In most cases, that would be a win for the perpetrator. But probably not in this one. The odds of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally guilty of more than a cognitive glitch are small. The odds that she can be shown to be civilly responsible for a wrongful death seem overwhelming, and i expect a large monetary penalty.
It’s not one or the other. In every case like this, the person faces possible criminal charges, and a possible civil suit. The US government has taken the criminal case off the table. That is a clear win for her.
Okay.
I expect the investigation will nonetheless uncover the same information that a criminal investigation would have. So the family will have the satisfaction of the results of that.
What investigation are you referring to? She’s not facing charges in the United States, so what investigation will there be?
There’s always an investigation for a civil suit involving an auto accident. I work in the property casualty insurance industry, and have attended many presentations by claims examiners documenting those investigations. I can give you more details than you could possible care for. But an investigation will generally include satellite photos, photos taken on the site, photos of the vehicle(s), testimony from all (available) participants in the crash, and from onlookers…
In this case they might talk to whoever examined the body for evidence of how fast the car was moving. They would ordinarily look at any skid marks. If the car has a “black box” they would typically query it to determine speed, if the driver tried to turn, if and when the driver tried to brake…
That’s how we investigate major auto crashes for questions of civil liability in the US.
Yes. For accidents that occur in the United States, there are extensive investigations by the insurance company and presumably state highway safety boards.
However, none of that will happen, since the accident did not occur in the US and was not covered by US insurance. State highway safety boards have no jurisdiction, and there is not US insurer.
The parents have presumably already had the benefit of those investigations for the accident in the UK, by the UK insurer and road safety agency.
So what investigation in the US do you envisage that will bring them greater satisfaction, as a result of forcing them to cross the Atlantic and litigate a civil case at their own expense?
Forcing?
I’m confused. I thought you were upset that no investigation had been done.
Also, would the UK insurer have investigated or paid a settlement without the testimony of the driver? I’m clearly missing something important. I thought that was exactly what was happening now that the case was being brought to court in the US.
Of course UK has investigated to the extent that the Crown Prosecution Service has determined that there is enough evidence to support a dangerous driving charge.
Also worth noting, Dangerous Driving is rather more than Driving without due care and attention but it not as high as Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
So that should give an idea of the likely provable extent of liability.
No,the Crown Prosecution Service has determined that there is enough public outcry so they need to file a more serious charge, which they are very safe in doing as they will never have to support it in court.
The Crown Prosecution Service , like like the District Attorneys office, is not at all immune to political and public pressure.
I’m sure we’d all be interested to know how you’re privy to their decision-making process in this case.
Unlike your nation which has a habit of partisan political appointments in your judiciary, public outrage is not a concern because posts are advertised and are subject to open competition.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/careers-cps
In other words our judiciary is not there to acquire votes for their masters, they are not subject to the whims of the political wind, and take some pride in this.
Perhaps true judicial independence would be something the new world can learn from the old, maybe your expectations of prosecutors are lower than ours but there is no need to assume other nations follow similar principles.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is appointed by the Attorney General (AG), who is ruled over by the Secretary of State for Justice who was appointmented by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Who is interested in the case and wants to bring it 'to justice".
It is similar to the USA, where only the top Job is political. However, political pressure works on everyone in government.
apparently, NJ has appointed prosecutors:
Prosecutors Hold the Key to Justice Reform - The Atlantic
Right now, New Jersey is the only state where district attorneys are appointed—and thus not so likely to have endless terms. They’re designated by the state’s attorney general, who is in turn, appointed by the governor.
More importantly, this case hasn’t garnered a ton of publicity in the US, and I doubt anyone in the judicial system has any strong political motive to lean either way. The US courts are always a bit of a crapshoot (in general, I think the UK does it better) but I expect this case will be tried fairly.
Our judiciary is nothing like as overtly political as the US, we simply do not have a situation where political outlook of the senior judiciary is the primary concern - the vast majority of appointments are pretty much forwarded from within the judiciary itself at the Law Lord level, and the only political part is the final rubber stamp.
We just do not have a concept of the law working toward a political supporting measure, it isn’t any sort of electoral issue.
I am sorry but when Boris fucking Johnson, aka trump-lite gets involved, I dont trust that.
You may trust him, but I dont. He is a lying populist, just like trump.
Update this morning:
Quote:
Amy Jeffress, the lawyer for suspect Anne Sacoolas, who returned to the United States claiming diplomatic immunity, said such a crash would not be prosecuted criminally in the US.
Amy Jeffress, the lawyer for suspect Anne Sacoolas, who returned to the United States claiming diplomatic immunity, said such a crash would not be prosecuted criminally in the US.
Hardly relevant.
I saw that article with a part where she was stating that she would like to ‘get it all over and done with’
So its an inconvenience to her is it?
Her lawyers are playing things in a US style - discussions prior to the case being held, making what amounts to plea offers, none of which convinces me that she has all that much remorse.
For my own opinion, it is not up to her to decide what sort of sentence is acceptable to her - it is for courts to determine culpability.
It’s just US lawyering to me and it stinks - if she has remorse and if she believes she did what should could have done after the events, then she is morally bound to come back and face the courts - its not like Iran where they convict in secret trials and effectively hold people hostage in hope of makign political deals.
She IS facing the courts. And it’s the US state department, not her, who gets to decide whether she can be tried in the UK.
I would have preferred if she accepted the US trial, and didn’t fight it. Yes, that’s playing the US way, which is adversarial and generally sucks.