3 ms·

I'd rather the article was more precisely titled "manslaughter" rather than "homicide." As much as in legal jargon, homicide encompasses manslaughter, murder, a

I'd rather the article was more precisely titled "manslaughter" rather than "homicide." As much as in legal jargon, homicide encompasses manslaughter, murder, and a few other things, to many people, homicide is synonymous with murder.

fasthands9 2y ago
I was confused by this too. In the article they do clarify it is "vehicular homicide" which is the same thing as "vehicular manslaughter" legally. A very serious crime, though often times people walk away with this with little or no jail time.
- frognumber 2y ago
  It's not an unreasonable outcome. The goal of the criminal system is to reduce crime, not random vengeance. I can certainly think of a time when I was driving when I missed another car in my blind spot and almost caused an accident, or when I saw someone in a car distracted by a toddler, or similar. Those didn't lead to accidents, but they might have if someone were less lucky. There's a range of ways a car can kill people, ranging from driving through a red light at 100MPH, to an illegal U-turn, to making a stupid mistake, to a completely random fluke of circumstance. On one end of the spectrum, there should be prison time, and regardless of whether an accident happens. On the other end, insurance should pay damages, but I'm not sure what good the criminal system can do in terms of deterrence. If a driver is already doing their best to be safe, but slips up, or even isn't doing their best but isn't being unreasonable, criminal penalties don't seem like the right outcome.
spicybbq 2y ago
Journalists normally report the charge as written in court documents. Washington state appears to have "vehicular homicide" defined as a specific offense, but not "vehicular manslaughter". It would not be more precise to report an incorrect name for the charged offense.

3 ms·

I'd rather the article was more precisely titled "manslaughter" rather than "homicide." As much as in legal jargon, homicide encompasses manslaughter, murder, a

by frognumber 2y ago

fasthands9 2y ago
I was confused by this too. In the article they do clarify it is "vehicular homicide" which is the same thing as "vehicular manslaughter" legally. A very serious crime, though often times people walk away with this with little or no jail time.
- frognumber 2y ago
  It's not an unreasonable outcome. The goal of the criminal system is to reduce crime, not random vengeance. I can certainly think of a time when I was driving when I missed another car in my blind spot and almost caused an accident, or when I saw someone in a car distracted by a toddler, or similar. Those didn't lead to accidents, but they might have if someone were less lucky. There's a range of ways a car can kill people, ranging from driving through a red light at 100MPH, to an illegal U-turn, to making a stupid mistake, to a completely random fluke of circumstance. On one end of the spectrum, there should be prison time, and regardless of whether an accident happens. On the other end, insurance should pay damages, but I'm not sure what good the criminal system can do in terms of deterrence. If a driver is already doing their best to be safe, but slips up, or even isn't doing their best but isn't being unreasonable, criminal penalties don't seem like the right outcome.
spicybbq 2y ago
Journalists normally report the charge as written in court documents. Washington state appears to have "vehicular homicide" defined as a specific offense, but not "vehicular manslaughter". It would not be more precise to report an incorrect name for the charged offense.