OneGun wrote:The crime and the punishment are strange. Drivers are supposed to watching the road ahead for obstacles and generally receive a ticket for not avoiding obstacles, not keeping enough stopping distance to the vehicle in front, following too closely, etc. In this case, the person was the obstacle and is the guilty party. Creating/being a road hazard is wrong.
On the other hand, the driver that stopped for the ducks had the best of intentions to avoid killing the baby ducks. No one disputes her intentions. She was not thinking about being a road hazard. If she stopped for a person in the road such as a pedestrian, a broken down vehicle, an injured motorist, would she have even been charged with a crime? Would the outcome be completely different? Would the motorcyclists have any responsibility for not crashing in any of those circumstances? Should the reason she stopped be the difference between being free and life in prison? There is no clear answer to these questions.
Was she stupid to stop for ducks? Yes! Is she the type of person I want to lock up for life and remove from society as a danger? No! I don't even want to pay and use tax dollars to lock her up (I know she is in Canada). My point is that prison should be reserved for criminals that pose a real threat to society such as murderers, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, robbers, child molesters, embezzlers, batterers, swindlers, theives, child molesters, etc. She is nothing like any of these criminals. Locking her up will not bring the two people back who died and it is very unlikely that if she were set free that she would become a road hazard in the future.
Other possible punishments that are congruent with the crime would be loss of driving privileges and/or probation and/or shorter jail time (not prison). The victims families also have civil remedies such as lawsuits, etc.
What do you think?
