The Chainlink

18 months and you get to go to work. (here's the keys to your car so you can get to work!)

Views: 96

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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

Let's stop and think about the precedent it sets...
Sucks, yet it feels like progress. 10 years ago, or even 5, this would have been dismissed as an "act of god" if anyone even would have been charged with anything, and legislation would have been called for to get motorcycles banned from this road for the sake of "public safety."
It doesn't quite feel like enough of a sentence. At least it's some jail time.

Howard - Too close to the truth, unfortunately.
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.
Cameron Puetz said:
Unlike our favorite duo from Bolingbrook, the driver in this case at least acknowledges that she made a very reckless and stupid decision and she is genuinely remorseful. I know it doesn’t bring anyone back to life, but at least no one is claiming that what she did isn’t a big deal, was just a game, or could have happened to anyone. The blame is squarely on her terrible choices and no one disputes that.
Except the defense attorney, who feels the sentence is unfairly heavy-handed . . . (saw him interviewed on TV news.)
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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?

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service