Woman sentenced 6 years for fatal texting crash

*sigh*

Yes, I'll admit, I'm simplifying. This is a much more complex case than I'm making it out to be. My main argument is about the structure of the justice system, which I see to be fundamentally flawed. But then again, I see the entire structure of our society to be fundamentally flawed.

You are right, this individual case is more complex. I don't know the exact details of the trial, or the circumstances, just a general description given by a journalist who has probably skewed half the facts anyways (I don't have a good opinion of most journalists, they get their facts wrong constantly, whether intended or not).

I'll also admit, not everyone can be reformed. I just feel like in most circumstances, when we react to these kinds of events, it's with an automatic emotional response of "the bastard should be locked away forever!". In my view, mercy is more important than justice. But I'm a bit idealistic for most on that front, so I reserve my opinion. I understand that some people refuse to change their ways, and that there's nothing anyone can do about it. In those cases, perhaps jail is the only option. I just don't think it should be the first option. We need to evaluate more carefully than we currently do. If the situation requires jail, than that is what we should do. However, if there is something else that can be done first, I think we should.

quixotic12,

Now that was exceptional! Talk about being reasonable! Thank you!

And yes, we agree, "My main argument is about the structure of the justice system, which I see to be fundamentally flawed. But then again, I see the entire structure of our society to be fundamentally flawed."

Yet "flawed" is what we encountered once we understood the gap between promises of political Utopia, and what really exists. What is out there is a mess, of cross-purposes, and ludicrous compromises after centuries of nepotism, fraud, self-interested patrician feuds, rampant usury, and the usual malarky.

Small wonder our Utopian belief system attempts to deny the actual function of a democratic social contract, which is - "a protection racket."

Conditionally, we agree to be governed and pay for it dearly - provided the state protects us from the evils and idiocies of very dangerous people. This is done by removing the worst from our midst.

In theory, a penitentiary "must reform" individuals, reeducate or dis-educate offenders. Failing that, in theory, it has failed society's goal of imposing mass conformity to law.

In practice and psychology this is nonsense. The revolving door, in-out-and-in-again, of criminal prosecution challenges us to wake up. We never do.

We understand the link between crime and the hazards and frustrations of insufficient income, or the mania of outrageous greed, yet imagine that merely by ostracizing people we will change them for the better. Raise employment levels while dis-employing millions? Can't do that! That's Communism!

So when "rehabilitation" doesn't work, out goes the baby with the bathwater - the belief spreads that criminals should NOT be ostracized, because ostracized or not, they refuse not to be criminals or egregiously stupid.

What happens to the public? They are perpetually jeopardized by people who really should be kept off the streets.

It gets worse, doesn't it? A privatized penal system which sees criminality as a profit center will not invest in reducing input from which they profit. Like any other form of bureaucracy, but even more so than "public", there is no incentive to improve the system's inmates.

Result, the law-abiding discover the social contract is a myth, and realize the wisdom of owning guns. Just as aggravating, they discover that if you are rich enough you can sit behind electronic castle walls in a fortress Green Zone.

What relief! For the rich.

But hit the streets outside and you are in alien territory, where car-jackings, drive-bys, street muggings (and at the office, unheard of massive ponzi schemes) all are regarded as Business Opportunity Costs to be downloaded onto the population.

"Buyer beware!" AKA: Tough luck.

Crime doesn't pay? Of course it does.

We have gone further than any culture in the last century to ensure that laws are toothless, when they are not rescinded to suit whoever wants them dead.

A neighbor of mine is a jail guard and when asked what it's like, she had this to say - "None of them are afraid of Justice. They don't get it, and they don't have to. Until they find reasons to respect the Law we are really screwed."

loveunit put the point more eloquently the first time on another posting of this story on Current:

"prisons are for dangerous people, not stupid ones..

this basically boils down to the question - what is justice?

if justice is basically a modern version of an eye for an eye - this woman should have something horrible done to her - however if justice is from a more global perspective she should be become a servant of society - community service, cleaning roads and working in schools..

perhaps this way she will not only learn more about herself, but will also be able to help her society instead of hindering more, as they foot the bill to remove her from society for 6 years - insane!

it's not that she's "dangerous" in any premeditated sense of the word - not that I personally know her - but that she was for a split second dangerous and unlucky."

That's basically what I was trying to say. Much more concise. lol.

Oh the social contract, tried out in theory, thrown out in theory, and yet we're still technically employing it. It has it's good points, and it has a LOT of bad ones, but I guess the number of good points have hit the margin of complacency for the general population. Maybe because it's technically the easiest to understand. Rousseau's General Will is a bit too convoluted for most to wrap their head around. I admit I don't know how it would work practically, except by some sort of social phenomenon we have yet to see on a massive scale.

"A neighbor of mine is a jail guard and when asked what it's like, she had this to say - "None of them are afraid of Justice. They don't get it, and they don't have to. Until they find reasons to respect the Law we are really screwed.""

This is my point exactly. Our definition of justice is still so undeveloped and crude. Just one of the reasons I prefer mercy over justice.

You said it exactly, we give up our freedom for protection, only to realize we've been swindled. And then we're almost back to where we started before all the laws, and legal system, and bureaucracies started managing our lives. We're back to a Hobbesian state of nature, a state of chaos. Whether or not we were there before, we're there now.

We need to wake up and realize that it's not working because there's something fundamentally wrong with the way we set it all up in the first place. It's broken, and it's in the foundation. We need to tear it down and start over. But I've rambled too long. Hopefully we'll eventually figure this out. I have faith.

quixotic12 asks....

"prisons are for dangerous people, not stupid ones.." this basically boils down to the question - what is justice?

So far so good.

"if justice is basically a modern version of an eye for an eye.." (Strawman argument coming up!) - this woman should have something horrible done to her - however if justice is from a more global perspective she should be become a servant of society - community service, cleaning roads and working in schools.."

Why is separating a dangerously inept person from the possibility of harming others cast as "an eye for an eye"? And who advocates it?

No one.

"it's not that she's "dangerous" in any premeditated sense of the word - not that I personally know her - but that she was for a split second dangerous and unlucky."

Premeditation is a matter of murder. Homicide is not premeditated but the results are no different. Ask plusaf, or any grieving friend, why "intention" or lack of it has any bearing on Justice in manslaughter.

We are again mired on should haves. The Justice system should have special consideration of whether a crime is deliberate, oh, wait - it does!

It shouldn't seriously hurt people who inadvertently kill someone - it doesn't. It locks them up.

It shouldn't judge people based on "she was for a split second dangerous and unlucky." It should look at the entire context. Who says this wasn't done?

quixotic12 tells us,

“Oh the social contract, tried out in theory, thrown out in theory, and yet we're still technically employing it. It has it's good points, and it has a LOT of bad ones..”

Tried out? As in....?

Thrown out? By whom? For what Reason should a basis for legitimate government be tossed away? What transcendent principle trumps political legitimacy?

“This is my point exactly. Our definition of justice is still so undeveloped and crude. Just one of the reasons I prefer mercy over justice.”

Justice is meant to be made less severe and abstract by virtue of mercy, but not over-ruled. That's not balance, that's bias. And if anything has failed miserably in the last 50 years it is that particular academic canard (“a duck” if ever there was one.) which suspends consideration of what Justice is meant to do, in favor of ruminating interminably about what thinking about thinking about what Justice is meant to do.

Result – nothing terribly good and lots of waffling.

“You said it exactly, we give up our freedom for protection, only to realize we've been swindled. And then we're almost back to where we started before all the laws, and legal system, and bureaucracies started managing our lives. We're back to a Hobbesian state of nature, a state of chaos. Whether or not we were there before, we're there now. “

That's your interpretation. We are “swindled” by not being protected despite paying for it. There is no more obvious unilateral breach of contract than this one.

“Managing our lives” is hyperbole and not what is meant (or implied) by a social contract freely entered into by both sides. We do return to a “Hobbesian state of chaos” when interests and connectivity between ruled and rulers diverges radically. Such a gulf is precisely what occurs when a social contract is abrogated.

Do you think those Wall Street fellows belong in jail for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and enriching themselves with the proceeds of crime? Isn't the implicit promise that such people will be jailed what we all are urging government to do on our behalf?

“We need to wake up and realize that it's not working because there's something fundamentally wrong with the way we set it all up in the first place. It's broken, and it's in the foundation. We need to tear it down and start over. But I've rambled too long. Hopefully we'll eventually figure this out. I have faith.”

You think the Constitution with its checks and balances "got it wrong"?

You say you have faith -- in what? .

i know. thats kind of sad. i think because so many people can relate to using a cell phone and driving they would want jail time over it. i wouldn't. but someone did die here so its a big deal

You're right it is a big deal. Someone died needlessly because of someone's negligence. It's pure stupidity and that woman should never be allowed to drive again. She should also be made to see how other people's negligent actions while driving has hurt other families, by doing community service for MADD, or something along those lines.

Why do we always seek vengeance in the harshest possible way? An eye for an eye may feel nice, but all it does its hurt more people, needlessly, which you all claim is a huge tragedy. It's unbelievable that we're still at this stage of humanity. I hope we can move on from it very, very soon. Demanding an eye for an eye lowers us to the level of the perpetrator. We should rise above that and actually seek to improve society through our punishments, not make it worse.

"Vital Issue #1. Middle class soccer moms, regardless of what harm they do, by their very status in our community are "Innocent." Exceptional. Untouchable."

Ok, let's change who we're talking about here then, if you think that I'm being prejudiced. Let's say it was an illegal Mexican immigrant. I still don't think the punishment fits the crime. My argument still stands exactly the same regardless of the social factors surrounding the perpetrator. I believe in the principles of equality under the law.

"Be reasonable, that measly "negligent crime" (whose specific nature "vehicular homicide" quixotic12 carefully avoids) is just not that awful. Except to some unhappy relatives of the victim.."

I never said it wasn't that awful. Never, ever. The loss of human life is always a tragedy. But there was no malice to this crime. The perpetrator of "vehicular homicide" made a VERY bad choice, and should face consequences. But how is sending someone who was an idiot to jail going to improve society? Instead, revoke what privilege the perpetrator abused: driving. That would protect society. This person isn't going around stabbing innocent people maliciously. They're being an idiot with a 2 ton moving piece of metal. Take away the 2 ton piece of metal and never give it back. Problem solved. Then teach the perpetrator of "vehicular homicide" (since you think I'm skirting the issue) a lesson by making them do community service. THAT would help society. Not sending the perpetrator to jail with a bunch of violent, malicious criminals for six years. You wanna guess what that person is going to come out like? Maybe the same, but most likely either traumatised, or hardened, or both. It's a blatantly pointless punishment. It does not serve to improve society at all.

"Vital Issue #2-#4"

See my above statement about how this should apply to EVERYONE. Thanks. This isn't about "middle class people", it's about everyone, getting a punishment that actually serves a purpose, that actually has some sort of chance to reform the criminal. The only people that jail should be for are the one's that are going around maliciously causing harm to others. You can't tell me you've never done something completely idiotic that could've ended up really badly, but then didn't because you got lucky? And you didn't realize until afterwards how stupid you had been? I think everyone I know has a story like that. Some of us are lucky, and escape learning from our mistakes relatively unscathed. Others end up like the woman in this article. Make sure she learns from her mistake through a punishment that fits the crime. All she'll learn in jail is that the American justice system is fundamentally flawed. She'll see examples of it everyday for 6 years.

yeah i think a couple months in jail plus revoking her license for 5 years would do her some good.

this might set an example though for other texting drivers.

I totally agree. This is ridiculous. No wonder US prisons are overcrowded. How difficult will it be to reintegrate someone into society who's been to prison for 6 years?
"Serves her right"?

Are you kidding me? She killed someone!!!!! Let this be a warning for other stupid girls and guys to stay off the phone while driving. I was almost side swiped by a dumb biatch who was nose deep in her phone.

It's good when other people can learn from someone else's mistake. It's such a needless occurrence for someone to die because of this. It's so easily avoidable.