Woman faces life in prison for stopping to save ducklings

Awkward Badger

Days 298 wrote: »

Someone stopped on a motorway for ducks causing me to crash or do a maneuver endangering my life Id want them put away regardless.

I'd understand maybe anger on the part of someone who has been really badly affected by such an incident and dealing with it more emotively than rationally. But for people with no involvement and not even living in the same country, reading about it 4 years after it happened to want them punished just to have them suffer regardless of whether or not there is anything to be gained from it, I don't fully understand it.

Interestingly enough the surviving family member who lost her husband and daughter has been quoted as saying she has no interest in the outcome of the trial.

obplayer

Pugsly wrote: »

I'd understand maybe anger on the part of someone who has been really badly affected by such an incident and dealing with it more emotively than rationally. But for people with no involvement and not even living in the same country, reading about it 4 years after it happened to want them punished just to have them suffer regardless of whether or not there is anything to be gained from it, I don't fully understand it.

Interestingly enough the surviving family member who lost her husband and daughter has been quoted as saying she has no interest in the outcome of the trial.

Criminal sentences are meant as deterrents to others as well as punishment. Even without any anger a couple of years in jail is justified as a deterrent to others.

Sand

Pugsly wrote: »

I'd understand maybe anger on the part of someone who has been really badly affected by such an incident and dealing with it more emotively than rationally. But for people with no involvement and not even living in the same country, reading about it 4 years after it happened to want them punished just to have them suffer regardless of whether or not there is anything to be gained from it, I don't fully understand it.

People like to believe that people who do wrong will be punished appropriately. Its one of the reasons that people acknowledge laws, police, courts: that they are there to detect and punish wrongdoing and protect them from people who are either evil or criminally stupid. This woman is criminally stupid, hence peoples interest in seeing her appropriately punished. They want to be reassured they'll be protected from morons like her.

What she did isn't slap on the wrist and don't do that again territory of wrongdoing. It was a serious and reckless endangerment of the lives of other people, which caused the deaths of two people.

Snake

Pwindedd wrote: »

I have to agree with this somewhat, if you do not have enough stopping distance to bring your vehicle to a halt safely then you are either driving too close or too fast. The reason for her stopping is immaterial, even though it was on this occasion monumentally stupid.

She should lose her license agreed - but jail time. No. She has to carry this with her for life. That's sentence enough in my opinion.

Even throw the motorcycle brakes or flick the emergency cut out switch. You'll break and arm or leg but at least you'd survive

The_Captain

animaal wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree completely.

If I hit somebody in my car, and they're not killed, I might be guilty of careless driving, reckless driving, or attempted murder. The consequences are the same in each case; the difference is my intent and action.

If I do kill somebody, I guess I could be judged guilty of careless driving causing death, reckless driving causing death, manslaughter, or murder. Again, the difference is the intent and the act.

Exactly my point, the act of your poor driving doesn't affect the crime or sentence, the consequence of your actions determines whether you're done for manslaughter or reckless driving.

Awkward Badger

obplayer wrote: »

Criminal sentences are meant as deterrents to others as well as punishment. Even without any anger a couple of years in jail is justified as a deterrent to others.

And what does a criminal sentence in this case deter ? Parking in the fast lane causing the death of another motorist ?

As I said earlier anyone familiar with this story will already see what can happen if you park in the fast lane. The threat of a custodial sentence if it results in the death of another motorist is not going to act as a deterrent.

Awkward Badger

Sand wrote: »

People like to believe that people who do wrong will be punished appropriately. Its one of the reasons that people acknowledge laws, police, courts: that they are there to detect and punish wrongdoing and protect them from people who are either evil or criminally stupid. This woman is criminally stupid, hence peoples interest in seeing her appropriately punished. They want to be reassured they'll be protected from morons like her.

Its things like that bolded part that make it hard for me to take anyone with this argument seriously. There is no such thing as criminally stupid. You cannot punish someone for being stupid. You punish them for committing a crime.

And the punishment has to have a reason beyond blind vengeance. That's why people acknowledge laws, police, courts etc. They accept that certain actions have consequences to enable the judicial system to keep everything in order. To keep them safe from people who would commit crimes and negatively affect them as a consequence. And you deal with those crimes to deter the crime or to rehabilitate the offender with a view to making sure they don't do it again. All I see in this argument is she did wrong, she must suffer because of it.

What she did isn't slap on the wrist and don't do that again territory of wrongdoing. It was a serious and reckless endangerment of the lives of other people, which caused the deaths of two people.

And you have yet to explain why she needs to suffer for it rather than be dealt with in relation to the risk she poses and making sure it doesn't happen again. A custodial sentence serves no purpose here.

obplayer

Pugsly wrote: »

And what does a criminal sentence in this case deter ? Parking in the fast lane causing the death of another motorist ?

As I said earlier anyone familiar with this story will already see what can happen if you park in the fast lane. The threat of a custodial sentence if it results in the death of another motorist is not going to act as a deterrent.

Well, yes. Exactly.
There are people who only respond to potential punishment, who think if there is no serious punishment then it cannot be a very serious action to do. If you haven't met any then I envy you.

Sand

Pugsly wrote: »

And you have yet to explain why she needs to suffer for it rather than be dealt with in relation to the risk she poses and making sure it doesn't happen again. A custodial sentence serves no purpose here.

That doesn't hold up as a principle of justice or law enforcement. What if a man kills another man who he found in bed with his wife. He never even got into an argument with anyone before, and he's divorced his wife so he's very unlikely to reoffend. Should he face no custodial sentence because hes not going to reoffend?

There is an element of punishment when sentences are handed down. Its not *all* about what is best for the criminal.

Awkward Badger

obplayer wrote: »

Well, yes. Exactly.
There are people who only respond to potential punishment, who think if there is no serious punishment then it cannot be a very serious action to do. If you haven't met any then I envy you.

If there was a mandatory sentence for simply parking in the fast lane without hazards then it would be a deterrent to parking in the fast lane, because as you say if people think they can get away with it they will be more inclined to do it.

But if this woman is sentenced to a prison term its not going to be for stopping in the fast lane, she's going to be sentenced for causing the deaths of two people. Given she never meant to do it and it was an accident, what does the prison term deter ? People should already be aware it may cause an accident and all that goes with that possibly even the death of yourself or someone else leaving you responsible for all of it. If that itself isn't a deterrent I don't see how the hell a custodial sentence could be. Who'd accept all that but then say "Ah but, I might end up in prison, better not stop" ?.

The only way this happens again is as with this woman. Someone makes a monumental mistake by someone not thinking of the consequences of their actions. You cant deter that with custodial sentences.

obplayer

Pugsly wrote: »

If there was a mandatory sentence for simply parking in the fast lane without hazards then it would be a deterrent to parking in the fast lane, because as you say if people think they can get away with it they will be more inclined to do it.

But if this woman is sentenced to a prison term its not going to be for stopping in the fast lane, she's going to be sentenced for causing the deaths of two people. Given she never meant to do it and it was an accident, what does the prison term deter ? People should already be aware it may cause an accident and all that goes with that possibly even the death of yourself or someone else leaving you responsible for all of it. If that itself isn't a deterrent I don't see how the hell a custodial sentence could be. Who'd accept all that but then say "Ah but, I might end up in prison, better not stop" ?.

The only way this happens again is as with this woman. Someone makes a monumental mistake by someone not thinking of the consequences of their actions. You cant deter that with custodial sentences.

I would be quite happy to see her charged simply with stopping in the fast lane and getting a couple of years for it. I believe anyone who simply stops in the fast lane should be jailed. I have never advocated 14 years or life or similar sentences.

Awkward Badger

Sand wrote: »

That doesn't hold up as a principle of justice or law enforcement. What if a man kills another man who he found in bed with his wife. He never even got into an argument with anyone before, and he's divorced his wife so he's very unlikely to reoffend. Should he face no custodial sentence because hes not going to reoffend?

That person would have intentionally killed another human being. That's quite a bit different than being responsible for an accident which results in a death. There are benefits of a custodial sentence over or in addition to other means in such a case. But would you think that man deserves the same punishment as someone who has shown enough to suggest he is likely to re-offend ? Do you think it sufficient to simply punish them both and then let them out ? Or do you think the risk of re-offence it needs to be taken into account when deciding what to do with the person ?

There is an element of punishment when sentences are handed down. Its not *all* about what is best for the criminal

How is any of it about what's best for the criminal ? Its about everyone else in society. You seem hell bent on denying the criminal anything and see them get their comeuppance even going so far as to avoid doing what's best for society as a whole to see it happen.

If its cheaper, easier and more effective to put that woman through a program an disqualify her from driving to ensure she isn't likely to do what she did again why is there any reason to ignore it and go through more hassle and expense to imprison her ? Why do you need to see her suffer rather than see the problem dealt with ?

Little CuChulainn

obplayer wrote: »

Criminal sentences are meant as deterrents to others as well as punishment. Even without any anger a couple of years in jail is justified as a deterrent to others.

Criminal sentences don't work as deterrents for the most part. Prison should be reserved for people who are a danger to society or refuse to live by the laws we set. Depriving someone of their freedom for a stupid reckless mistake will not deter anyone because nobody thinks it will happen to them.

gctest50

Pugsly wrote: »

If its cheaper, easier and more effective to put that woman through a program

The most effective thing would be execution for the needless manslaughter

Zeros the risk of her doing something even more reckless in some other setting in the future

Sand

Pugsly wrote: »

That person would have intentionally killed another human being. That's quite a bit different than being responsible for an accident which results in a death. There are benefits of a custodial sentence over or in addition to other means in such a case. But would you think that man deserves the same punishment as someone who has shown enough to suggest he is likely to re-offend ? Do you think it sufficient to simply punish them both and then let them out ? Or do you think the risk of re-offence it needs to be taken into account when deciding what to do with the person ?

This woman intentionally endangered the lives of other motorists by parking her car in the middle of a motorway. There is a difference to intentional murder - which is why I believe more than 4-5 years would be excessive, but this was no accident. She deliberately abandoned her car in the middle of a motorway! What did she think was going to happen?

She might have got lucky - maybe no one would have died. But it would not have changed that she intentionally endangered the lives of others. And in the event, people did die because of the deliberate, foolish decisions she made.

I see absolutely no grounds for ruling out a custodial sentence for her. Life or 10+ years would be ridiculously harsh, but 0 years would be a travesty of justice.

How is any of it about what's best for the criminal ? Its about everyone else in society. You seem hell bent on denying the criminal anything and see them get their comeuppance even going so far as to avoid doing what's best for society as a whole to see it happen.

If its cheaper, easier and more effective to put that woman through a program an disqualify her from driving to ensure she isn't likely to do what she did again why is there any reason to ignore it and go through more hassle and expense to imprison her ? Why do you need to see her suffer rather than see the problem dealt with ?

What's best for the rest of society is that the value of human life is defended. You don't get to kill two people through utter stupidity and then go "Whoops!". Being an idiot, being drunk, being angry, being afraid or being influenced by others are all mitigating factors when deciding punishment but none of them are a get out of jail free card.

This woman deserves a life time ban from driving, she deserves a custodial sentence of roughly 4-5 years, and she ought to be forced to undergo counselling to explore the reasoning process she applied to the decisions she made that cost two people their lives. This isn't about vindictiveness - like I said I think the woman isnt evil, just a well meaning idiot - but justice has to be done, and be seen to be done.

Awkward Badger

Sand wrote: »

This woman intentionally endangered the lives of other motorists by parking her car in the middle of a motorway. There is a difference to intentional murder - which is why I believe more than 4-5 years would be excessive, but this was no accident. She deliberately abandoned her car in the middle of a motorway! What did she think was going to happen?

So you're claiming she murdered the two people on the bike ? Deliberately parking the car in the fast lane doesn't mean the crash was not an accident. She didn't park it there to cause a crash.

She might have got lucky - maybe no one would have died. But it would not have changed that she intentionally endangered the lives of others. And in the event, people did die because of the deliberate, foolish decisions she made.

I see absolutely no grounds for ruling out a custodial sentence for her. Life or 10+ years would be ridiculously harsh, but 0 years would be a travesty of justice.

No she didn't. She was found guilty of negligence causing death. Intentionally endangering lives resulting in death would have led to a murder charge.

What's best for the rest of society is that the value of human life is defended. You don't get to kill two people through utter stupidity and then go "Whoops!". Being an idiot, being drunk, being angry, being afraid or being influenced by others are all mitigating factors when deciding punishment but none of them are a get out of jail free card.

What's best for society is that the problem is dealt with in the best interests of society. Which in my opinion is reducing or eliminating future offences. This get out of jail free card/protect the value of human life stuff is an emotive response to a problem that needs a rational solution. It shouldn't be about someone getting or avoiding their comeuppance. It should be about reasonable and rationally solving problems facing society.

This woman deserves a life time ban from driving, she deserves a custodial sentence of roughly 4-5 years, and she ought to be forced to undergo counselling to explore the reasoning process she applied to the decisions she made that cost two people their lives. This isn't about vindictiveness - like I said I think the woman isnt evil, just a well meaning idiot - but justice has to be done, and be seen to be done.

Again its not about what she deserves, its about dealing with the crime. And the crime isn't one which was done with intent, it was simply negligence. Poor decisions were made and it resulted in the death of two people. It needs to be dealt with but punishing for the sake of it ahead of better options makes no sense. If its not out of vindictiveness its out of ignorance because there is no logical reason to do it in my opinion.

And if it is a case of our understanding of justice is "making people pay for their crimes regardless" and justice needs to be done then our understanding of justice is irrational and its implementation purposeless and even counter productive.

osarusan

Sand wrote: »

This woman intentionally endangered the lives of other motorists by parking her car in the middle of a motorway. There is a difference to intentional murder - which is why I believe more than 4-5 years would be excessive, but this was no accident. She deliberately abandoned her car in the middle of a motorway! What did she think was going to happen?

She might have got lucky - maybe no one would have died. But it would not have changed that she intentionally endangered the lives of others. And in the event, people did die because of the deliberate, foolish decisions she made.

It would only have been intentional if her intention was to cause an accident.

She was convicted of negligence.

gctest50

osarusan wrote: »

It would only have been intentional if her intention was to cause an accident.

It may have been her intention - no-one will ever know

She may have decided in the middle of the craziness to "stop all these cars and let the ducks wander freely" - you never can tell when it comes to this sort of thing

Ghost Train

Driving licence suspended for a few years. Not sure about prison sentence... If the ducks were in front of her and she stopped, fair enough, obstruction in the road. If shed already past them and then stopped that's a bit worse, she's the one obstructing the road. If motorbike was speeding I'd think prison sentence would be harsh.

feargale

The_Captain wrote: »

Our legal system judges people by the consequences, rather than the act.

No. Our system takes both intent and consequences into account

Cantremember

AngeGal wrote: »

Ideally the role of prison is partly punishment and partly rehabilitation. This crime doesn't need rehabilitation, she'll never be so reckless again. She has no criminal record and has to live with having killed two people. Sufficient punishment would be one year house arrest, driving license suspended for five years.

Sufficient punishment no less. Has to live with no less.
Two people have to live with being dead. You see how daft that it is? Someone has to live without them forever. Not a year, not for five years. Forever.

feargale

Vengeance has no place in criminal law.

feargale

Vengeance has no place in criminal law.

Icemancometh

So what happens if one morning I'm late for work, and I decide to make the time up by speeding. I drive 100km/h out of my estate, then some kid runs onto the road without looking and I knock him down and kill him. It was an accident, I didn't intend to kill him, I just had other priorities at that time. Do I deserve a custodial sentence?

Guy:Incognito

lightspeed wrote: »

Maybe some folks can clarify this, but if i there is an incident ahead, the car in front jams on the brakes and i crash into the back, am i not at fault for not being a safe enough distance to stop with such a collision occurring?

Why were the those killed on the bikes so close that they could not slow down in time and move direction if necessary?

The way its described that she had parked up and opened the door makes it sound like they should have had some time if they were not close behind at high speed.

Do you realise how vastly different the reaction time and stopping distance available are when it's 2 vehicles braking at the same time ( they were both moving and continue to do so in tandem while slowing) and one being stopped already?

If walls retreated backwards when a car was skidding towards them do you not reckon thered be less wall related crashes?

kylith

lightspeed wrote: »

Maybe some folks can clarify this, but if i there is an incident ahead, the car in front jams on the brakes and i crash into the back, am i not at fault for not being a safe enough distance to stop with such a collision occurring?

Why were the those killed on the bikes so close that they could not slow down in time and move direction if necessary?

The way its described that she had parked up and opened the door makes it sound like they should have had some time if they were not close behind at high speed.

There's a difference between slamming on your brakes in a car and slamming them on when on a bike. In a car you have a large, stable wheel base and seatbelts to stop you flying forward because of momentum. With a bike one of two things can happen when you jam on the brakes 1) the bike falls and you and the bike continue forward, scraping along the road. If you're wearing the right gear you might get away with some abrasions if your'e lucky, if your'e not wearing the right stuff you'll lose a hell of a lot of flesh. 2) The bike comes to a sudden stop and you're catapulted over the handlebars in a wonderful Superman impression. So it's not a question of 'why couldn't he stop in time' more a question of 'could he have stopped in time without killing himself and his child anyway'.

EPointer=Birdss

Define Irony.
Multiple posters criticizing one motorist for her stupidity, when each of them continuously refers to the overtaking lane on a motorway as the fast lane.
Otherwise known as the lane that many drivers use at will as long as the driver to their left is going slower.

On topic - lifetime ban from driving & some level of compensation to both the victim's family & society. Life in jail & or death penalty for a moment of stupidity is ridiculous. No priors, no drugs or drink present. No intent just good old fashioned stupidity.
Would rather the murders, rapists & other scum of the earth actually get punished than some fool that for all you know could be a very decent person.
Granted a knuckle dragging one!
She cant take it back & no amount of prison time is going to make it any better. Just cost society more annually to hold her.

Little CuChulainn

EPointer=Birdss wrote: »

Define Irony.
Multiple posters criticizing one motorist for her stupidity, when each of them continuously refers to the overtaking lane on a motorway as the fast lane.
Otherwise known as the lane that many drivers use at will as long as the driver to their left is going slower.

Is it not called a fast lane in Canada?

EPointer=Birdss

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Is it not called a fast lane in Canada?

Nope. Passing Lane.
Fast lane is a term people like to use & then abide by as passing would infer you actually move back in after passing the vehicle.

cloud493

Icemancometh wrote: »

So what happens if one morning I'm late for work, and I decide to make the time up by speeding. I drive 100km/h out of my estate, then some kid runs onto the road without looking and I knock him down and kill him. It was an accident, I didn't intend to kill him, I just had other priorities at that time. Do I deserve a custodial sentence?

Yes.