Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Though one thing that does boggle my mind a little bit, is how jaywalking can be brought all the way up to vehicular manslaughter. Were there eyewitnesses that said that she purposefully placed her kid in harms way (as in the proverbial "pushed into the path of a moving bus" type situation)??

2nd degree vehicular homicide in Georgia:
"Second degree vehicular homicide encompasses all vehicular homicides without intent to kill that involve any other violations of the laws governing the operation of motor vehicles. For example, a death resulting from a failure to yield to oncoming traffic, speeding, or driving too slowly, unless such constituted reckless driving, could be charged as a homicide by vehicle in the second degree."
Taken from: http://www.topgun-lawyer.com/veh_homicide.htm

She pretty clearly meets these criteria. There was a death involved, it was caused by a vehicle, and she was violating a motor vehicle law (by jaywalking).

I dont' have all the facts, but it sounds like the driver was only really convicted of hit& run, which is leaving the scene of an accident, not vehicular manslaughter. Meaning, he probably wasn't at fault in the death, just in the leaving.

The mother, OTOH, was responsible for the death of her child. Great fault means greater liabilty.

Criminal laws also don't care how much you've already suffered. yes, most parents cannot be punished more than by the death of a child, but not all.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Depends on how the money is stolen. If you go through the computer and pyramid schemes there's no physical threat to a person.

And yet, you still stole millions upon millions of dollars. Far greater harm was done to a far greater number of people.

One way you trick people into believing you, the other you force them to hand over cash with the threat of physical violence. If we put people into jail for tricking people into believing them then we would have to arrest magicians, politicians, and anybody who works for those 'as seen on TV' companies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I dont' have all the facts, but it sounds like the driver was only really convicted of hit& run, which is leaving the scene of an accident, not vehicular manslaughter. Meaning, he probably wasn't at fault in the death, just in the leaving.

The mother, OTOH, was responsible for the death of her child. Great fault means greater liabilty.

Criminal laws also don't care how much you've already suffered. yes, most parents cannot be punished more than by the death of a child, but not all.

Isn't there maybe something about negligence in this case as well? She was breaking a law in the first place so it wasn't entirely the driver's fault. If she had crossed at the crosswalk nothing would've happened, it sounds like the driver was driving in the street which is perfectly legal. Its not like he ran a red light, drove on the sidewalk, or ran them over while they had the right of way, he drove off when he should've stayed. Of course they should take his license away if he's partially blind.

Did anybody else find it funny that they mentioned that it was an all-white jury?

halonachos wrote:
Did anybody else find it funny that they mentioned that it was an all-white jury?

What is funny about this?

I think he meant funny in the sense of peculiar or unusual, not as in humorous.

I mean, why is it even peculiar or unusual? It's a black woman on trial with an all white jury...this adds something to the case. Like it or not, there's a definitive subtext and socio-historical context when dealing with such situations. Not saying this woman isnt at fault or a brain surgeon, but the disparate sentencing is indicative of a broader social trend in prison sentences, and not some simple bureaucratic mixup.

BoltThrower wrote:I mean, why is it even peculiar or unusual? It's a black woman on trial with an all white jury...this adds something to the case. Like it or not, there's a definitive subtext and socio-historical context when dealing with such situations. Not saying this woman isnt at fault or a brain surgeon, but the disparate sentencing is indicative of a broader social trend in prison sentences, and not some simple bureaucratic mixup.

There's another possiblity: that two people were convicted of very differen crimes, whcih come with different sentences. Hit & Run is very different from negligent homicide. Now, odds are the driver plead out, but that's still a factor.

Don't assume that there are improper factors just because the results look odd at first. Believe it or not, the justice system does somewhat know what it's doing.

BoltThrower wrote:I mean, why is it even peculiar or unusual? It's a black woman on trial with an all white jury...this adds something to the case. Like it or not, there's a definitive subtext and socio-historical context when dealing with such situations. Not saying this woman isnt at fault or a brain surgeon, but the disparate sentencing is indicative of a broader social trend in prison sentences, and not some simple bureaucratic mixup.

To clarify: The OP was 100% wrong.

The driver got a MUCH worse sentence than the mother.

Mother got 1 year probation.

Driver got 6 months in jail and 5 years on parole.

LOL, well in that case....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
NONETHELESS...

I think when you talk of an entire "system" "knowing" what it's doing, there are broader philosophical and structural implications that aren't even being touched, in terms of social actors in the aforementioned "system", biases, access to capital, etc. If there's one thing I remember from my days of taking classes on philosophy and social implications of the law, is the idea of justice being about interpretation, and that previous precedents and statutory interpretation need refreshing at periods in history. I know this has its place somewhere in legal terminology...I'm no lawyer or judge. Nonetheless, I don't think that this is too far off in the analysis of this woman's sentencing. "Habit is the ballast that chains the dog to its vomit".

Secondly, the U.S. prison system is proof that the justice system really isn't a very functional "system"...I think there is inexhaustible evidence for this, and obvious regardless of what ideology one ascribes to.

Not trying to wax poetic on anybody here...I'm a special ed teacher, I'm no professor or philosopher. I talk to my students a lot about law as a living thing that changes and transforms, perhaps that's what spurred this babbling. Just some thoughts for consideration...but yeah, this woman probably made a bad choice. Too bad she has to pay her entire life for it, emotionally.

BoltThrower wrote:I mean, why is it even peculiar or unusual? It's a black woman on trial with an all white jury...this adds something to the case. Like it or not, there's a definitive subtext and socio-historical context when dealing with such situations. Not saying this woman isnt at fault or a brain surgeon, but the disparate sentencing is indicative of a broader social trend in prison sentences, and not some simple bureaucratic mixup.

I think you are confusing 'peculiar and unusual' with 'this is what I, Bolt Thrower, think he meant by peculiar and unusual'. If you want to know what halonchos meant by it, perhaps asking him to clarify his position would be more productive than assuming he means something. What if he meant it was peculiar that they would allow an all white jury in this day and age in the USA? Or perhaps he thought it was unusual that the article made a point of it. There are a few different ways it could go.

Actually its peculiar from several different angles. For one reason its an all white jury, chances are that there are at least seven black people in the entire area that can serve jusry duty. So to have a homogenous jury is quite odd.

That and the fact that the author felt like it was absolutely necessary to point it out. Who knows, maybe it was a factor and maybe it wasn't. None of us were there so we could only guess.

I remember reading somewhere that the race of the jury is actually counter-intuitive in its effect on the verdict. That is, white folk are more likely to be leniant on a black person. I'm only vaguely remembering this, and I think it had some kind of regional effect (in some places there was no effect). The reasoning was that white folk are more likely to consider socio-economic factors and give sympathy, black folk coming from those same factors and not ending up on trial are more likely to think 'feth that guy'.

In much the same way, women on a jury are more likely to find a rapist not guilty, believing the woman was at fault (and therefore allowing themselves to believe the same couldn't happen to them).

No comment other than to be "That Guy" and say the thread title should probably read " 'Justice' System", not "Justice 'System' ", as the former implies that the system is not just, which is what the OP was stabbing at, whereas the way it is written, it implies that it's not really a system which is... untrue.


I have nothing of value to contribute, really, carry on.

I'm more upset with the system when people get away with fethed up sh**. Makes me want to deliver some southern justice Shooter style.