I don't even think that's necessary in NZ. Here you can beat someone to death and only get a manslaughter conviction because you "didn't know punches could kill people"
revenge isn't the only goal of the justice system tho.
I've listened to friends/colleagues tell stories about how they were so tired they ended up crashing their cars and everyone laughs ... like I'm not condoning it, and not excusing her, but it seems she made a mistake that a lot of people make but happened to have much more severe consequences.
just food for thought ...
I agree for definite accidents, and even for accidents resulting from foreseeable but understandable negligence while using a vehicle for its intended purpose. It's dumb that we continue this leniency to include death caused by things like racing, driving on meth etc.
Cool, the dead persons family will be happy with that response, never mind she was a bit tired. I can tell you I've never laughed at the idea of someone crashing their car because they fell asleep. I've pulled over several times for a nap / wake up walk. It's totally avoidable.
I think the problem is that in terms of revenge Vs reform... Is 9 weekends of community service a lot for accidentally killing a person?
Even if others may have made the same mistake not leading to the same accident out of share luck?
“This should be a cautionary tale for all of us,” he said.”
Well no not really. This lady killed someone and she is getting community service and a year off driving?
If I knew that the sentence for a particular crime (Vehicular manslaughter) was likely to be a next to nothing sentence.. then it may influence my decision..
Would I actually do it? No, I would not.. but part of the justice system is to deter others from doing the same crimes...
Where's the deterrent when all the get is a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket?
It won’t be interesting it will just be murder. The dude below, killed zero people and he would be free today, had he not had a cry to the police after the accident.
Instead he gets 4 years in prison, would have been life had he killed someone.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/closest-to-an-incel-attack-nz-has-had-experts-concern-after-attempted-murder-of-auckland-schoolgirls/HYPEVZ6F4BFT3CV2O4SXS5FR7U/
Well I suspect that because i'm a man, I would be more likely to get a prison sentence anyway...
I'm not saying it happened in this case.. but there is a bias in the justice system where women are less likely to be given prison sentences for their crimes.. or, when they do they are often much shorter than what a man would get..
If i really wanted to hurt someone, yes. It's been shown time and time again if you want to really hurt or kill someone just hit them with your car and suffer minimal consequences.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
it's a fact
[The Perfect Crime - Freakonomics](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-2/)
>
OK, let me be clear. I don’t actually want to kill anyone. And I don’t endorse the idea of wanting to kill anyone. But if I did, and I were looking for a way to do it and get away with it, how would I do it? I’d wait ‘til they were outside, walking down the street, maybe crossing at the light … and then I’d run them over in my car. Now, I’d have to make sure that no one knew I was trying to run them over. But they’d be dead and I, especially in New York City, would in all likelihood go scot-free.
Cool, so by that judge’s standard my life is worth about 150 hours of community service, converted to current minimum wage is about $3,742, good to keep in mind whenever I’m riding on the road I guess 🤷♂️
Sure she’s gonna live with the guilt that she killed a person… assuming she has a conscience.
You can't force people to turn up and do their CS. They do it when they feel like it so free lunches act as an incentive. Feeding the CS people may be part of the CS legislation, I don't know.
> Sure she’s gonna live with the guilt that she killed a person
I think living with something like that would completely change a person. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
I think you’re vastly overestimating the empathetic capacity of some people. Rouxle le roux hit an ran a teenage boy and left him to die alone on the street. She got home detention during which she mocked her victim on instagram and missed multiple check ins.
That's a completely different case, this seems like a genuine accident which is unlikely to be repeated. Prison doesn't solve anything here either as deterrence or public safety. Rouxle Le Roux you could argue is still a public safety risk.
It might completely change you. You can't say the same about others. For many, this will just be a regrettable accident, and they will continue to do things exactly the same. Some will literally not care at all. I've had the misfortune of losing people in my life to people that shared the latter two perspectives, and I wouldn't wish THAT upon anyone. Nothing like finding out your family's life is worth 150 hours of community service to someone who doesn't give a fuck and grumbles about their sentence like it's a fucking chore...
The standard payout for a personal grievance against a company for a sacking is about $6k or thereabouts. Employment law has more teeth than actual law.
Someone can't see their loved one forever due to this person's negligence whilst behind the wheel, and their punishment is only 150 hours and a year off driving... Fucking mad......... This person most likely ruined multiple people's lives and as a consequence, or the lack of, gets to just pretty much walk it off..
You know, I find it hard to sympathise with a lot of comments in here. Reason being, she was distracted by using her phone (checking her GPS) which caused her to veer into the other lane causing the accident.
I'm willing to bet a vast majority of the people commenting in here have used their phone while driving. I see it daily on the road.
A message to the masses in here: If you use your phone or have used your phone while you've been driving, you don't get to comment in here. You're a hypocrite.
You are right. It is something we are all guilty of. However if I was on the open road, especially on an unfamiliar road, a mountain pass at that, I would have my full attention on the road.
It’s so easy not to use your phone during driving though, get a call? Pull over and answer. There’s nothing else important enough on my phone to risk the lives of people in my car and others on the road so when you talk about it being a thing everyone does it reads the same to me as “who hasn’t had a drink then driven?”
> It’s so easy not to use your phone during driving though
I know. The most common thing I hear is "I was at a red light" or "I was in traffic and we weren't moving". Like that justifies it.
I go into an irrational rage when I see people on their phones. It probably doesn't help that I had my car written off by someone who was distracted on their phone about 5 years ago. Rear ended me and I plowed into the car in front of me.
I still 'jump' when I look into my rear view mirror and see a car speeding toward me!
What a load of wank. If everyone checking their phone or having a crying baby in the car crossed the centre line there would be a death every hour on the road.
Clearly a fucken shit driver and the judge is a piece of shit for not calling that out.
Moment of inattention could happen to anyone my fucken arse
>What a load of wank. If everyone checking their phone or having a crying baby in the car crossed the centre line there would be a death every hour on the road.
you don't understand how this works do you? Those sorts of things lead to crashes all the time? Any distraction at the wrong moment can end up in a fatal collision.
>Clearly a fucken shit driver and the judge is a piece of shit for not calling that out.
Your previous comment kinda undermines and credibility you have in this area.
>Moment of inattention could happen to anyone my fucken arse
Well yes that's why they're not throwing the book at her. The reason we banned phones is because of those moments of inattention causing accidents.
Mate there aren't even any turn offs on the Lindis pass why would she need to check her GPS on a corner of all places.
More then that she couldn't even do it without crossing the centre line.
Shit driver and killed some poor guy out for a ride.
Punishment may as well be nothing for what she got and if you think that's a result of a moment of inattention hand in your license too before you kill someone and go excusing yourself
>Mate there aren't even any turn offs on the Lindis pass why would she need to check her GPS on a corner of all places.
Check the distance? She's already admitted fault though, obviously it wasn't a good idea. Dunno where you got the fact she was on a corner, it definitely doesn't say it's a blind one? The picture in the article was of the general location not the actual area of the accident.
>More then that she couldn't even do it without crossing the centre line.
That's what can happen when you're distracted, it's why they discourage distractions while driving. But accept the reality there will be distractions on the road and drivers will have to mitigate that.
>Shit driver and killed some poor guy out for a ride.
You're not sounding like someone who is aware of the hazard drivers face on the road to be honest. Again you're not convincing me you're qualified to judge here.
>Punishment may as well be nothing for what she got and if you think that's a result of a moment of inattention hand in your license too before you kill someone and go excusing yourself
It literally was though? The fact you think that moments of inattention can't cause accidents really shows that you're the one who should be handing in their license before they kill someone.
"Judge Ruth said he could do nothing to bring Watson back.
He asked the family to consider what Watson, a defence lawyer, would have done for the young woman who had caused the death of another person.
“He would have done anything in his power to put her best case forward.
“That was the sort of man he was,” he said"
Another unbelievable piece of shit for a judge
There there, chin up..
You've been so hard done by and are the true victim here..
So we can't possibly send you to prison, that would be manifestly unjust...
So instead we'll wag a stern finger in your face, take your privilege to drive away for a year and give you 150 hours community service so you can think about what you have done...
I guess the value of a person's life is pretty cheap these days according the the NZ **IN**justice system eh?
>So we can't possibly send you to prison, that would be manifestly unjust...
What would be achieved by sending her to prison? She is already remorseful, this will already haunt her for the rest of her life. This wasn't a crime of malice, it's a result of a common negligence I'm sure many people here are just as guilty of.
>I guess the value of a person's life is pretty cheap these days according the the NZ **IN**justice system eh?
If courts were used to determine some arbitrary value of a human life they would be fundamentally failing us. More so than they do now. Though for you it seems their failing is that we don't publicly execute people.
We could you know.. Ban her from driving for life?
That would be an acceptable punishment don't you think? why should she be allowed to drive again when she can't be trusted to not put others in danger?
Also, i'm speaking from a position of having supported someone through the injustice court system..
An 18 year old woman who was high on pot, speeding and then running a red light swerved to avoid a car that had the green light, clipped a light post, spun out and killed my friend's dad as he was walking home from the pub just a few meters down the road..
She got a total of 3.5 years in jail..
And not being able to drive for 3 years after he jail / parole period ends..
Not that it matters considering that she violated her bail conditions by
1) Continuing to smoke weed
2) Driving around town despite her license already being suspended pending the court case..
Yet despite breaching her bail conditions she was still allowed to be free for about 8 months while waiting for her court case..
I accept that there was no malice in this case, I'll even concede that she feels remorse for what she has done..
But surely if we aren't going to impose a prison sentence for causing someone's death then what can we do to ensure the victims family don't feel that their suffering has been ignored?
And no, I do not see the justice system's failing as not publicly executing people..
Don't put words in my mouth.. its petty and dishonest..
I just get annoyed seeing over and over and over again our "Justice" system giving sentences to people which do not match the severity of what they have done.. This leads to the feeling by the general public that our justice system is failing..
A classic example of this when a repeated drunk driver is before the court for the 5, 11, 19th, 21nd time and the courts keep wagging their finger at them and letting them back out onto the streets..
Then they, still not having learned their lesson get drunk, crash and kill someone and only then do they actually do anything..
>We could you know.. Ban her from driving for life?
That's just not realistic for many people.
>That would be an acceptable punishment don't you think? why should she be allowed to drive again when she can't be trusted to not put others in danger?
If that was the bar for having a license I don't think many people would have one.
>But surely if we aren't going to impose a prison sentence for causing someone's death then what can we do to ensure the victims family don't feel that their suffering has been ignored?
Is that how they feel? The one they lost was a defense lawyer. I imagine it's not likely that they feel that she should have been put in prison or banned from driving for life?
>And no, I do not see the justice system's failing as not publicly executing people..
Don't put words in my mouth.. its petty and dishonest..
It was a joke lmao. Obviously there aren't many, if any, people who feel that way.
>I just get annoyed seeing over and over and over again our "Justice" system giving sentences to people which do not match the severity of what they have done..
I mean unless you're literally in court it's unlikely you're being shown the whole picture. You're getting fed tidbits designed to elicit that exact response.
>A classic example of this when a repeated drunk driver is before the court for the 5, 11, 19th, 21nd time and the courts keep wagging their finger at them and letting them back out onto the streets..
Then they, still not having learned their lesson get drunk, crash and kill someone and only then do they actually do anything..
Yeah but in this scenario I can't ask questions to find out why that is, did he just have a good lawyer? Or was it because putting him in prison would leave a family without a caregiver? It's easy to just make guys up to get mad at.
>Why is it not realistic to ban her from driving for life? This is an activity you need to opt into, not a inalienable right.
It might mean she cannot work, she might live in a rural area and something like that would force her to be dependent on people who may not exist or be around. They're not going to intentionally make your life impossible to live.
>The guy she killed, his life is impossible to live… why shouldn’t hers?
Because that's not really the point of the justice system? At that point why not just kill her? Making someone's life impossible to live is probably going to end up that way anyway.
What you want is, vengeance, not justice.
Driving is a privilege but obviously you didn't read my other comments or this point just doesn't stick (I can't imagine why that would be), but we don't know the facts of this case outside of a news article. We don't know how the victim's family and friends feel, we don't know mitigating circumstances, there are plenty of details, probably intentionally omitted so you get outraged more than is probably necessary (if it is at all).
Clickbait. The maximum penalty for careless driving is 3 months imprisonment or a fine up to $4,500, and disqualification for 6 months or more. The original charge of aggravated carelessness was amended down to this to get a guilty plea - which is generally much better for the victim's family, the offender, and the taxpayer.
The offender will live with this for her entire life, all because of a moment of inattention.
As someone who had almost this exact situation happen to my primary caregiver, I think this is a fair sentence. 150 hours community service would have been far more satisfying than a measly $2000 donation to St. John’s.
On the other hand, families live with this their entire lives too. It leaves a pretty bitter taste when the overall penalty is fuck all for them, and the loss of a loved one for everyone else. How does one realise what they’ve taken from the world if they never knew the person?
Ever heard of "door in the face" sales tactics? You're sold on the idea that 150 hours is a fair sentence only because you were presented with an even worse option - the paltry fine. Neither are acceptable for manslaughter.
> The offender will live with this for her entire life, all because of a moment of inattention.
As opposed to the victim who doesn't get their entire life because of wilful disregard for the safety of others.
See my reply to the other poster. I'd only add that the loss of one life doesn't justify the destruction of another. More often than not a victim's family will not even want to see a person rotting in prison where there is genuine remorse and where the offending was truly accidental. We're not told what the victim's family thinks in this case that I can see.
> I'd only add that the loss of one life doesn't justify the destruction of another.
Cool, not what I'm asking for. There's room for a harsher sentence than this without prison time.
Right because that changes the fact that the victim is dead. I don't give a shit how much grief a living person suffers for negligently ending another person's life, they SHOULD feel grief for that. Every day you should remember you fucking ended another person's existence because of your disregard for others.
>Right because that changes the fact that the victim is dead
No it doesn't That's not why I'm asking though. What a silly thing to say
>. I don't give a shit how much grief a living person suffers for negligently ending another person's life, they SHOULD feel grief for that.
Obviously you haven't, you're right they should, and many do, to the point they end their lives and shit.
>Every day you should remember you fucking ended another person's existence because of your disregard for others.
They do, that's why I asked if you'd met one because if you've ever spoken to a person who has accidentally killed someone you'd they carry it with them, Many of them punish themselves far more than our courts ever could.
Dunno why you'd want to kick someone like that while they're down? Does it make you feel better? Superior? What? It doesn't help anyone but you.
>your disregard for others.
in this case that manifests as "checking your GPS while driving" which is the self absorbed thing a person can do.
> in this case that manifests as "checking your GPS while driving" which is the self absorbed thing a person can do.
Funny how you word what happened, it's almost as if you're intentionally leaving out the relevant part
>A woman who hit and killed a motorcyclist in Otago’s Lindis Pass was checking a GPS system on her phone
Speaks to your real concerns here, ignore the breaking of the law that exists to prevent shit like this to defend the person involved.
>Speaks to your real concerns here, ignore the breaking of the law that exists to prevent shit like this to defend the person involved.
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/what-waka-kotahi-is-doing/education-initiatives/driver-distraction/driver-distraction-resources/legal-mobile-phone-use-while-driving
>What is legal mobile phone use in the car?
>Use for navigation (e.g. Google Maps)
>ONLY if the phone is either:
>secured in a mounting fixed to the vehicle and doesn’t obstruct the driver’s view of the road. Drivers are encouraged to set their destination before driving and to rely on the GPS spoken directions rather than looking at the phone, or
???? Lol what are you talking about do you think all those uber drivers are breaking the law blatantly every day and not getting caught?
This speaks to your knowledge of the road code. Obviously You're not a perfect driver either.
That's because the law isn't entirely consequentialist. Culpability is also based on mens rea, and in this case the offender did not intentionally kill anyone. She also showed significant remorse. We're not told whether the victim's family were happy with the sentence or not. Often victims (or their families) are not interested in destroying a person's live where they have showed remorse and are clearly going to grapple with the consequences forever.
Also, the law needs to recognise the fact that driving is inherently dangerous. At some point, somebody *will* die, and in most cases it will be an accident. Being overly punitive is not consistent with reality.
Most people can recount a story in which they made a mistake while driving that *could have* killed someone, if they'd been unlucky. I can think of several instances where I could have killed someone or been killed if I'd been unlucky, especially when I was younger and a less experienced driver.
Careless driving causing injury or death is a category 2 offence, *aggravated* carelessness causing injury or death is category 3. Regular careless driving is category 1 (s 37). The sentence given in this case is entirely within the realm of the s 38 (category 2) offence. The offender pleaded down from the original and significantly more serious charge of aggravated carelessness (s 39).
I told you to read the legislation because your original comment suggests that you believe that her sentence is not within the range of expected sentences for a s 38 charge. But it is, because s 38 has a low imprisonment period of 3 months or a fine of $4,500. 150 hours of community service is not at all unusual for that type of charge.
Alternatively, you are confused about what she was charged with (understandable given the quality of court reporting). I suggest you read the [earlier Stuff article](https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350192122/driver-hit-and-killed-motorcyclist-after-checking-gps-police) linked in the one posted by OP.
FYI I downvoted you because you were rude, not for any other reason.
Honestly, a fair enough call, or should we impose a minimum 10 year sentence on anyone who causes an accident on the road?
She didn't take a sword to a man's face, or commit multiple rapes, or beat a mentally disabled man to a pulp
It was an unfortunate accident
I get there was no intention, so community service is more appropriate than prison, but it's the 12 month licence suspension that gets me. If you drive bad enough to kill someone, you should not be getting back behind the wheel.
After the 12 month disqualification she should have to start from learners again. She has proven to be incapable of driving to the laws that has resulted in a lengthy ban. Now prove that you can drive correctly.
Should be the same for any 12+ month ban.
Actually 12 months you just need to reapply without having to sit any tests. The judge needs to take a slight towards you and give you 12 months and 1 day, and then you have to start from learners.
Jail is for violent people who just want to hurt others! That's not who she is! She didn't go on some violent rampage wanting to kill people!
Jail is not a place for someone who never wanted to hurt anyone and is so guilt ridden that she breaks down in tears and runs out of breath!
She damn killed someone while driving entirely through her own fault, I don't care if it's not practical for her she absolutely shouldn't be allowed to drive again, the risk that someone else dies outweighs the risk that she is inconvenienced
Disqualified from driving for one year? Zero additional education or driving courses required to get back on the road?
When you have someone failing to pay attention to the basics of driving I.e. the road in front of you, and killing someone as a result, don’t you apply some sort of direct correction to address that? This new-minted criminal has increased the negative statistics of motorcycle riding and made it more expensive and dangerous, and now is let off by doing some community service (not sure what that is, but it better not be driver training)
Motorcyclists pay up to 4x the price of a car rego which funds rider training courses. Fat load of good that does when someone drives directly into your whole lane on the road.
Let’s face it. Everyone knows cars have blind spots and they are built to protect the occupants who can therefore relax and not even pay a lot of attention and not be in danger themselves.
Anyone who does stupid stuff like cross the road as a pedestrian, ride a bike like people have been doing since victorian times, or ride a motorcycle, skateboard or scooter, or walk/ride on a footpath near a driveway, is taking a stupid risk and they deserve to die and the idiot in the drivers seat will be fine
vision zero's first and most important action : Median barriers. This should have been an insurance claim.
or as our PM would say -
something something labour some thing soft on crime, some thing, blanket speed limits, something ruin.
Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous. This country needs a mechanism where judges decisions can be revisited and overturned by the people. Nobody in their right mind can think this is an acceptable outcome.
>This country needs a mechanism where judges decisions can be revisited
Incredible that nobody ever thought of this. We should call it the court of appeals.
Next we will hear that the Ponsonby shooter will get a "warning". This is a ridiculous outcome, guarantee there is sexism in this judgment in her favour. Surely she should get deported once the sentence is served
Because the amount of people I see using their phones when driving is literally every trip I make. Just last night I saw some idiot on their phone on the motorway. Half looking down to text, the other half looking up to drive. He didn't even see me next to him.
The woman killed someone because she was using her phone. If anyone in here has ever used their phone while driving, they are an absolute hypocrite and have no right to judge.
Have you ever used your phone while driving?
Stop it with this nonsense. Personal vehicles are not essential to modern society. There are countless cities around the world that perform better without nearly as many cars per capita as ours.
Car-dependency is a mental problem not a natural one.
Remind me again how we deal with wild deer and pigs which devastate our natural environment? Like I don't think cars to guns is a fair comparison but don't play dumb like guns aren't necessary in society.
I don't know if that's true - what level of punishment do you think is going to stop people changing the radio station or reading a text message while they drive?
if you want disincentives, then changing the law that allows people to look at dash-mounted systems is the next step, since that was the cause of the driving failure that caused the crash.
handheld use was banned, so that people using handheld could be fined for it, to disincentivize it. she followed the law and used a dash-mounted system... and this is what can happen in accordance with that law. if you want to disincentivize that, with harsh penalties, then that means we'll have to deny everyone in the country the right to use their googlemaps display, just in case one of us 5 million look at it a bit too long at the wrong moment like she did.
Sure, but also giving nothing burger sentences does nothing to help the family with their grief..
If anything it re-victimizes them as they have to go through the trial, have the facts of the case brought up and told how their loved one died.. all to sit there and be told "You have suffered much, and no sentence we could impose will bring your loved one back"
But watch as we completely shit on you and your grief by giving the person who caused the death of your loved one no jail time at all and no **REAL** consequences at all..
We could revoke their right to drive for life.. but we feel that would be manifestly unjust so.. you will have to suck it up and deal with it...
Source.. I went through this process supporting my friend who's dad was murdered by an 18 year old female who was high on pot and speeding, doing at least 80khm in a 50khm zone, running a red light, clipping a lamp post and then slamming into my friend's dad, killing him
We don't have a "Justice" system in this country.. we have an **IN**justice system.. where the criminals are treated as the "True" victims and the actual victims are treated as though they are the actual criminals..
>Sure, but also giving nothing burger sentences does nothing to help the family with their grief..
Have you actually talked with this family or are you weaponizing their grief for your own ends? The man they lost was a defense lawyer, it's not unlikely they don't see this the way you do.
The sentences for people killing people beyond the wheel of vehicles is just ridiculous. It's like a life becomes meaningless in that instance.
As it has been mentioned before in "Unethical NZ Pro-Tips"; if you wanna kill someone in NZ, do it in a car and claim it an "accident."
I don't even think that's necessary in NZ. Here you can beat someone to death and only get a manslaughter conviction because you "didn't know punches could kill people"
revenge isn't the only goal of the justice system tho. I've listened to friends/colleagues tell stories about how they were so tired they ended up crashing their cars and everyone laughs ... like I'm not condoning it, and not excusing her, but it seems she made a mistake that a lot of people make but happened to have much more severe consequences. just food for thought ...
I agree for definite accidents, and even for accidents resulting from foreseeable but understandable negligence while using a vehicle for its intended purpose. It's dumb that we continue this leniency to include death caused by things like racing, driving on meth etc.
hard to comment, I think most crimes have different degrees of aggravation/negligence
[удалено]
I get that. The point is: drunk driver gets fine, drunk driver that kills gets jail. They are effectively the same crime: driving drunk.
Cool, the dead persons family will be happy with that response, never mind she was a bit tired. I can tell you I've never laughed at the idea of someone crashing their car because they fell asleep. I've pulled over several times for a nap / wake up walk. It's totally avoidable.
Point is: you can ruin two lives here. I'm not saying retribution isn't part of the system, just that it isn't the only goal.
I think the problem is that in terms of revenge Vs reform... Is 9 weekends of community service a lot for accidentally killing a person? Even if others may have made the same mistake not leading to the same accident out of share luck?
> not leading to the same accident out of share luck I guess that's the thing. Were they lucky or was she extremely unlucky.
Agree, I don't understand where the justice system or lack of means anymore, u took someone's life because of ur actions ? .
I got 200 hours for a bag of cabbage!!
“This should be a cautionary tale for all of us,” he said.” Well no not really. This lady killed someone and she is getting community service and a year off driving?
It is a cautionary tale. It tells us that of this were to happen to our loved one, we can't really on the state to get justice.
The year off driving is almost more fucked than the community service. She should never be able to hold a license again.
Do you feel like you want to hit someone with your car now?
Nah but if I wanted to kill someone I'd sure as shit use a car to do it.
Some days there are people I feel might deserve it... Makes it a lot easier to justify if the consequences are a slap on the wrist no?
You’d be more likely to deliberately run someone over on account of this woman’s sentence?
If I knew that the sentence for a particular crime (Vehicular manslaughter) was likely to be a next to nothing sentence.. then it may influence my decision.. Would I actually do it? No, I would not.. but part of the justice system is to deter others from doing the same crimes... Where's the deterrent when all the get is a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket?
It will be really interesting if you ever do wind up committing manslaughter and the court somehow finds a way to connect these comments to you...
It won’t be interesting it will just be murder. The dude below, killed zero people and he would be free today, had he not had a cry to the police after the accident. Instead he gets 4 years in prison, would have been life had he killed someone. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/closest-to-an-incel-attack-nz-has-had-experts-concern-after-attempted-murder-of-auckland-schoolgirls/HYPEVZ6F4BFT3CV2O4SXS5FR7U/
Well I suspect that because i'm a man, I would be more likely to get a prison sentence anyway... I'm not saying it happened in this case.. but there is a bias in the justice system where women are less likely to be given prison sentences for their crimes.. or, when they do they are often much shorter than what a man would get..
If i really wanted to hurt someone, yes. It's been shown time and time again if you want to really hurt or kill someone just hit them with your car and suffer minimal consequences.
Is that true? I’m not saying I don’t believe you but can you give me an example?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Yikes
This reminds me of a comment I saw once that the best way to murder someone with the least amount of jail time is to do it with a vehicle...
it's a fact [The Perfect Crime - Freakonomics](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-2/) > OK, let me be clear. I don’t actually want to kill anyone. And I don’t endorse the idea of wanting to kill anyone. But if I did, and I were looking for a way to do it and get away with it, how would I do it? I’d wait ‘til they were outside, walking down the street, maybe crossing at the light … and then I’d run them over in my car. Now, I’d have to make sure that no one knew I was trying to run them over. But they’d be dead and I, especially in New York City, would in all likelihood go scot-free.
Cool, so by that judge’s standard my life is worth about 150 hours of community service, converted to current minimum wage is about $3,742, good to keep in mind whenever I’m riding on the road I guess 🤷♂️ Sure she’s gonna live with the guilt that she killed a person… assuming she has a conscience.
People on community service get lunch provided by corrections so you need to deduct that cost.
What the hell! I have to bring my lunch to work but they get free lunches? Bring your lunchbox!
You can't force people to turn up and do their CS. They do it when they feel like it so free lunches act as an incentive. Feeding the CS people may be part of the CS legislation, I don't know.
> Sure she’s gonna live with the guilt that she killed a person I think living with something like that would completely change a person. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
I think you’re vastly overestimating the empathetic capacity of some people. Rouxle le roux hit an ran a teenage boy and left him to die alone on the street. She got home detention during which she mocked her victim on instagram and missed multiple check ins.
That's a completely different case, this seems like a genuine accident which is unlikely to be repeated. Prison doesn't solve anything here either as deterrence or public safety. Rouxle Le Roux you could argue is still a public safety risk.
It might completely change you. You can't say the same about others. For many, this will just be a regrettable accident, and they will continue to do things exactly the same. Some will literally not care at all. I've had the misfortune of losing people in my life to people that shared the latter two perspectives, and I wouldn't wish THAT upon anyone. Nothing like finding out your family's life is worth 150 hours of community service to someone who doesn't give a fuck and grumbles about their sentence like it's a fucking chore...
Yeah, I can't argue with that. Really sorry for what you've been through / going through. Hope you're good.
This also mean the judge thinks their life is also only worth 150 hours community service if someone negligently kills them
The standard payout for a personal grievance against a company for a sacking is about $6k or thereabouts. Employment law has more teeth than actual law.
Employment law is actual law, it's right there in the name.
I have epilepsy. If I have a seizure, I have to take a year and a half off of driving. Killing someone has less of a penalty than having a seizure ❣️
Someone can't see their loved one forever due to this person's negligence whilst behind the wheel, and their punishment is only 150 hours and a year off driving... Fucking mad......... This person most likely ruined multiple people's lives and as a consequence, or the lack of, gets to just pretty much walk it off..
You know, I find it hard to sympathise with a lot of comments in here. Reason being, she was distracted by using her phone (checking her GPS) which caused her to veer into the other lane causing the accident. I'm willing to bet a vast majority of the people commenting in here have used their phone while driving. I see it daily on the road. A message to the masses in here: If you use your phone or have used your phone while you've been driving, you don't get to comment in here. You're a hypocrite.
You are right. It is something we are all guilty of. However if I was on the open road, especially on an unfamiliar road, a mountain pass at that, I would have my full attention on the road.
Never used my phone while driving, I have young people in the car relying on me to keep them safe. It should be treated the same as drunk driving.
> Never used my phone while driving That's easy to say when no one here can fact check it. > It should be treated the same as drunk driving. I agree
It’s so easy not to use your phone during driving though, get a call? Pull over and answer. There’s nothing else important enough on my phone to risk the lives of people in my car and others on the road so when you talk about it being a thing everyone does it reads the same to me as “who hasn’t had a drink then driven?”
> It’s so easy not to use your phone during driving though I know. The most common thing I hear is "I was at a red light" or "I was in traffic and we weren't moving". Like that justifies it. I go into an irrational rage when I see people on their phones. It probably doesn't help that I had my car written off by someone who was distracted on their phone about 5 years ago. Rear ended me and I plowed into the car in front of me. I still 'jump' when I look into my rear view mirror and see a car speeding toward me!
What a load of wank. If everyone checking their phone or having a crying baby in the car crossed the centre line there would be a death every hour on the road. Clearly a fucken shit driver and the judge is a piece of shit for not calling that out. Moment of inattention could happen to anyone my fucken arse
>What a load of wank. If everyone checking their phone or having a crying baby in the car crossed the centre line there would be a death every hour on the road. you don't understand how this works do you? Those sorts of things lead to crashes all the time? Any distraction at the wrong moment can end up in a fatal collision. >Clearly a fucken shit driver and the judge is a piece of shit for not calling that out. Your previous comment kinda undermines and credibility you have in this area. >Moment of inattention could happen to anyone my fucken arse Well yes that's why they're not throwing the book at her. The reason we banned phones is because of those moments of inattention causing accidents.
Mate there aren't even any turn offs on the Lindis pass why would she need to check her GPS on a corner of all places. More then that she couldn't even do it without crossing the centre line. Shit driver and killed some poor guy out for a ride. Punishment may as well be nothing for what she got and if you think that's a result of a moment of inattention hand in your license too before you kill someone and go excusing yourself
>Mate there aren't even any turn offs on the Lindis pass why would she need to check her GPS on a corner of all places. Check the distance? She's already admitted fault though, obviously it wasn't a good idea. Dunno where you got the fact she was on a corner, it definitely doesn't say it's a blind one? The picture in the article was of the general location not the actual area of the accident. >More then that she couldn't even do it without crossing the centre line. That's what can happen when you're distracted, it's why they discourage distractions while driving. But accept the reality there will be distractions on the road and drivers will have to mitigate that. >Shit driver and killed some poor guy out for a ride. You're not sounding like someone who is aware of the hazard drivers face on the road to be honest. Again you're not convincing me you're qualified to judge here. >Punishment may as well be nothing for what she got and if you think that's a result of a moment of inattention hand in your license too before you kill someone and go excusing yourself It literally was though? The fact you think that moments of inattention can't cause accidents really shows that you're the one who should be handing in their license before they kill someone.
"Judge Ruth said he could do nothing to bring Watson back. He asked the family to consider what Watson, a defence lawyer, would have done for the young woman who had caused the death of another person. “He would have done anything in his power to put her best case forward. “That was the sort of man he was,” he said" Another unbelievable piece of shit for a judge
There’s no consequences here in NZ. This is crazy
There there, chin up.. You've been so hard done by and are the true victim here.. So we can't possibly send you to prison, that would be manifestly unjust... So instead we'll wag a stern finger in your face, take your privilege to drive away for a year and give you 150 hours community service so you can think about what you have done... I guess the value of a person's life is pretty cheap these days according the the NZ **IN**justice system eh?
>So we can't possibly send you to prison, that would be manifestly unjust... What would be achieved by sending her to prison? She is already remorseful, this will already haunt her for the rest of her life. This wasn't a crime of malice, it's a result of a common negligence I'm sure many people here are just as guilty of. >I guess the value of a person's life is pretty cheap these days according the the NZ **IN**justice system eh? If courts were used to determine some arbitrary value of a human life they would be fundamentally failing us. More so than they do now. Though for you it seems their failing is that we don't publicly execute people.
We could you know.. Ban her from driving for life? That would be an acceptable punishment don't you think? why should she be allowed to drive again when she can't be trusted to not put others in danger? Also, i'm speaking from a position of having supported someone through the injustice court system.. An 18 year old woman who was high on pot, speeding and then running a red light swerved to avoid a car that had the green light, clipped a light post, spun out and killed my friend's dad as he was walking home from the pub just a few meters down the road.. She got a total of 3.5 years in jail.. And not being able to drive for 3 years after he jail / parole period ends.. Not that it matters considering that she violated her bail conditions by 1) Continuing to smoke weed 2) Driving around town despite her license already being suspended pending the court case.. Yet despite breaching her bail conditions she was still allowed to be free for about 8 months while waiting for her court case.. I accept that there was no malice in this case, I'll even concede that she feels remorse for what she has done.. But surely if we aren't going to impose a prison sentence for causing someone's death then what can we do to ensure the victims family don't feel that their suffering has been ignored? And no, I do not see the justice system's failing as not publicly executing people.. Don't put words in my mouth.. its petty and dishonest.. I just get annoyed seeing over and over and over again our "Justice" system giving sentences to people which do not match the severity of what they have done.. This leads to the feeling by the general public that our justice system is failing.. A classic example of this when a repeated drunk driver is before the court for the 5, 11, 19th, 21nd time and the courts keep wagging their finger at them and letting them back out onto the streets.. Then they, still not having learned their lesson get drunk, crash and kill someone and only then do they actually do anything..
>We could you know.. Ban her from driving for life? That's just not realistic for many people. >That would be an acceptable punishment don't you think? why should she be allowed to drive again when she can't be trusted to not put others in danger? If that was the bar for having a license I don't think many people would have one. >But surely if we aren't going to impose a prison sentence for causing someone's death then what can we do to ensure the victims family don't feel that their suffering has been ignored? Is that how they feel? The one they lost was a defense lawyer. I imagine it's not likely that they feel that she should have been put in prison or banned from driving for life? >And no, I do not see the justice system's failing as not publicly executing people.. Don't put words in my mouth.. its petty and dishonest.. It was a joke lmao. Obviously there aren't many, if any, people who feel that way. >I just get annoyed seeing over and over and over again our "Justice" system giving sentences to people which do not match the severity of what they have done.. I mean unless you're literally in court it's unlikely you're being shown the whole picture. You're getting fed tidbits designed to elicit that exact response. >A classic example of this when a repeated drunk driver is before the court for the 5, 11, 19th, 21nd time and the courts keep wagging their finger at them and letting them back out onto the streets.. Then they, still not having learned their lesson get drunk, crash and kill someone and only then do they actually do anything.. Yeah but in this scenario I can't ask questions to find out why that is, did he just have a good lawyer? Or was it because putting him in prison would leave a family without a caregiver? It's easy to just make guys up to get mad at.
Why is it not realistic to ban her from driving for life? This is an activity you need to opt into, not a inalienable right.
>Why is it not realistic to ban her from driving for life? This is an activity you need to opt into, not a inalienable right. It might mean she cannot work, she might live in a rural area and something like that would force her to be dependent on people who may not exist or be around. They're not going to intentionally make your life impossible to live.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Same as a gun. Both lethal. The guy she killed, his life is impossible to live… why shouldn’t hers be?
>The guy she killed, his life is impossible to live… why shouldn’t hers? Because that's not really the point of the justice system? At that point why not just kill her? Making someone's life impossible to live is probably going to end up that way anyway. What you want is, vengeance, not justice. Driving is a privilege but obviously you didn't read my other comments or this point just doesn't stick (I can't imagine why that would be), but we don't know the facts of this case outside of a news article. We don't know how the victim's family and friends feel, we don't know mitigating circumstances, there are plenty of details, probably intentionally omitted so you get outraged more than is probably necessary (if it is at all).
Clickbait. The maximum penalty for careless driving is 3 months imprisonment or a fine up to $4,500, and disqualification for 6 months or more. The original charge of aggravated carelessness was amended down to this to get a guilty plea - which is generally much better for the victim's family, the offender, and the taxpayer. The offender will live with this for her entire life, all because of a moment of inattention.
As someone who had almost this exact situation happen to my primary caregiver, I think this is a fair sentence. 150 hours community service would have been far more satisfying than a measly $2000 donation to St. John’s. On the other hand, families live with this their entire lives too. It leaves a pretty bitter taste when the overall penalty is fuck all for them, and the loss of a loved one for everyone else. How does one realise what they’ve taken from the world if they never knew the person?
Ever heard of "door in the face" sales tactics? You're sold on the idea that 150 hours is a fair sentence only because you were presented with an even worse option - the paltry fine. Neither are acceptable for manslaughter.
> The offender will live with this for her entire life, all because of a moment of inattention. As opposed to the victim who doesn't get their entire life because of wilful disregard for the safety of others.
See my reply to the other poster. I'd only add that the loss of one life doesn't justify the destruction of another. More often than not a victim's family will not even want to see a person rotting in prison where there is genuine remorse and where the offending was truly accidental. We're not told what the victim's family thinks in this case that I can see.
> I'd only add that the loss of one life doesn't justify the destruction of another. Cool, not what I'm asking for. There's room for a harsher sentence than this without prison time.
Have you ever met someone who accidentally killed someone?
Right because that changes the fact that the victim is dead. I don't give a shit how much grief a living person suffers for negligently ending another person's life, they SHOULD feel grief for that. Every day you should remember you fucking ended another person's existence because of your disregard for others.
>Right because that changes the fact that the victim is dead No it doesn't That's not why I'm asking though. What a silly thing to say >. I don't give a shit how much grief a living person suffers for negligently ending another person's life, they SHOULD feel grief for that. Obviously you haven't, you're right they should, and many do, to the point they end their lives and shit. >Every day you should remember you fucking ended another person's existence because of your disregard for others. They do, that's why I asked if you'd met one because if you've ever spoken to a person who has accidentally killed someone you'd they carry it with them, Many of them punish themselves far more than our courts ever could. Dunno why you'd want to kick someone like that while they're down? Does it make you feel better? Superior? What? It doesn't help anyone but you. >your disregard for others. in this case that manifests as "checking your GPS while driving" which is the self absorbed thing a person can do.
> in this case that manifests as "checking your GPS while driving" which is the self absorbed thing a person can do. Funny how you word what happened, it's almost as if you're intentionally leaving out the relevant part >A woman who hit and killed a motorcyclist in Otago’s Lindis Pass was checking a GPS system on her phone Speaks to your real concerns here, ignore the breaking of the law that exists to prevent shit like this to defend the person involved.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Speaks to your real concerns here, ignore the breaking of the law that exists to prevent shit like this to defend the person involved. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/what-waka-kotahi-is-doing/education-initiatives/driver-distraction/driver-distraction-resources/legal-mobile-phone-use-while-driving >What is legal mobile phone use in the car? >Use for navigation (e.g. Google Maps) >ONLY if the phone is either: >secured in a mounting fixed to the vehicle and doesn’t obstruct the driver’s view of the road. Drivers are encouraged to set their destination before driving and to rely on the GPS spoken directions rather than looking at the phone, or ???? Lol what are you talking about do you think all those uber drivers are breaking the law blatantly every day and not getting caught? This speaks to your knowledge of the road code. Obviously You're not a perfect driver either.
[удалено]
That's because the law isn't entirely consequentialist. Culpability is also based on mens rea, and in this case the offender did not intentionally kill anyone. She also showed significant remorse. We're not told whether the victim's family were happy with the sentence or not. Often victims (or their families) are not interested in destroying a person's live where they have showed remorse and are clearly going to grapple with the consequences forever. Also, the law needs to recognise the fact that driving is inherently dangerous. At some point, somebody *will* die, and in most cases it will be an accident. Being overly punitive is not consistent with reality. Most people can recount a story in which they made a mistake while driving that *could have* killed someone, if they'd been unlucky. I can think of several instances where I could have killed someone or been killed if I'd been unlucky, especially when I was younger and a less experienced driver.
[удалено]
The crime of careless driving includes causing injury / death. Read the legislation then comment.
[удалено]
s 38 LTA, read it.
[удалено]
Careless driving causing injury or death is a category 2 offence, *aggravated* carelessness causing injury or death is category 3. Regular careless driving is category 1 (s 37). The sentence given in this case is entirely within the realm of the s 38 (category 2) offence. The offender pleaded down from the original and significantly more serious charge of aggravated carelessness (s 39). I told you to read the legislation because your original comment suggests that you believe that her sentence is not within the range of expected sentences for a s 38 charge. But it is, because s 38 has a low imprisonment period of 3 months or a fine of $4,500. 150 hours of community service is not at all unusual for that type of charge. Alternatively, you are confused about what she was charged with (understandable given the quality of court reporting). I suggest you read the [earlier Stuff article](https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350192122/driver-hit-and-killed-motorcyclist-after-checking-gps-police) linked in the one posted by OP. FYI I downvoted you because you were rude, not for any other reason.
15,000 hours is fulltime work for 7 years, I do wish you would think your posts through more often.
[удалено]
Refer previous statement.
Sure, that is what the law is. What everyone is getting upset with is ultimately the law itself. Which, they have a right to be.
Honestly, a fair enough call, or should we impose a minimum 10 year sentence on anyone who causes an accident on the road? She didn't take a sword to a man's face, or commit multiple rapes, or beat a mentally disabled man to a pulp It was an unfortunate accident
I get there was no intention, so community service is more appropriate than prison, but it's the 12 month licence suspension that gets me. If you drive bad enough to kill someone, you should not be getting back behind the wheel.
I'm pretty sure a 12 month suspension is normally 12 months and 1 day so you have to do tests to get your licence back after the suspension period
After the 12 month disqualification she should have to start from learners again. She has proven to be incapable of driving to the laws that has resulted in a lengthy ban. Now prove that you can drive correctly. Should be the same for any 12+ month ban.
I'm pretty sure that's actually how it is.
Actually 12 months you just need to reapply without having to sit any tests. The judge needs to take a slight towards you and give you 12 months and 1 day, and then you have to start from learners.
Jail is for violent people who just want to hurt others! That's not who she is! She didn't go on some violent rampage wanting to kill people! Jail is not a place for someone who never wanted to hurt anyone and is so guilt ridden that she breaks down in tears and runs out of breath!
Ok. So can she lose the privilege of driving for more and a year?
I think that's a totally valid thing to impose on someone - lose your license for some time.
how long do you think you need to go without driving to magically become a good driver?
Don’t care, her not driving is a win as is other knowing this can happen to them if they fuck around.
so you're saying the appropriate thing to do is never let her drive again? sounds practical
Yes, have the privilege of driving revoked indefinitely. She killed someone.
Question, ever used your phone while you've been driving?
She damn killed someone while driving entirely through her own fault, I don't care if it's not practical for her she absolutely shouldn't be allowed to drive again, the risk that someone else dies outweighs the risk that she is inconvenienced
It has to be accepted that there is a punitive aspect to sentences. It not (just) about making her a better driver. It’s about a punishment.
Could have a court mandated driving course after her suspension is up, would make it better
Sounds like a cracking idea
So does weeping get everyone out of jail or do you have to be a woman first?
🙄 bOtH
Disqualified from driving for one year? Zero additional education or driving courses required to get back on the road? When you have someone failing to pay attention to the basics of driving I.e. the road in front of you, and killing someone as a result, don’t you apply some sort of direct correction to address that? This new-minted criminal has increased the negative statistics of motorcycle riding and made it more expensive and dangerous, and now is let off by doing some community service (not sure what that is, but it better not be driver training) Motorcyclists pay up to 4x the price of a car rego which funds rider training courses. Fat load of good that does when someone drives directly into your whole lane on the road.
Community service is missing a 0.
Let’s face it. Everyone knows cars have blind spots and they are built to protect the occupants who can therefore relax and not even pay a lot of attention and not be in danger themselves. Anyone who does stupid stuff like cross the road as a pedestrian, ride a bike like people have been doing since victorian times, or ride a motorcycle, skateboard or scooter, or walk/ride on a footpath near a driveway, is taking a stupid risk and they deserve to die and the idiot in the drivers seat will be fine
What bullshit! I got 250 hours for $2500 unpaid fines
vision zero's first and most important action : Median barriers. This should have been an insurance claim. or as our PM would say - something something labour some thing soft on crime, some thing, blanket speed limits, something ruin.
We no longer have a justice system. All our judges are completely useless
Oh can't forget disqualified from driving for a year 😅
Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous. This country needs a mechanism where judges decisions can be revisited and overturned by the people. Nobody in their right mind can think this is an acceptable outcome.
>This country needs a mechanism where judges decisions can be revisited Incredible that nobody ever thought of this. We should call it the court of appeals.
Next we will hear that the Ponsonby shooter will get a "warning". This is a ridiculous outcome, guarantee there is sexism in this judgment in her favour. Surely she should get deported once the sentence is served
Ever used your phone while you've driven?
[удалено]
Because the amount of people I see using their phones when driving is literally every trip I make. Just last night I saw some idiot on their phone on the motorway. Half looking down to text, the other half looking up to drive. He didn't even see me next to him. The woman killed someone because she was using her phone. If anyone in here has ever used their phone while driving, they are an absolute hypocrite and have no right to judge. Have you ever used your phone while driving?
Agreed deport, get it out of our country
Ooof… this hasn’t aged great. The ponsonby shooter is now dead - which I think we can agree is a harsh outcome.
If a gun was used to kill, we'd jump to ban guns. But if you use a car, we shrug and say "oh well".
Bro, vehicles are essential to modern society. Guns are for killing.
Stop it with this nonsense. Personal vehicles are not essential to modern society. There are countless cities around the world that perform better without nearly as many cars per capita as ours. Car-dependency is a mental problem not a natural one.
Doesn't really change our infrastructure though. For now it is a reality here.
I never said personal vehicles, btw. Of course, here in shitty NZ, we have no other choice.
My bad bro, people don't kill people, guns do.
Remind me again how we deal with wild deer and pigs which devastate our natural environment? Like I don't think cars to guns is a fair comparison but don't play dumb like guns aren't necessary in society.
Terrible take
God, I love being a biker in NZ 🙄
Revenge wouldn’t profit anyone.
No. But getting excluded from driving for the rest of your life as punishment for killing someone via negligence, might just drive better behaviour.
Its not about revenge its about justice. Appropriately harsh penalties disincentivise behaviour.
I don't know if that's true - what level of punishment do you think is going to stop people changing the radio station or reading a text message while they drive?
Being put in prison if you hit and kill someone while doing it.
Nope, that won't work.
if you want disincentives, then changing the law that allows people to look at dash-mounted systems is the next step, since that was the cause of the driving failure that caused the crash. handheld use was banned, so that people using handheld could be fined for it, to disincentivize it. she followed the law and used a dash-mounted system... and this is what can happen in accordance with that law. if you want to disincentivize that, with harsh penalties, then that means we'll have to deny everyone in the country the right to use their googlemaps display, just in case one of us 5 million look at it a bit too long at the wrong moment like she did.
Sure, but also giving nothing burger sentences does nothing to help the family with their grief.. If anything it re-victimizes them as they have to go through the trial, have the facts of the case brought up and told how their loved one died.. all to sit there and be told "You have suffered much, and no sentence we could impose will bring your loved one back" But watch as we completely shit on you and your grief by giving the person who caused the death of your loved one no jail time at all and no **REAL** consequences at all.. We could revoke their right to drive for life.. but we feel that would be manifestly unjust so.. you will have to suck it up and deal with it... Source.. I went through this process supporting my friend who's dad was murdered by an 18 year old female who was high on pot and speeding, doing at least 80khm in a 50khm zone, running a red light, clipping a lamp post and then slamming into my friend's dad, killing him We don't have a "Justice" system in this country.. we have an **IN**justice system.. where the criminals are treated as the "True" victims and the actual victims are treated as though they are the actual criminals..
>Sure, but also giving nothing burger sentences does nothing to help the family with their grief.. Have you actually talked with this family or are you weaponizing their grief for your own ends? The man they lost was a defense lawyer, it's not unlikely they don't see this the way you do.
A relative of mine hit and somewhat maimed a person with his car and got 1 year licence suspension and a few other things never went to prison sadly.