6 ms·

Who does it benefit if an accident ruins a second life? What does a jail sentence deter? ("[no] gross negligence [...] wasn’t engaging in a race or sideshow, w

• qwe----3 6mo ago
  They intentionally moved assets to their family members to avoid liability, right? Laws are also meant to deter bad behavior, people who aren't able to drive safely should know there will be consequences
• xnx 6mo ago
  > What does a jail sentence deter? Other irresponsible drivers.
  • Aachen 6mo ago
    How would I know I'm going to kill someone on the road today and stop doing that thing?
    • xnx 6mo ago
      Don't drive intoxicated, tired, distracted, or physically impaired by age or other means.
      • wredcoll 6mo ago
        Those are, by definition, things that prevent you from rationally estimating capabilities and risk.
      • Aachen 6mo ago
        There's a test every 5 years after iirc 65yo where they check things like response time, if you have enough strength for handling the wheel completely unimpeded, and if you aren't suffering from dementia. At least that's what I've heard from my grandparents about the tests they had to do. If that doesn't cover the age risk, imo that test would be the thing to fix. Not sure how strict those are in the USA Since the article doesn't speak of her well-being, I don't think we can judge here whether this woman should have taken herself out of society already (from what I hear, the USA isn't exactly public transport or walking friendly, assuming she can still walk distances in the first place, idk what old people are supposed to do there) The other three factors you mentioned were not at play here according to the linked article. But I agree in general of course, and in those cases I don't disagree with extra punishment (and/or, the better preventor: increasing the odds of being caught)
        • wat10000 6mo ago
          Every 5 years is ridiculous. The difference between 80 and 85 can be stark. I have to get refresher training every two years to legally fly a small plane and that’s something where it takes some serious work to kill anyone who isn’t me or my passenger.
• tintor 6mo ago
  Apologised for taking lives of married couple and two babies?
  • orthecreedence 6mo ago
    Is it too much to ask for today's pedestrian to wear at least one piece of reflective clothing?
    • scbrg 6mo ago
      Odd point to raise in a thread about a family killed while waiting at a bus stop in broad daylight. Do you think reflective clothing would have changed the outcome of the event significantly?
  • Aachen 6mo ago
    Is that a question? I'm not sure if you're expecting an answer about maybe she should have tried praying for the person to be brought back or what would legit help the situation at that point?
• JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > Who does it benefit if an accident ruins a second life? The next person they'd mow down. (Also, retribution. It's a real human need and attempts at philosophising it away degrade trust in our justice system.) > isn't allowed to drive for 3 years This is the wild part. No! You don't drive again! > What more can you ask for here? For her to have recognised her own limitations before they took lives. Failing at that, her family–or literally anyone who cared about her, and didn't want to see her spend her last years in jail–having taken initiative.
  • mlyle 6mo ago
    > This is the wild part. No! You don't drive again! She's not going to drive again. > For her to have recognised her own limitations before they took lives. This is something that humans suck at. > Failing at that, her family–or literally anyone who cared about her, and didn't want to see her spend her last years in jail–having taken initiative. You shouldn't punish her for other people failing to take action.
    • JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > She's not going to drive again She gets her license back. That's wild. > This is something that humans suck at Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that, the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area. > You shouldn't punish her for other people failing to take action You're punishing her for being criminally reckless. You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.
      • mlyle 6mo ago
        > She gets her license back. That's wild. In 3 years, at age 83, if she wanted to... she could try and take the driving test again and become licensed. This is just not going to happen :P In the end, the court can only prohibit her from driving while she is on probation. Would it be great if this time she could be banned forever? Sure. But there's reasons why we don't just let judges make up arbitrary penalties and permanent restrictions on their own. > Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that, Humans don't misestimate their remaining ability with fatal consequences? > the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area. Yes, by confusing gas and brake. She clearly has significantly reduced capacity. > You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality. I do not think that the behavior of 80 year old people will be meaningfully changed by the degree of punishment applied here. This is a person that has lost a significant degree of capacity; unfortunately, humans losing capacity tend not to realize it or correctly estimate how much they have lost.
• hiddencost 6mo ago
  People will change their behavior. The function of prison sentences is deterrence.
  • JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > function of prison sentences is deterrence As well as incapacitation and retribution.
    • Aachen 6mo ago
      As well as making acquaintances with other criminals at a time where you're losing your job, apartment, your social network if the sentence lasts long enough But, yes, also those two. It's a very multifaceted sword, and thankfully not the only option, not for any of the three goals
  • loeg 6mo ago
    And incapacitation!
    • Aachen 6mo ago
      And taking away a license in order to achieve that in the case of traffic offences couldn't possibly be the cheaper option for deterrence or incapacitation
      • loeg 6mo ago
        It's both cheaper and less effective. (And Mary Lau didn't even lose her license.)
  • kelseyfrog 6mo ago
    Impulsivity is definitionally the absence of forethought. Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse.
    • JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
• loeg 6mo ago
  Your full-throated defense of Mary Lau is completely beside the point (and for what it's worth, it would be a fifth life, not a "second" -- she killed an entire family of four). GP claimed that human drivers who commit vehicular manslaughter get the book; they don't.
  • kelseyfrog 6mo ago
    What would 'getting the book' look like in concrete terms?
    • loeg 6mo ago
      If you're familiar with the phrase "throw the book at," it refers to a maximum severity punishment: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throw%20the%20book%20at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throw%20the%20boo... Citing a random source for CA vehicular manslaughter law, it looks like you can get up to six years: https://www.kannlawoffice.com/california-penal-code-section-192-c-1-vehicular-manslaughter https://www.kannlawoffice.com/california-penal-code-section-... So, like, a six year prison sentence? Maybe more for multiple counts here? At least revocation of driving privileges forever (she's not getting any younger)? None of that happened.
  • mlyle 6mo ago
    > they don't. When there's significant extenuating circumstances or "the book" wouldn't serve the purposes of justice, they don't.
  • Aachen 6mo ago
    Sorry if my throat sounded full to you, just writing what I think fits the context. In this case, apparently an 80yo getting punished in various ways is what GP had as example of how criminals are getting off easy. I see this pattern constantly, where people can't be bothered to read an article with the background info (much less the court case summary itself) but join the march and sign the petitions to lock the person up for life or whatever the outcry is It feels unfair to me, like it could have been me or the commenter in a parallel universe, and I don't expect either of us are evil and intending to do bad, so I bring up what the article actually says were the circumstances (no intent or recklessness proven beyond doubt) and consequences (at least, besides the guilt factor). Don't you feel this could happen to you tomorrow just as easily as to anyone else? Should you get a worse punishment than all of what this woman got (see above) for getting into an accident with a fatal outcome? (Assuming you drive a vehicle, of course)
• dekhn 6mo ago
  How do you get from "trying to park car" to 70 miles an hour? That does not seem consistent with the geometry of the accident.
• mindslight 6mo ago
  In a sense you're right, but the problem is that post-facto consequences are all we are left with when there is no political will to pre-regulate. If one started talking about requiring retesting to keep your license starting at age 60 or even 70, the pitchforks would come out. But that is the type of thing it would have taken to avoid "ruining" the first four lives here. (and the same pattern plays out on a much larger scale in the world of big business)