Woman jailed because someone else killed her child

Remove all ads!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mum-sentenced-over-sons-hit-run-death-111744335.html

This is beyond belief!

Briefly, a woman and her kids cross a street and a guy who is DUI and has a previous conviction for a hit and run plows into them. One child is killed and the mother and another child are injured.

The guy who hit them serves 6 months in jail but the mother faces a sentence of up to 3 years for not using a proper crossing.

Is it me or has the world gone insane?

 

The world has gone insane. It needs a good, sustained dose of rationality.

 

If she were driving a car and didn't give the right of way when she should have, it would have been her fault. The responsibility of avoiding an accident always falls on the shoulders of the one who doesn't have priority.

The woman in question was jaywalking and not driving, but as far as priority goes, things are exactly the same. She wasn't even supposed to be in the driver's way.

Furthermore, that was really reckless of her. She started crossing the street along with no less than three children. Imagine having to take a step back to avoid a car and having to pull one or two of them back with you at the same time. Not only is it hard, but she also took all of the risks associated with jaywalking on behalf of her kids.

As for what the driver did, driving under the influence most likely impaired his ability to avoid the accident, but again, the responsibility for avoiding it lies with the jaywalker. Hit-and-run only interfered with the judicial process.

In the end, the woman got away with probation and some community service, while the guy is serving jail time.

As a side-note, imagine what the public reaction would have been if it had been the children's father crossing the street and his wife had shown up on the news angrily ranting about how her good-for-nothing husband got their child killed.

EDIT: minor grammar

 

I was under the impression that the Jay-walking law required that a crossing be within reasonable distance from the point where you cross, Or that the point at which the jaywalker crosses be excessively dangerous or disruptive.

I dont know the road or area, but it is possible that crossing near a bus stop may be considered dangerous. I'm guessing that the court believed that her crossing the road where she chose to, with 3 young children which could be difficult to control in a dangerous situation was excessively dangerous.

I get riled up when Im driving, by people who cross the road dragging a child behind them, or those others who push the pram into the road first before looking if a car is coming. My favourite phrase to shout out of the window when someone forces me to brake is "Cars hurt".

 

Another curiosity here is two people being prosecuted for an accomplished killing of the same person without any form of cooperation or other relationship between them. It's not completely unimaginable (one could make up a textbook case) but still strange.

What's beyond me is somebody walking home after 6 months of a jail when convicted for a DUI killing while already having one DUI hit and run incident under his belt. Seriously, those guys should be more efficiently banned from driving. This looks like a joke compared to the stories of what kind of small and irrelevant felony can get one a life when it's a third (including a bait charge where the cops leave an unattended bag of goods in a public space or a light-weight assault and battery).

What's also sad is that the juries' skin colours are still distinguished in 2011.

 

correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a vague memory of reading something a few years back, involving somthing similar. The person killed was illegally crossing the road when the drunk driver hit him and killed him, but because the pedestrian was crossing illegally the driver could only be charged with the DUI.

 

That exceeds my knowledge of American law, I'm afraid.

 

Generally pedestrians have the right of way. I'm actually a bit perplexed by the OP story in that, unless I'm greatly mistaken (and I guess I am), it really shouldn't matter if you were somewhere you weren't supposed to be on foot. Motor vehicles aren't supposed to hit pedestrians, ever, and it's the operator's responsibility to see to it that that doesn't happen.

Example: you're not supposed to cross residential streets except at corners. If you ran over some kid who was crossing mid-street, do you suppose authorities would say it was the kid's own damn fault? No, you would be crucified, just short of literally, even though the kid was crossing illegally, because you're not supposed to run people over no matter what.

 

I yield the right of way to all vehicles on the roadway, all vehicles on the sidewalk and all vehicles entering an establishment (by any means). It just seems like the polite thing to do when confronted with two or more tons of metal.

 

Which is why I'm perplexed. Traditionally this has not been the case throughout the US.

 

IF she was not paying sufficient attention to the children, and by that argument was a contributing factor in their deaths, then maybe she deserves some sort of penalty. Negligence contributing to death should not be taken lightly.

In this case, I think we don't know enough to definitively answer that "IF", though.

 

Well, there's always some form of manslaughter whereby you'll get punished if you negligently cause death. Not sure about individual states in the US but I suppose leaving children unattended, especially causing some danger or when something actually happens, should generally be a low-rated but still a crime. It just feels bad to have a killing attributed to you rather than "mere" negligence, although in this case the penalty was very little.