Or plaster the streets around the base with flashy reminder signs.
The idea that this is the sort of incident that would benefit from punitive deterrence is rather silly.
I think one of the issues is that by skipping any attempt at resolution (e.g., a trial to determination whether she was criminally liable or not), the whole incident gets treated as though she’d run over a squirrel or caused some other trivial damage. Nobody bothers with criminal liability if a squirrel dies in the roadway, and the US is treating this case as something akin to that: no big deal, it doesn’t matter if Harry Dunn died, because Harry Dunn’s life was worth no more than that of a squirrel.
It’s not just about society; it’s about reassuring the actual victims of the crime that the perpetrator has received fair punishment.
When one’s kin dies as a result of someone else’s negligence, expecting the offender to be punished is a completely natural and appropriate psychological response and expectation.
And don’t tell me she wasn’t negligent - that she didn’t realize she was driving on the wrong side of the road means nothing. Look, if you can’t juggle chainsaws without slicing off the arm of someone watching, then don’t juggle chainsaws. Likewise, if you can’t drive on the right side of the road in the UK…take a fucking Uber.
Not deterrence; measure for measure, and not for the sake of retaliation but for the purpose of ensuring that citizens can expect fair punishment as a result of negligent conduct, regardless of the perpetrator’s status.
Has she been expelled? When and how? And don’t you think people who break the law should be punished?
Here’s a better idea: diplomats and their families can afford Uber - maybe they should be encouraged to exercise their own good judgment and use it next time.
The family has a right to expect that someone who kills their son as a result of negligent behavior shall pay for their offense. It’s a cornerstone of jurisprudence.
That’s an important point to make: she wasn’t expelled; she left before she could be expelled. Expulsion, revocation of diplomatic privileges are also presumably legal processes. She couldn’t be bothered; she used diplomatic immunity to escape justice. In other words, she abused that privilege.
I thought she was told by the state department to leave. They wouldn’t have instructed her to leave if she’d run over a squirrel. That’s a really stupid and offensive comparison to make.
And as for punishment of those with diplomatic immunity… People with diplomatic immunity who intentionally commit serious crimes routinely get away without punishment. They commit rapes, etc. And aren’t punished. That’s part of the Justice system. Not a pretty part, but a routine part of how the Justice system works in every major country.
She’s charged with negligence, not malice. I remain confused at the depth of feeling over this.
Have we established that she had diplomatic immunity? I thought it was still unanswered.
You are confused that people don’t like negligent homicide? OK.
No, I’m confused that people are furious that she was only removed from the UK, and not punished.
Wikipedia says that in the US, family of a diplomat have diplomatic immunity.
Curiously, it also says that they may be issued a traffic ticket, but may not be detained, prosecuted, or subpoenaed.
So did her husband have diplomatic immunity?
She’s not charged with negligence. She’s charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
There may be extenuating circumstances or aggravating circumstances. Neither you nor anyone else knows the facts of the case, because they haven’t been released.
The US government (I’m not sure whether it was the State Dept, the Air Force, or the CIA) advised her to leave, and then helped her to leave on a US Air Force transport. They did so to make sure that she would face no more consequences than if she’d run over a squirrel.
The US (and other countries) routinely request that diplomatic immunity be waived when serious crimes are committed. For example, when a Georgian diplomat killed a teenager in a drunk-driving accident in Maryland, the US requested a waiver, Georgia agreed, and the guy spent several years in a North Carolina prison. Nobody’s ever said that he acted with malice, only with incredible stupidity, and the US wanted him punished. With the shoe on the other foot, the US has a different response, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The teenager killed in Maryland was “worth” the US requesting a waiver and pursuing charges. The teenager killed in Northamptonshire, however, was not “worth” the US granting a waiver. Why the difference?
People routinely end up being punished when their negligence results in harm to others. She, however, is going to escape prosecution and any possibility of punishment, with the assistance of the US government. People get pissed at the notion of the United States, supposedly the shining city on the hill, helping a woman charged with a criminal offense involving the death of an innocent minor evade any possibility of punishment, even if she was criminally stupid.
One part of the dispute is over whether her husband was in fact a “diplomat,” given that he was not accredited as such to the Court of St. James’s. (As near as can be ascertained, he worked for the CIA at their listening station at RAF Croughton.)
Yes. That’s a Top Secret Base, quite a few Americans have Diplomatic Immunity there, to protect critical intel. **The UK granted it to them.
**
Not truly a diplomat, yes, but given Diplomatic Status by the UK for Security reasons.
So he’s not a diplomat, does his status cover his wife also?
Which can be waived by the home country - as the US asked the Georgian government to do in the case noted above.
Whether the securocrats imagine that her facing a trial is going to lead to revelations in court about what her husband does for a living or any other security-sensitive matter, I wouldn’t know, but I can’t see why it would.
The lawyers the Dunns have consulted, at least, have argued that the UK can’t simply “grant” diplomatic immunity to anybody it wants; the Vienna Convention and UK law have prerequisite conditions that were not met.