"It was an accident, it wasn't my fault."

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Ciminal irresponibilty.

Defense attorney Randy Moore said he believed the sentence was too harsh.

"I don't think it serves anyone's interest for this 19-year-old girl to spend more time in jail," he said. "My client was convicted of an accident."

Excuse me? An accident is when a meteorite hits your car. When you are racing on the freeway and cause a crash that kills people, that is not an accident. That is felonius stupidity and she deserved to be sentenced to 5 years minimum. Though in my honest oppinion she should have been taken to Tonga to stand trial for assassination.

What do you think?

 

[Stella_Omega]

The thread title is a misquote.

 

[only_more_so]

I would be a little broader when I define an accident, but not to include this case. It is hard for me to judge how long someone deserves to be in jail for something like this, but I definately don't think 2 years is too long.

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

The thread title is a misquote.

The title was a generalized representation of the attitude I see far too much these days. Someone does something stupid, someone else gets hurt and they refuse to accept the responsibilty for it. "It was just an accident, it's not my fault. I didn't mean to kill them, it was an accident."

 

[only_more_so]

The title was a generalized representation of the attitude I see far too much these days. Someone does something stupid, someone else gets hurt and they refuse to accept the responsibilty for it. "It was just an accident, it's not my fault. I didn't mean to kill them, it was an accident."

You forget the crying mother who says, "He's such a good boy, he would never do something like that."

 

[Stella_Omega]

The title was a generalized representation of the attitude I see far too much these days. Someone does something stupid, someone else gets hurt and they refuse to accept the responsibilty for it. "It was just an accident, it's not my fault. I didn't mean to kill them, it was an accident."

O tempora, O mores"

Jubal, I think the reason you see it more often these days is because you see EVERYTHING more often these days. It's a human interest story. The press loves human interest stories. The press loves the kind of human interest story that includes gore and death and a moral that can be pointed to, and whenever possible, some kind of feel-good point for the readership, such as; "Those damn kids today, going to the dogs!" (because feeling good keeps 'em coming back)

But there have been self-centered people from the cave days. And in this particular case, we don't, in fact, know what the girls thoughts are, only what her attorney (who is paid to defend her by any means possible) has said-- about her. Not in her words.

Having said that, I do agree that, probably because the excuse has been so widely reprted, there are many people who figure it should work for them too.

 

[S-Des]

She didn't get nearly enough time. Street racing (not the organized kind, but just irresponsible people racing their buddies for stretches) is far too common. Pure decried the use of surveillance cameras in another thread, but this is exactly the kind of thing that they are perfect for. Anyone caught racing a friend should do a minimum of 2 years and should lose their license for 10. Anyone killing someone while racing, just like with a DUI, should face far more. The people who she killed are just as dead as if she meant to do it . . . in fact she did. She made a conscious decision to disregard everyone else's safety for her game. If she had decided to burn their house down because she liked the pretty flames, would people be arguing that it was an unforseeable accident that the residents died as a result?

 

[Carnevil9]

The thread title is a misquote.

It was a proper quote of John Belushi's character in "The Blues Brothers" when Carrie Fischer has him in her cross-hairs, dead to rights. And that scene was a perfect analog for this situation.

 

[cloudy]

She didn't get nearly enough time. Street racing (not the organized kind, but just irresponsible people racing their buddies for stretches) is far too common. Pure decried the use of surveillance cameras in another thread, but this is exactly the kind of thing that they are perfect for. Anyone caught racing a friend should do a minimum of 2 years and should lose their license for 10. Anyone killing someone while racing, just like with a DUI, should face far more. The people who she killed are just as dead as if she meant to do it . . . in fact she did. She made a conscious decision to disregard everyone else's safety for her game. If she had decided to burn their house down because she liked the pretty flames, would people be arguing that it was an unforseeable accident that the residents died as a result?

Kids do stupid things, simply because they're kids. It's still just as wrong, I agree, but I can't agree with 2 years in prison just for racing - nobody hurt.

I'll be willing to bet that at least half the people in this forum did it at one point or another, or at least rode along.

What about when your daughter does something stupid, Des? Because she will, you know. They all do.

 

[S-Des]

Kids do stupid things, simply because they're kids. It's still just as wrong, I agree, but I can't agree with 2 years in prison just for racing - nobody hurt.

I'll be willing to bet that at least half the people in this forum did it at one point or another, or at least rode along.

What about when your daughter does something stupid, Des? Because she will, you know. They all do.

I'd do the same thing my Mom did when I got in trouble. Tell her I love her, then explain that she has to suffer the consequences for what she did (and support her every step of the way). If some idiot who doesn't think about the consequences kills her, there won't be anything I can do.

I understand that my attitude is harsh and probably won't be shared by most, but something has to be done to deal with the damage being caused. We have such a spike in teen driving accidents and deaths here that the laws are being changed to raise the driving age and require 9 months of supervised driving by a parent before a child can get a license. I drive for a living, so see it every day. I really don't care if they kill themselves, it's their right to do dangerous things. But they have no right to kill anyone else.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

She's a kid. Not a criminal. She should be punished, but I don't agree some kind of 5-year penitentiary sentence is going to rehabilitate her in any meaningful way. I think age of adult-hood might need to be adjusted up to 21.

I've thought that a good bit, actually.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'd do the same thing my Mom did when I got in trouble. Tell her I love her, then explain that she has to suffer the consequences for what she did (and support her every step of the way). If some idiot who doesn't think about the consequences kills her, there won't be anything I can do.

I understand that my attitude is harsh and probably won't be shared by most, but something has to be done to deal with the damage being caused. We have such a spike in teen driving accidents and deaths here that the laws are being changed to raise the driving age and require 9 months of supervised driving by a parent before a child can get a license. I drive for a living, so see it every day. I really don't care if they kill themselves, it's their right to do dangerous things. But they have no right to kill anyone else.

So, the instance of your child doing something teenagedly stupid like driving drunk or going 100 mph on the interstate or vandalizing a post office... should be met with a criminal record and /years/ of prison time?

I don't agree. I just don't. Even over 18, I don't think that's helping the situation.

edited to add: That's not commentary on parenting styles, just a subjective disagreement.

 

[cloudy]

So, the instance of your child doing something teenagedly stupid like driving drunk or going 100 mph on the interstate or vandalizing a post office... should be met with a criminal record and /years/ of prison time?

I don't agree. I just don't. Even over 18, I don't think that's helping the situation.

edited to add: That's not commentary on parenting styles, just a subjective disagreement.

For once, I completely agree with you.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I understand the frustration with this sort of thing. When you get down to the bottom of it, asking people to consider only the part of your actions that was on your own mind (e.g., "I was just having a race; I didn't mean to kill anyone") sounds a lot like asking people to accept that your interests are the only thing that matters. Yes, you may only have wanted to race, but you decided that you didn't care if someone got in the way and was hurt by the racing. Push this excuse far enough and it turns into "I can do anything I like in pursuit of my own amusement."

 

[S-Des]

So, the instance of your child doing something teenagedly stupid like driving drunk or going 100 mph on the interstate or vandalizing a post office... should be met with a criminal record and /years/ of prison time?

I don't agree. I just don't. Even over 18, I don't think that's helping the situation.

edited to add: That's not commentary on parenting styles, just a subjective disagreement.

So you'd be OK with 18 year-olds who beat up the homeless and tape it to put it on the internet? How about ones who start fires that get out of control and kill people or cause millions in damages? A car can be a dangerous weapon, and if an 18 year-old knows they won't be punished, what's the downside to racing their friends? We know they aren't worried about dying because they tend to think they're indestructable. Anyone who has the attitude like that should not be allowed to drive (it is a priveledge after all, not a right).

As I said, I don't expect a lot of agreement from everyone. Still, there are dead people who did nothing wrong. I guess that's just their tough luck. *shrug*

 

[S-Des]

For once, I completely agree with you.

Well, if nothing else, I managed to accomplish the unthinkable with my response.

 

[maggot420]

So you'd be OK with 18 year-olds who beat up the homeless and tape it to put it on the internet? How about ones who start fires that get out of control and kill people or cause millions in damages? A car can be a dangerous weapon, and if an 18 year-old knows they won't be punished, what's the downside to racing their friends? We know they aren't worried about dying because they tend to think they're indestructable. Anyone who has the attitude like that should not be allowed to drive (it is a priveledge after all, not a right).

As I said, I don't expect a lot of agreement from everyone. Still, there are dead people who did nothing wrong. I guess that's just their tough luck. *shrug*

Is it your contention that harsher punishments are an effective way to combat reckless behaviour in teenagers?
I'm just trying to understand your exact position and am by no means trying to imply a judgement. I just wonder if you believe that crimes of this nature would decline if there were more severe punishments.

 

[R. Richard]

So, the instance of your child doing something teenagedly stupid like driving drunk or going 100 mph on the interstate or vandalizing a post office... should be met with a criminal record and /years/ of prison time?

I don't agree. I just don't. Even over 18, I don't think that's helping the situation.

edited to add: That's not commentary on parenting styles, just a subjective disagreement.

I agree that driving 100 mph on the interstate should not be punished with years of prison time. However, driving 100 mph on the interstate and killing someone in a speed caused crash is properly addressed by a criminal record and years of prison time. The victim of such a crash doesn't care how old the driver was. The purpose of the prison time is not just to punish the criminal, but also to send a message to the next person who wants to drive 100 mph on the interstate that such a driver is going to spend major time in prison if someone dies as a result of their speed caused crash.

If you decide that a teenager shouldn't be punished for a speed caused crash that killed someone, how do you intend to get the message across to the next person who wants to race at 100+ mph on the interstate, that they just might kill someone and that the punishment will be severe enough that the next person just might not race at 100+ mph on the interstate?

I might add that the case is not just a matter of US justice and laws. The victims are royalty in Tonga and the Tongans also have a very great interest in the case. How do you explain the situation to the Tongans? [By the way, Tonga has always been an independent kingdom in the South Pacific. Tonga is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In theory, if you pick a fight with Tonga, you pick a fight with the British Commonwealth of Nations. Killing members of the Tongan royal family has always been a good way to pick a fight with Tonga. Tongans are just funny that way.]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So you'd be OK with 18 year-olds who beat up the homeless and tape it to put it on the internet?

Not a bit.

How about ones who start fires that get out of control and kill people or cause millions in damages?

Nor them.

A car can be a dangerous weapon, and if an 18 year-old knows they won't be punished, what's the downside to racing their friends?

You're building a false dichotomy. There are more options between "several years of prison" and "won't be punished". Exploring effective compromises to the former, I think, is a challenge--but exposes several practical options.

I drove drunk when I was 19. I was in college and I wanted to go home from a bar and I drove. I was as fearful of a DUI and my father finding out as I would have been with jail time. Maybe there needs to be greater amounts of parenting--but having the state raise your kids (and I think we can agree that we're talking about 18 and 19 year old kids here) is a bad idea.

We know they aren't worried about dying because they tend to think they're indestructable. Anyone who has the attitude like that should not be allowed to drive (it is a priveledge after all, not a right).

Teenagers are afraid of dying, they just don't always grow up with a proper appreciation for how easy it is.

As I said, I don't expect a lot of agreement from everyone. Still, there are dead people who did nothing wrong. I guess that's just their tough luck. *shrug*

One of the biggest problems with dead people is that live people have to speak for them. Just because they're dead doesn't make everyone else their mouthpiece. What would the victims have thought of a teenager who fucked up? Were they the sort of people who'd want to send that kid to prison? Death happens. Accidents happen. Stupid mistakes happen. Kids happen.

I think punishment is important. I think people being killed in an accident should be met with harsher punishment. I've been to jail and I'm unsure that sending my little brother to prison for a few years is the most socially responsible form of justice (or even most effective form of it) that we can choose as Americans should he do something stupid in his first car--like street race.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I agree that driving 100 mph on the interstate should not be punished with years of prison time. However, driving 100 mph on the interstate and killing someone in a speed caused crash is properly addressed by a criminal record and years of prison time. The victim of such a crash doesn't care how old the driver was. The purpose of the prison time is not just to punish the criminal, but also to send a message to the next person who wants to drive 100 mph on the interstate that such a driver is going to spend major time in prison if someone dies as a result of their speed caused crash.

I think there are better messages. I just do. I think that we might be better served putting kids to social work or community service, hoping for a chance to give them a broader scope of appreciation for others than taking the shortcut to felonhood.

If you decide that a teenager shouldn't be punished for a speed caused crash that killed someone, how do you intend to get the message across to the next person who wants to race at 100+ mph on the interstate, that they just might kill someone and that the punishment will be severe enough that the next person just might not race at 100+ mph on the interstate?

I think the only intelligent way to answer that question is to know how many kids /don't/ drive 100+ mph on the interstate and why... and then evaluate whether or not this incident meets a threshold of likelihood that demands some kind of greater action. Because if its an outlyer? Something below significance? It's not worth throwing someone's life away to prevent a statistical insignificance.

I might add that the case is not just a matter of US justice and laws. The victims are royalty in Tonga and the Tongans also have a very great interest in the case. How do you explain the situation to the Tongans? [By the way, Tonga has always been an independent kingdom in the South Pacific. Tonga is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In theory, if you pick a fight with Tonga, you pick a fight with the British Commonwealth of Nations. Killing members of the Tongan royal family has always been a good way to pick a fight with Tonga. Tongans are just funny that way.]

Tonga, to put it bluntly, is about what? 100,000 people total?

Fuck Tonga.

Tonga doesn't factor into what I think should and shouldn't happen to the girl. The people involved, yes. Tonga, the nation? Fuck 'em. This wasn't political and doesn't need to be and if someone wants to make it so, fuck them too. Its a smokescreen for the actual issue.

 

[glynndah]

There was a teenage girl who lived in a town very near mine who was ticketed for going over one hundred miles a hour down a dark, two-lane road. I believe her goal was to get the car airborne over some of the small hills. (I'm sure there's a name for that.) Her car was damaged. She got a ticket. Her parents repaired her car.

When she did it the second time, less than a year later, she totalled the car she was driving. Fortunately neither she nor her two passengers were injured. She got another ticket. Her parents paid it and bought her another car.

The third time this happened, she totalled the car, she spend weeks in the hospital and her passenger died at the scene. She got another ticket and a trial this time. She was found guilty, but I don't remember her sentence.

 

[cloudy]

There was a teenage girl who lived in a town very near mine who was ticketed for going over one hundred miles a hour down a dark, two-lane road. I believe her goal was to get the car airborne over some of the small hills. (I'm sure there's a name for that.) Her car was damaged. She got a ticket. Her parents repaired her car.

When she did it the second time, less than a year later, she totalled the car she was driving. Fortunately neither she nor her two passengers were injured. She got another ticket. Her parents paid it and bought her another car.

The third time this happened, she totalled the car, she spend weeks in the hospital and her passenger died at the scene. She got another ticket and a trial this time. She was found guilty, but I don't remember her sentence.

In that case, I place the blame squarely on her parents, where it belongs.

 

[S-Des]

Is it your contention that harsher punishments are an effective way to combat reckless behaviour in teenagers?
I'm just trying to understand your exact position and am by no means trying to imply a judgement. I just wonder if you believe that crimes of this nature would decline if there were more severe punishments.

In some instances yes, in some no. Kids will be kids, and you can't throw them all in jail. Since Joe didn't like my analogies, let's try one more.

A car can be a dangerous weapon if misused, right? So instead of street racing for fun, lets say a group of kids decide to scream through intersections, blaring their horns and forcing pedestrians to dive out of the way. They aren't trying to hurt anyone, just having fun, right? So when they eventually kill someone who didn't get out of the way fast enough (or if they don't swerve fast enough), do they get punished for running someone down, or improper driving?

Joe, your contention that we can't be sure if the people killed would want to see their killer punished is just silly. First of all, it's easy to ask their family what they think. Second, if we're going to use that standard, how are you going to prosecute any murder? Every trial would become a circus of trying to read the victim's beliefs so you could determine the proper punishment for the perpetrator. Either DUI is serious, or it's not. Either street racing is serious, or it's not. People die every day from it. If you think it should be treated like a case of kids misbehaving, that's you're right, but I disagree. In another thread, Cantdog said that he didn't believe a 14 year-old (or was it 16?) properly understood the consequences of raping his victim, then pouring bleach on her to remove the evidence. People can use the excuse of, "They're just too young," for almost anything. Sometimes the crime deserves to be punished, regardless of their intentions.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

And, so we can remember what we're talking about here:

A friend of mine, in highschool, Clint got into a car wreck with a friend of his (I don't remember that kid's name). They hit an 18-Wheeler on a two lane highway. Clint was more or less alright (airbag about broke his nose and he cracked a rib I think), the friend and that half of the car were just about sheared off. The friend got much more fucked up

Clint and the buddy were driving and flicking the headlights on and off. They were dicking around at night in a car and hit an oncoming truck. The parents of the other kid were obviously distraught--the boy's legs were broken and some other things. He was in rough-rough shape.

Nobody went to jail. The parents of my friend and the other boy talked about what happened. Clint did community service for the rest of high school (two years) in town for the city, and he hasn't so much as pulled a U-turn since. He's a successful young accountant now. The other kid went to college, don't know what he's doing.

I don't like the state being so involved in a situation that demands localized and personalized interaction. Nobody involved was intending criminal action, they were fucking around.

I'm not going to say I've got this all figured out or that I know the best way for the justice system to work. I'm advocating, though, on a purely personal basis, that we have to do more for people--our kids especially--then put them in jail.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

A car can be a dangerous weapon if misused, right? So instead of street racing for fun, lets say a group of kids decide to scream through intersections, blaring their horns and forcing pedestrians to dive out of the way. They aren't trying to hurt anyone, just having fun, right? So when they eventually kill someone who didn't get out of the way fast enough (or if they don't swerve fast enough), do they get punished for running someone down, or improper driving?

They get punished for what happened. What the punishment should be is where we disagree, Des. That should be evident by now.

Joe, your contention that we can't be sure if the people killed would want to see their killer punished is just silly. First of all, it's easy to ask their family what they think.

It's not silly at all. I can think of several instances, both locally and nationally, where the intention of the victim--or what they would have thought--bore strong relavence when convicting someone. If you can't, you should read more and avoid calling things like that "silly". You can think its less important, but its hardly "silly". Why its relevant here is because I hold more importance to what the victims or their families think of what happened and should happen then what you or other third party people do. It was an accident, they should decide how best to rectify it.

Second, if we're going to use that standard, how are you going to prosecute any murder? Every trial would become a circus of trying to read the victim's beliefs so you could determine the proper punishment for the perpetrator.

The will of the victims and their families is present in any number of murder cases. Especially death-penalty cases. We already use, in some ways, that standard. This is nothing new.

Either DUI is serious, or it's not. Either street racing is serious, or it's not. People die every day from it. If you think it should be treated like a case of kids misbehaving, that's you're right, but I disagree.

I didn't say I couldn't be disagreed with on this. It's a purely subjective matter. It relates entirely to what people, invidually, feel is more and less right. As such, it isn't really open for much argument. But, the things we say /about/ it are. Which is why I don't believe your wrong for wanting to send them to jail--I just disagree that its the best idea. I don't have a "best idea" to replace it and have at no point said I did.

But I do take issue with something I've said being called "silly". I'm a lot of things, but I'm (1) rational and (2) not likely to propose something "silly".

In another thread, Cantdog said that he didn't believe a 14 year-old (or was it 16?) properly understood the consequences of raping his victim, then pouring bleach on her to remove the evidence. People can use the excuse of, "They're just too young," for almost anything. Sometimes the crime deserves to be punished, regardless of their intentions.

I don't disagree with that. We just disagree on what the punishment ought be.