I doubt Raab is having fun talking to his US counterparts given the Huawei decision.
But there is an easy answer for that: responsible governments should waive the immunity in cases where the malfeasance was in the course of officials duties, and a fair trial can be expected. Adults acting like adults would solve this particular problem.
Plus, let us remember that most places that diplomats serve are countries in which “due process of law” is nothing more than empty words, if it is spoken at all. Subjecting diplomats to the show trials of China and Russia is an unacceptable risk for people charged with trying to resolve difficult issues with those countries. Especially when those difficult issues could easily result in war, if handled poorly.
I think part of our disconnect is we have different ideas about the seriousness of the crime. The result of the crime was horrendous, of course. But the actual malfeasance was, imo, a cognitive glitch, or “brain fart” that you or I or most anyone could have fallen prey to. I don’t believe she acted with evil indifference. I think her brain failed to adapt to a novel circumstance (traffic being in the other side of the road.)
Now, recognizing the problem, I have never driven a car in a country that drives in the wrong side of the road. But I’ve just been a tourist, and the cost of never driving was low. It’s not unreasonable for someone who had moved there to drive. Eventually. After they have learned which way to look for traffic.
That’s why I suggested that the best outcome might be for the UK to impose a waiting period between arriving from a country where people drive the other way, and allowing newcomers to drive. Because THAT might reduce the number of future traffic deaths. Make newcomers get used to traffic as pedestrians, where the only life they risk is their own, before seeing them loose with a ton of steel.
Punishing her (and others have said there punishment would likely be a suspended sentence and losing her driver’s license) is unlikely to make any difference in the risk of future deaths. And expelling her keeps her off the road.
You feel some need for cosmic “justice”. I don’t. I just want orderly laws and fewer traffic deaths. Diplomatic immunity is a long-standing rule that does not significantly interfere with orderly laws. Fix the rules to reduce deaths, don’t punish people for the sake of punishment.
I think people are indeed being a little casual, equating what happened here with the Georgian diplomat. He got wasted, blew an intersection causing a three car accident, four injuries and a death. Is anyone here really saying that’s no more serious than driving on the wrong side of a country road and killing someone as they come over a hill?
Try telling that to the cops if you ever go through a red light and cause an accident!
Georgian diplomat commits vehicular homicide. US government requests his immunity be waived so he can face due legal process, ascertaining whether he is guilty, and if so the extent of his culpability.
US diplomat’s wife commits vehicular homicide. UK government requests her immunity be waived so she can face due legal process, ascertaining whether she is guilty, and if so the extent of her culpability.
Not sure how you like to do things, but I usually prefer an actual court to determine what crime (if any) was committed, level of culpability, whether there were aggravating or extenuating circumstances. And as pointed out on a number of occasions, if the US decided that some ruling against her was outrageous we can’t enforce judgement without you giving a second waiver.
Are you freaking kidding me?
If someone shoots my son or daughter, whether with malice or through negligence, this country doesn’t react by taking away that person’s gun and saying, “Have a nice life! Problem solved!” Hell no, that person goes to prison. If someone burgles my house by smashing a window, the police don’t take the crowbar away and say, “We’ve done our job here! Let’s just move on!” Hell no, that person goes to prison.
There’s no reason why someone who kills someone on the road – whether drunk driving, negligence, or whatever – should not face some kind of legal sanction beyond just not being permitted to drive again.
What an offensive argument. Even the most bleeding of bleeding heart liberals must surely reject this “nobody should go to prison just because they killed someone for no good reason” line of thinking.
Couldn’t be simpler:
God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself.
of course motive and degree of negligence matter. I have a distant cousin who shot and killed his girlfriend whole cleaning his gun. Both her family and the police believed it was an accident. He did not suffer any criminal penalties. Even though he killed a person.
He was more negligent than this driver, imo.
One difference is that competent authorities apparently investigated that tragic death, and I have no reason to disagree with their findings that it was a pure accident.
In this case, I think that an investigation has been given short shrift, but to the extent that one has been conducted, it seems to be leaning toward an assumption that the driver acted with more negligence than you assume. But maybe that’s not the case – maybe she swerved to avoid another hazard, in which case she shouldn’t be punished. Maybe she was sleep deprived and shouldn’t have been on the road at all. That’s all stuff that should come out in an investigation, and if necessary a trial, where she can present a fair defense.
Well, the one time I was stopped for driving the wrong way on a one-way street, that’s pretty much what I said, and I was set loose with a stern warning.
But in all seriousness, running a red light is a very different error than driving on the side of the street you have been trained to drive on.
By the time you have been allowed to drive, you have been trained to stop at red lights. If you fail to do so, you either made a bad decision (you chose to run the light, you chose to look at your phone instead of the road) or you misjudged how the car handles – something else you should have been trained to do.
Preventing yourself from doing something you have been trained to do is a different cognitive task, and one that you can fail at unexpectedly without making any obvious bad decisions.
It was a pretty distant relative, but my understanding is that the DA chose not to charge him with anything.
There’s tons of evidence of car crashes that is available to the authorities without a trial. If the evidence suggests the driver was drunk or something, I would think that would have been made public. (As it was in the cases cited about the US asking for diplomatic immunity to be waived when a drunk driver with several prior incidents killed some people in the US.) You don’t need a trial for that. Yes, I’m speculating, but this really looks like a case of exactly what it appears to be, a tragic mistake made by a driver who messed up when driving on the other side of the road from what she’d been trained to do.
I currently have cases in my office:
Truck driver crossed center line, hit my client head on, killing him. No criminal charges
Young driver pulls out in front of my client’s motorcycle, causing 3 months in hospital and life long injuries. No criminal charges
Driver hits my client in a marked crosswalk, killing her. No criminal charges. (infraction for failing to yield right of way to pedestrian)
Over the years, I’ve seen many, many cases likes these.
If it’s negligent, then I’m pretty sure not only do you not go to jail, you get to keep your gun.
Yeah, that’s completely different, because that’s an example of someone deliberately trying to break the law.
I’m pretty bleeding heart, and puzzlegal is making more sense than just about anyone in this thread. It was an accident. People shouldn’t go to jail because of an accident, except in pretty exceptional circumstances, and a moment of confusion while driving a car does not constitute “exceptional circumstances.”
Is there the thought from the state that this is best served in civil court by making the driver at fault pay out the ass to the victim as punishment? Of course that neglects the fact that the at-fault driver will never pay but at least in theory …
I think it’s the distinction between negligence and recklessness. To prove vehicular assault (or homicide) the State has to prove reckless conduct. (which is defined as “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”) In a civil case, we only have to prove negligence. (Failing to act in a reasonable manner)
I like a legal system where courts determine if there’s been a crime, and if so if jail is justified. You?
Sure, but that’s not the argument I was responding to.
Thank you for clearing up what I intended to say. Whether the driver’s conduct was negligent or reckless is a matter that authorities should adjudicate fairly; as opposed to various third parties on the internet reading the paper and deciding on her innocence or culpability.
You’re right. If you strip both stories of all detail, they are exactly the same. Then we can pretend a drunken joy ride in the middle of the city is the same as forgetting what side of the road you’re supposed to be on.
The Georgian diplomat probably just forgot he was supposed to be driving in the street instead of the sidewalk. Oopsies!