http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...0019/1056/COL02
Do you think the punishment, a couple grand and a suspended license, fits the deed?
Would the justice system be responsible if that woman does the proper thing and gets what society in general would call 'vigilante justice' and what she personally would call 'satisfaction'?

Do you think the punishment, a couple grand and a suspended license, fits the deed?

No, but the woman did not set out to kill someone that night. This was a terrible accident; a horribly high price to pay for inattention on the roads. I don’t see anything that says she was drunk or otherwise impaired. And she seems genuinely sorry.

There was a famous case where a young man who was street racing killed a man’s son or daughter (I don’t remember which), but that father realized the young man was remorseful and he saw more value in letting him spread the message to other young people about the dangers of street racing rather than demand vengeance and put him in jail, where he could do no good at all.

This was an accident. It could happen to any one of us. It is tragic and horrible.

Would the justice system be responsible if that woman does the proper thing and gets what society in general would call 'vigilante justice' and what she personally would call 'satisfaction'?

No. What a hideous thing to say. It is not “proper” or "responsible" in any way, shape or form to tout or carry out vigilante “justice”. This isn’t the wild west. And I didn’t see anything in the article stating that was the victims’ mother’s goal (though I'm sure the dregs of the legal system are slavering at her feet for the civil suit sure to come).

How about the senator in Tennessee who passed away in 1998 and had a highway named after him --- all this after he had driven drunk for the third time and killed a motorcyclist – and left the man to die in a ditch while he drove home? Who better to deserve
“vigilante justice”? And yet, instead of punishment, every courtesy was extended to him, even after death!

Usually, I would be the first to help someone, in certain circumstances, to deal out some vigilante justice- but this woman was not drunk, just inattentive- it is a horrible accident, and, if she is a decent person, will be a life sentance of nightmares of her stupidity for the rest of her life- I do, however, hope a wrongful death suit keeps her paying financially the rest of her life- that would be an appropriate measure in this case.

I understand your meaning but not the emotional content. This woman's child and sister were killed and the one who is responsible for their deaths got no punishment. Is that not reason enough to consider my words less 'hideous' and more 'reasonable'?

Uh, no.

You act like sending a hit man out to kill this woman would be justified. I find that hideous. Yes, Kris Pons' child and sister were killed, and that is a tragedy. I would be far more inclined to fix a maximum weight on some of these mammoth SUVs on the road, or mandate a driving class for all who purchase one. I think they are the most dangerous vehicle on the roads today. There were 5 people in a Neon, so I also wonder if the child who died was in an approved child seat or on someone's lap, but see, then you'd accuse me of blaming the victim.

And "no punishment" is an exaggeration. She lost her driving privileges for 5 years (way more than any DUI gets), got fined and is on probation. The inevitable civil suit will financially ruin her. If she is a decent person, she will probably have nightmares for the rest of her life. What more punishment do you feel needs to be levied on her?

Daffy you're sweet and humane but not overly-loyal to blood. If you're mother or father or children were killed by someone running a red light, by some woman too busy to think of your family's safety and too important to bother with the rules of the road, you're legacy to them would be to be thankful their killer got their license suspended?!? I would feel that way about someone who runs over one of my fresh loaves of bread, not over someone who kills what I hold dear...the most! I wouldn't sent any hit man to do something as important as delivering justice, that's certain. Remember the old saying...three can keep a secret...

TruthMarch, thanks for the half-compliment, but I think you're being overly dramatic. If the woman who ran the red light was drunk or high, then I could see throwing the book at her, or being outraged if she got no jail time. This was an accident. I would venture to say every single one of us has witnessed several potentially dangerous events in our drives to and from work. Every day I see near-misses (and the ones who don't miss). Every day one bloomin' maroon scares the crap out of me on the freeway by cutting in front of me doing 20 mph, or pulling out into traffic without looking, or running red left turn lights or something equally stupid and annoying. Every day I see people run red lights and stop signs, yak on their cell phones, read the paper while they drive, take care of personal grooming, try to pick something up off the passenger seat/floor, holler at their kids in the back seat, etc. etc. ad nauseum. These things happen. There was no intent on the SUV driver's part to kill someone. That's why they're called "accidents".

I believe in vengeance, but this not a case in which it should be applied. It should be used against murderers, rapist, and child molesters/abusers who go free without any sense of justice. To talk about vengeance against a woman who was driving carelessly is misplaced in my view.

I'm basically with you, Sleeper, but I'd say it's a difference between vengeance and retribution.

Vengeance is personal: it's about wanting someone else to suffer the way you've suffered. It's a natural human emotion, but it's harmful to society. ("An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.") Retribution is similar, but it's moderated by a justice system that can objectively judge an offender's culpability.

I think retribution is a legitimate function of a justice system -- along with public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation. If the notion of retribution is entirely removed from a justice system, it ceases to do its job, part of which is sublimating the natural desire for vengeance. I guess TruthMarch feels that's happened in this case, but I disagree.

Thanks for the good comments. To me it's simple. There's no room for "this lady running a light isn't a good case for retribution" in my world. Why? Because of the simple overall still-there-at-the-end-of-the-day fact: your blood relations are dead. D-e-a-d. Gone. Forever. I have a very strong bond with my children and I think overall it may be because they know in their bones that they would be given justice, if not for my own satisfaction, but for the honor and sake of their eternal memory.

TruthMarch, every single day on Los Angeles freeways someone is injured or killed in traffic accidents (as I'm sure they are in every big city across the country). In 2003, 816 people in LA County lost their lives in traffic accidents. That's hundreds of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who lost a loved one in an accident. It seems you are equating accidents with deliberate attempts to murder. I have to wonder what your personal stake in this particular event is that's making you harbor such violent feelings.

The only accidents I believe are worthy of harsh sentences and, yes, feelings of vengeance are those that involve hit and run, road rage or impaired driving (alcohol/drugs). Most of them are just sad events.

To go after this woman as a target for "vigilanteism" is absolutely the worst kind of sentiment.... one could say something to the extent of "Take the 2 X 4 out of your own eye before you go looking for the speck of dust in your neighbors eye" oh wait... someone already did... the next time you fumble with the radio or talk to the kids in the back seat of your car I think you would want someone coming to your house and smothering you in your sleep... pretty much the sentiment people who want to see this woman strung up and dipped in battery acid are espousing...

Put your vengance where it is deserved.... on real criminals commiting malicous and intentional acts not someone who missed a red light...

Hey daffy?

Is LA a quagmire? the highways in LA are killing as many americans as in Iraq...

816 X 4.3 = 3509

the american deathtoll now is 3,633

so fighting in iraq is roughly as dangerous as driving in LA.... interesting.

Heck, yeah, it's a quagmire! When it takes up to an hour to drive 15 miles, you betcher butt it's a quagmire!
(however, to be fair, there are far more drivers in LA than there are troops in Iraq)

I think it's more dangerous to drive in LA; after all, we don't have armored vehicles (well, most of us don't), and protective gear. But we soldier on...

You think there are more tahn 150,000 people on the road in LA at any one time?

Holy shiites .... remind me never to move to LA.. that is INSANE... plus there are way too many people suffering from BDS...

QUAGMIRE!!! USA out of LA !!!!! ( Heck, I think we are for the most part didn't we cede LA to mexico a couple of years ago I think they gave them at least Baldwin Park. )

Do you think the punishment, a couple grand and a suspended license, fits the deed?

More or less. This is a fairly serious punishment for a tragic accident, which seems to reflect some genuine negligence on the part of the person responsible. Although she pled guilty to "vehicular homicide," which sounds like murder, I note that this crime is said to be a misdemeanor. I can only assume that "vehicular homicide" must be legally equivalent to something like "involuntary manslaughter." Combine this with the fact that the driver seems to be genuinely remorseful, and apparently does not have a criminal history, and the sentence seems about right.

Would the justice system be responsible if that woman does the proper thing and gets what society in general would call 'vigilante justice' and what she personally would call 'satisfaction'?

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if the legal system is responsible if people disagree with its decisions and take the law into their own hands. Certainly not. People may not like legal decisions; that's why we have such a complex legal system with many ways to appeal "wrong" decisions. At some point, however, we must accept the decisions of the courts or else take the responsibility of becoming outlaws.

One can understand the emotional appeal of the desire for revenge. It has no place in the legal system. On a personal level, I can only suggest that sorrow can be healing, but that anger is always self-destructive.

Yup. And when a much-loved friend or relative dies because they had cancer, are you going to get medieval on the doctors who failed to cure him? When someone you care about commits suicide, are you going to raise them from the dead so you can kill them again for killing themselves the first time?

People d-i-e and become Gone. Forever. All. The. Time.

Your children bond with you 'cos you're their dad, not because of what you might do after their deaths if you thought something fishy had gone on in those deaths.

Maybe you're fallible. Maybe, if something had happened to one of your blood relations and they'd been killed in a car accident, and the court found that it WAS an accident, so you felt justice hadn't been done. Maybe you go after the driver and you kill them in retribution. Then one of their relatives find out that your dead blood relative walked out into the road whilst talking on their mobile phone. So they come and they kill you. Your kids then decide to avenge your death by killing your killer, who also has kids, and they grow up to take revenge on your kids for killing their dad in revenge for killing your phone-loving relative in revenge for your killing their careless driver relative in revenge for what was an accident in the first place.

That's not a basis for a justice system. Or for a civilised society. That's bloody anarchy.

Accidents happen.

People die.

Get over it, and get busy living while you still can.

If the doctor was the one who gave him cancer then yes he'd have a problem with me. The suicide comment was simply for extreme-drama i.e. drama not meant to be taken seriously.
Yes people die. All. The. Time. But one has to consider the method. Old age and such are given a pass of course. But someone who is killed by someone else is someone who did not need to be taken. While you (plausibly) are defending the woman who (hypothtically) killed your child and sister, that woman is now free to do whatever she likes. Drink, laugh and be merry. A few years down the road she'll even be glad the nuisance of a 5 year driving ban (! ? !) is behind her then she will be free to do what she was doing when she killed your kin. But you think that's fair.
The 'anarchy' comment was awesome since it clarified what this thread is all about. If the justice system worked, there would be no need for someone to take real justice by the horns and create what you call 'anarchy', right?