Okay, how much is the life of your child worth?
I don’t dispute any of these points. I agree that the punishment should be standard, and should primarily reflect the consensus of how severe the infraction was. (Although our legal system isn’t blind to results. Negligence that results in death is usually - and rightly I think - prosecuted as a more serious crime than the same act that doesn’t result in death.)
My concern is about how we collectively decide how severe an infraction is in the first place. Some people here are arguing that if most people do something, the behavior itself is not that serious. This is the reasoning of a child. There’s no logic to it. It would be perfectly possible for a common or even universal behavior within a society to be morally reprehensible.
People are arguing that “what she did may have killed somebody, but the fact that most people do it suggests it’s not so bad.” A more logical lesson to come away with might be “because this behavior caused yet another death, maybe it’s time to reevaluate how serious it is.”
What you fail to understand is that the prosecutor already made a judgment on these guys about what he was likely to be able to prove and not prove when determining how to charge her. If he or she felt that they would likely have been able to prove that it was “in another realm” they would have pursued a higher charge. Perhaps they still might, if they get more evidence.
Again, there’s no impropriety here other than your inadequacy to comprehend the legal system.
How will anyone ever determine precisely what caused the accident? We will always have the “shit happens” factor. Now…she may have been driving too fast for conditions, but there’s no way to measure when or how those conditions changed, other than the fact that she obviously was unable to stop in time to avoid an accident. The conditions could have been anything from traffic to weather to the condition of her mental faculties to a condition that changed in her vehicle. Did I read that they’re evaluating her vehicle for mechanical soundness? I’m sure they’re trying to determine if the “conditions” were within or outside her control.
It’s sad that someone died, but shit happens. The judge made a determination based on the facts at hand. The family has the option of suing her, which they evidently are. I believe the laws as they currently read are dead on. A judge or jury will determine the level of culpability and she will be financially punished as they see fit. I do not believe she’ll do a day in jail.
Let’s see. If I remember my Jonathan Swift…
This gets back to the “If something bad happens someone has to pay” idea that someone mentioned upthread. It seems to me that this is just an accident that could happen to anyone at anytime. Futhermore, I doubt that if the victim had been hit by Moesha Williams, grocery store clerk, that the family would sue for that amount, if at all. I hope Brandy fights this and wins to teach other sue-happy vultures a lesson.
Just because life deals you a bad hand doesn’t mean you get to sue.
It’s not a minor violation because everyone does it, everyone does it because it’s considered a minor violation.
Drivers are adults, we are capable of introspection, we understand our physical limitations, we can decide that a particular act is especially unsafe. We are not always right, but there is nobody but us to run the country and decide what is safe and unsafe. Moses isn’t going to come down from the mountain with the traffic code carved into stone tablets, we have to figure it out for ourselves. With “minor” traffic violations, we’ve decided they’re not a big deal. If we think they need to be a bigger deal, we can change the law.
We did this with drunk driving. 30 years ago, it was no big deal, everyone did it. Now, it’s a big deal and people lose licences and go to jail over it. 30 years ago seatbelt fabric never saw the light of day, now you can be ticketed for it. 30 years ago, who used car seats? The list goes on.
You can argue that we are wrong, and these traffic violations need to be considered more serious, but don’t argue that we’re children because we’ve decided it’s not serious.
Fuckin’ well told. The family saw a goldmine and they’re digging. They can sue for $50M but that doesn’t mean they’ll get it. There was no blatant intent to break a law or endanger. I believe these awards are figured based on malicious intent, pain and suffering and earning power over a lifetime, aren’t they? I bet Brandy settles out of court just to keep the profile at a minimum. And she’ll probably pay more than a jury would award.
Okay, you get the same question. How much is your child’s life worth?
Someone’s negligence results in your child getting killed. Accident or not, responsibility is assigned. In our society, you are permitted to sue the party who wronged you for your loss. Of course you believe that your child’s life is priceless, but the law says that you have to have to assign it a monetary value, so you do and that is what you sue for.
Who am I or anyone else is to decide that value for you? No matter what amount you decide, someone is going to call you a “sue-happy vulture”.
One dollar.
Does this mean I don’t love my child as much as the Moesha plaintiff?
Good.
Remember that as they are pulling his or her mangled corpse from the wreckage.
I think Fear’s point is that no money will make you feel better for the loss of the child. A large sum will undoubtedly make you feel better about your own life, but it won’t make a difference with regard to your loss.
Wow.
There is no dollar value for my child. No amount of money will make me forget my loss.
$50 million = greedy fucks.
I am sure a monetary value will be the furthest thing from my mind, YMMV.
If you notice carefully, I never provided a definition. I asked one person for one, and got many answers. But not one person* asked for my definition. Furthermore, not one person asked for a clarification on my claims.
*Unless I’ve forgotten one. God forbid some lawyer wannabe nitpicking asswipe find the one exception to this and further prove what a liar I am.
No, I understand that just fine, which may explain the OP. But, the conflating of two issues aside, perhaps you can answer this: I think we agree that anyone can have an accident and that it is just that, accidental. I think we also agree that the person’s behavior, such as talking on a cell phone, increases the person’s responsibility. So, phone talking, video watching, etc, increases someone’s responsibility and may push the incident into "another realm. Does not excessive speed do the same thing? Can it? Again, I ask where is the line? Where do you think the line should be? I’m no lawyer, but that doesn’t prevent me from evaluating a story like this. But I guess that fact would get in the way of your snipiness.
I know you think you’re oh-so-bright and all, but if you hope to continue the charade you may want to look up the words “impropriety”, “inadequacy”, and “comprehend”. At least one of them doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Good, because no one has implied that you should forget your loss.
Let’s establish a ceiling here. Obviously, you consider $50M “greedy fuck” territory. How about $40M? 20? 10?
Okay, let’s sue for $5M. Because you do not assign a dollar value for a lost life, can one sue for $5M and not be considered by you a “greedy fuck”? Or must we go even lower?
Where does the “greedy fuck” level start?
Somewhere near the point where you attempt to put the object of your anger anywhere near financial ruin and drastically increase your own financial position.
And you know where this level is?
It varies. However, the other half of my statement doesn’t. They aren’t independent of each other.