4 ms·

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 seri

• 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.