'm not a fan of tribal justice for various reasons, but one interesting feature about many tribal systems is you (or your family) have to pay a debt back to the family of someone you killed. While it is possible to sue for wrongful death, the person cannot pay you if they cannot work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on July 23, 2010 at 6:49am

That is not exactly a slap on the wrist...

Work release is not exactly a fun place to be; better then jail yes but still no fun.

She made a dumb choice and somebody, unintentionally, got hurt and for that she is going to have to spend over a year living in the care of the county. She will have no freedom to go anywhere or do anything that is not work, community service or counseling. She's only allowed 6 days out per week and has to spend EVERY night sleeping in jail. She also has to pay to be in that program to help defer the cost of her incarceration.

This is not some cake walk sentence, she is going to have a rough time. The only worse thing that could have been done was real jail where she was not let out and able to keep her job.

It is also worth noting that 'real' jail is day for day which means she would only serve half of the sentence as long as she behaved but will have to serve the entire thing in work release.

You have to keep in mind that this was not a willful act on her part.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris B on July 23, 2010 at 6:56am

notoriousDUG said:

It is also worth noting that 'real' jail is day for day which means she would only serve half of the sentence as long as she behaved but will have to serve the entire thing in work release.

thanks that's exactly what i was wondering about

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on July 23, 2010 at 7:05am

Huh?

I only pointed it out because I think it makes the sentence seem appropriate.

H3N3 said:

notoriousDUG said:

You have to keep in mind that this was not a willful act on her part.

I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to understand that Dug, no need to bait the "anti-car" folks so you have someone to rip to shreds today. Might I suggest a nice chew-toy?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on July 23, 2010 at 10:04am

Seeing the clarification that appeared today about the community service requirement and 30 months of probation made more sense of the sentence.

Chris B said:

Arrak from what I read it is both work and community service. Actually it's good that she is allowed to work to make money, because now when the family files a civil wrongful death suit, she will be making money in order to pay them. Even though money cannot replace a life, there are tons of things that your spouse or children do for you that will cost you money and/or time to do yourself or hire someone. And often you need that right away, not 5 years later when they are out of jail.

So yes she should keep on working, then they should garnish her wages.

I'm not a fan of tribal justice for various reasons, but one interesting feature about many tribal systems is you (or your family) have to pay a debt back to the family of someone you killed. While it is possible to sue for wrongful death, the person cannot pay you if they cannot work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on July 23, 2010 at 10:27am

I don't give people as much credit as you do. I think that 90% of the people you see texting, painting nails, reading or otherwise not paying enough attention when driving never, even for a second, thought about the repercussions. On the whole I think people live in a world populated only by themselves; they are selfish and willfully ignorant of their own selfishness by never taking the time to think about how their actions effect anyone but themselves.

I very much doubt that woman ever had the thought that she could cause an accident while putting on nail polish in the car and I doubt the guy I say reading a newspaper on the Kennedy yesterday does either. We, as a society, have lost sight of how complex a task safely driving a car is. So many people do it everyday as part of their routine that everyone takes it for granted as a simple task.

Think about it.

Thousands and thousands of people would shit their pants at the idea of a airline pilot sending a text mid-flight but see no real problem in texting while they drive and the pilot has less to do at altitude while cruising than a driver does any time their car is moving...

I think the sentence is adequate but others have the right to see it however they like. I just think they should know the facts of what exactly her sentence is. The biggest reason I like this sentence is that she gets 18 months of punishment instead of 9.

H3N3 said:

Allrighty, I'll play.
"Willful" is not a black-and-white concept. Some might argue that this woman made a decision, or a string of decisions, that led up to this tragedy, starting with her initial decision to mobiliize several tons of steel on the public way, and including a brief internal struggle prior to deciding to put lipstick on which went something like "if I do this I could cause an accident, maybe even kills someone; no, I'll go ahead and do it anyways, it'll be fine . . ."
There are some reading here who have expressed that they don't feel this sentence is adequate.
Are they just misinformed and waiting to be set straight?

notoriousDUG said:

Huh?

I only pointed it out because I think it makes the sentence seem appropriate.

H3N3 said:

notoriousDUG said:

You have to keep in mind that this was not a willful act on her part.

I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to understand that Dug, no need to bait the "anti-car" folks so you have someone to rip to shreds today. Might I suggest a nice chew-toy?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on July 23, 2010 at 10:52am

You're just nit picking on the willful part, you know what I meant.

I don't think that the punishment was that lenient; work release sucks terribly.

We could argue this to no end and get nowhere so why not just agree we disagree?

H3N3 said:

Here's what dictionary.com says of the word "willful":

1. (of an immoral or illegal act or omission) Intentional; deliberate.
2. Having or showing a stubborn and determined intention to do as one wants, regardless of the consequences or effects

So, I'm willing to accept that we're not looking at #1 in this case.
#2, not so sure. Did they ask her if she considered the consequences? If so, how did she respond?
I don't think your 90% is in the ballpark. I think the vast majority of people who behave recklessly have some awareness that they're doing so, even if only fleetingly or at a barely conscious level. And if they didn't, would they deserve a more lenient punishment in a case like this?



notoriousDUG said:

I don't give people as much credit as you do. I think that 90% of the people you see texting, painting nails, reading or otherwise not paying enough attention when driving never, even for a second, thought about the repercussions. On the whole I think people live in a world populated only by themselves; they are selfish and willfully ignorant of their own selfishness by never taking the time to think about how their actions effect anyone but themselves.
I very much doubt that woman ever had the thought that she could cause an accident while putting on nail polish in the car and I doubt the guy I say reading a newspaper on the Kennedy yesterday does either. We, as a society, have lost sight of how complex a task safely driving a car is. So many people do it everyday as part of their routine that everyone takes it for granted as a simple task.
Think about it.

Thousands and thousands of people would shit their pants at the idea of a airline pilot sending a text mid-flight but see no real problem in texting while they drive and the pilot has less to do at altitude while cruising than a driver does any time their car is moving...

I think the sentence is adequate but others have the right to see it however they like. I just think they should know the facts of what exactly her sentence is. The biggest reason I like this sentence is that she gets 18 months of punishment instead of 9.

H3N3 said:

Allrighty, I'll play.
"Willful" is not a black-and-white concept. Some might argue that this woman made a decision, or a string of decisions, that led up to this tragedy, starting with her initial decision to mobiliize several tons of steel on the public way, and including a brief internal struggle prior to deciding to put lipstick on which went something like "if I do this I could cause an accident, maybe even kills someone; no, I'll go ahead and do it anyways, it'll be fine . . ."
There are some reading here who have expressed that they don't feel this sentence is adequate. Are they just misinformed and waiting to be set straight?
notoriousDUG said:

Huh?

I only pointed it out because I think it makes the sentence seem appropriate.
H3N3 said:

notoriousDUG said:

You have to keep in mind that this was not a willful act on her part.

I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to understand that Dug, no need to bait the "anti-car" folks so you have someone to rip to shreds today. Might I suggest a nice chew-toy?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on July 23, 2010 at 11:29am

I think the legal principle you guys are looking for is "reckless disregard" for the consequences.

The "Nail Polish Murder" probably did not act "willfully" with respect to the consequences of her actions; i.e. she didn't want to run into another vehicle.

She probably did act with reckless disregard in that she was in "a state of mind which either pays no regard to its probably or possibly injurious consequences, or which, though forseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge."

"Willfulness" and "reckless disregard" each typically bump up the consequences for criminal and civil liability, but they are distinct principles.

notoriousDUG said:

You're just nit picking on the willful part, you know what I meant.

I don't think that the punishment was that lenient; work release sucks terribly.

We could argue this to no end and get nowhere so why not just agree we disagree?

H3N3 said:

Here's what dictionary.com says of the word "willful":

1. (of an immoral or illegal act or omission) Intentional; deliberate.
2. Having or showing a stubborn and determined intention to do as one wants, regardless of the consequences or effects

So, I'm willing to accept that we're not looking at #1 in this case.
#2, not so sure. Did they ask her if she considered the consequences? If so, how did she respond?
I don't think your 90% is in the ballpark. I think the vast majority of people who behave recklessly have some awareness that they're doing so, even if only fleetingly or at a barely conscious level. And if they didn't, would they deserve a more lenient punishment in a case like this?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page