You clearly don’t understand some of the most universal tenets of the law, one of which is to uphold a sense of fairness. It is unfair to the families to have someone kill their son and leave without some sort of sanction against her. To do so reduces public confidence in their own criminal justice system to deliver just outcomes. Further still, hiding behind the cloak of diplomatic immunity casts doubt on the value of providing blanket legal protection for diplomats – that hurts not only people in the UK; that’s something that can affect our diplomats abroad as well.
Diplomatic immunity exists for a reason, and it’s not to allow people to commit manslaughter and get away with it. Look, everyone gets that it was an accidents - that doesn’t mean jack shit. Accidents cause fatalities. Accidents that lead to fatalities are crimes.
So the takeaway is that when an American can’t follow Britain’s rules, Britain should just change its rules. Christ, what an attitude.
I certainly am not saying that. But screwing up local customs/rules is surely one of the things diplomatic immunity is meant to protect. We are not assuming that the conventions were meant with bad actors in mind, do we? The rules are only there to stop spiteful/political arrests? Or am I way off here?
Accidents that lead to fatalities most absolutely can be crimes if the accident was caused by negligence. There are plenty of otherwise decent people who’ve spent time in prison for accidents.
Almost all “accidents” are caused by someone’s negligence. To be a crime (at least in Washington State, but I assume other places as well) more is required. Such as recklessness.
Give me an hour in my office and I could probably pull 50 files where someone died due to someone else’s negligence and no crime was ever charged. [In many of these cases, it would have been appropriate to bring criminal charges, IMO.] Car accidents, boating accidents, plane crashes, etc.
Right, like gross negligence, which is still an accident and still something that otherwise good people do, and still something that lands otherwise ‘good’ people in prison. The fact that they were never charged isn’t material; it’s that they can be charged but pragmatic decisions were made about how best to use the resources of the criminal justice system.
Going back to the case in question, if this is just a case of an “accident,” an “oops,” then she shouldn’t have fled, right? She fled because she knew that her accident might led to a criminal conviction.
And if it really is an innocent mistake, and the UK justice system is fair, then shouldn’t it turn out okay?
Of course the proactive recognizes that there will be bad actors. That’s why diplomats are expelled and sometimes sending parties waive immunity. Heck, it’s why the waiver exists at all.
I wasn’t trying to present anything as ‘certain’. I’m fully aware that accidental death doesn’t automatically lead to a 100% chance of criminal conviction. I was trying to point out that the fact it doesn’t necessarily matter that Ann Sacoolas’ made a mistake – a mistake that leads to death is going to lead to a criminal investigation, and in some cases, criminal convictions.
Here in America, you can often kill a person in a road accident and not have to go to prison. In a few areas maybe a short stint in jail. Now, of course the civil liability would be huge.
So, usually, in America, in a accident of thise sort- no drunk driving, etc- the sanction would be a lawsuit, and only that.
Don’t even need a cite, really. I’m sure nations being hostile to each other was the big consideration. But I am sure “misunderstandings” were a consideration.
We have rather tougher rules than you do about publicly airing what might be relevant evidence before a trial, so as to avoid prejudicing a case one way or the other. You do “need a trial for that”, because that is what a trial is for.
And until there is one, whatever anyone may think from what has been reported in the media is indeed speculation.
This didn’t happen in America. This happened in a country with one of the safest (and yet most congested) road systems in the world. The reason they are the safest is because we hold driving up to a high standard - our driving tests is extremely hard to pass, our rules are expected to be followed.
Here, driving is seen as a privilege, not a right. You are expected to drive with ‘due care and attention’ - a higher level of awareness than a mere pedestrian. Driving on the wrong side of the road, accident or not, is at minimum a clear sign of driving without due care and attention, and that is an offence.