Ninety5rpm

I don't recall that about the truck driver, but even if true, was the truck driver's license suspended at the time of the fatal crash? If not, then it had little relevance. Also, what were the reasons for the suspensions?

Delay by defense in Kalamazoo is hardly evidence of your position.

UPDATE:

I see it now.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/truck-...ended-license/

1. Suspended license but no blatantly wrong driving behavior
2. Suspended license AND recklessly speeding 100 mph

Big difference.

Rollfast

Still deceased people, no difference really.

Ninety5rpm

With respect to how the system doles out punishment, which is what we're talking about, it is very different.

atbman

[QUOTE=Ninety5rpm;20169983]
I see it now.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/truck-...ended-license/

1. Suspended license but no blatantly wrong driving behavior

That's odd. I would have thought that driving without a valid license was "blatantly wrong driving behavior". Or is it optional in the US?

Ninety5rpm

What I meant was someone without a license could (in theory) drive flawlessly - without violating any rules of the road (no speeding, always using turn signals, no tailgating, obeying all traffic controls, etc).

I'm trying to distinguish on the road driving behavior in violation of the rules of the road from procedural violations (if you will) like driving with a suspended license.

Rollfast

Well, that car has a license plate in a nationally accessible database, you can't hide forever, and the point is that driving is a PRIVELEGE.

It's also almost obvious that if you are forbidden to drive you will probably do something that will give you away, if not have THE Murphyesque moment of a lifetime.

Driving with a suspended license IS a violation of the rules of the road, there is no distinction whatsoever. No 50 Shades.

Rollfast

ninety5rpm, have you EVER driven a motor vehicle?

KD5NRH

Depends on what it's suspended for; saying "no harm, no foul" on driving with a license suspended for numerous moving violations is, IMO, right up there with the people who say DUI shouldn't be prosecuted so harshly if they don't actually get in a wreck.

OTOH, I drove over 160k miles in my car with an expired license. (Happened to have changed the oil the day before it expired, so I had the mileage written down. I'd just finished moving at the time, so apparently the renewal notice didn't get forwarded and I never had any reason to look at my DL, since I know who I am.) Plus probably 20k in my then-girlfriend's car. (She hated my car, I was terrified of her driving.) Plus a couple thousand in company trucks hauling a 40' gooseneck loaded with structural steel. I guess I was doing pretty well to take that long to get pulled over. Even then, it was only a $100 fine and he let me drive away with a verbal warning for the 45 in a 35 zone, since they'd just extended the 35 zone a couple weeks earlier.

genec

An expired license is VASTLY different from a suspended license... the latter usually occurs due to some judgement after being cited for violations.

Multiple suspensions indicate multiple violations, or a willingness to not "play well with others..." something of a problem when road use depends somewhat on cooperation.

I too had an expired license... for about a year. Just didn't notice it... until some clerk pointed it out. Never knew what happened to the DMV notice.

Ninety5rpm

DUI is not prosecuted as harshly if they don't actually get in a wreck. That is, if there is a wreck, especially if it's fatal, they are prosecuted more harshly.

KD5NRH

Right, but there are plenty (usually people with a few DUIs) who think that without a wreck it should be a "no harm, no foul" $100-200 ticket and go on about your business.

Ninety5rpm

Thankfully, that's not how it is. It used to be, however! MADD has done a great job. Now we just need to get harsher with texting while driving.

Ninety5rpm

Of course. Over half a million miles. Why?

Ninety5rpm

Long before any of this can happen, self-driving cars will be dominating traffic, and the remaining humans still driving will be much better drivers.

mr_bill

Why Is It So Hard to Charge Motorists with Murder?

-mr. bill

Maelochs

I have said elsewhere, only a nationwide MADD-style campaign will have any effect on driver/cyclist interactions.

adablduya

no, you're on the right track, albeit far too lenient.

Rollfast

For the last time, INTENT. You can be intoxicated and have intent to kill somebody with your vehicle, but is this a feeling you would normally have when not under the influence?

In most cases, no, you didn't intend to kill anybody. You made a criminal judgement to operate impaired though and it led to those circumstances. That is what you are punished for. Passion is so strong over loss of life that it trumps the motion of the law and justice.

Now, somebody ignoring barricades and entering a race course is not excusable. Why they do this I don't understand but it also happens every year somewhere. Barriers should be heavy and hard to move.

Sometimes the driver gets distracted/confused and hits the wrong pedal...a local hospital's clinic had an elderly driver accidentally hit the gas and crash into the waiting room. Some drunk kids took an SUV through a fence into a building the other day (nobody hurt). My former neighbors' teenage boys took the family car and went on a joyride, tore the car to crap and back, brand new.

And if the driver was found not in their right mind mentally, the best they can usually do is hospitalize them and incarcerate/penalize if they can. By the way, one of the nearby counties has build two successive jails in 40 years and nobody wants to finance another one.

MattTheHat 

I know this thread is a year old, but “restitution” is an odd proposal here. How, exactly would one make restitution for taking a life? Nothing the driver can do will “restore” the life taken.

The powers that be can do or not do as they like, but “restitution” simply isn’t going to happen...because it can’t.

-Matt

Maelochs

To some degree "justice" is only a meaningful concept if people see it being applied fairly.

if I am shooting in my back yard, and I know that the bullets can fly for a mile and my neighbors are 100 yards away ... or if I am driving whole impaired and know that I cannot control my vehicle (or do not know but should) .... it should all be criminal negligence manslaughter. My intent was not to commit mayhem or homicide, but a reasonable person could conclude that that would be a probably outcome.

It isn't "equal" to jail a person for killing another through careless (as in not giving a rat's buttocks) and gross stupidity, and it isn't likely that the defendant will "learn a lesson" or in some way do some good to balance the stupid evil s/he has done .... but other than killing the defendant (convict, one would hope) there is no way to accurately "balance" crime and punishment.

One reason for harsh sentences is the supposed deterrent effect. Note that this really doesn't work too well with criminals, but it has some effect the closer to legal the behavior is: most people who do burglaries will not carry weapons because the penalties for doing so, and even more for using them, are so much greater than simple B&E or burglary charges ... but gang-bangers who care little about law or life will carry guns and use them because they care little about much of anything.

So ... the drivers who might drive drunk can sometimes be deterred from driving drunk---look for alternative drivers, take cabs---because they know that DUI charges matter much more today. Likewise if drivers who killed cyclists were given harsher sentences, it might have some effect on some drivers who might otherwise be a little more careless or drive a little more drunk.

The higher sentences have to be widely publicized ... see the "MADD campaign" mentioned above.