A question from Monday’s Philip Defranco show … if you’ve never watched it, should. He tends to find the stories that fall through the cracks, or puts a little more light on things here and there. Plus he’s not a bad kid and always heartening to see those who set a good example, or at least try to.
So Monday’s question was, is this a fair sentence?
hard to say — who taught her to stop for ducks? i imagine there’s a long trail of blame there. though even the most besotted young woman, you think would have enough foresight to not block a fast lane. penalizing heavily for it does not make sense. because if the cost is that high, then you all should be tracking down who taught her that was the right thing to do and stick them in prison, too.
it is a casualty of poor instruction, most likely via internet — and doesn’t matter what you do, there are those who are going to be impressionable. while the conviction is probably fair, and amply fits the description of criminal negligence … the sentence is almost purposely outrageous.
she was stupid, and i’m sure everyone has been just as stupid — though not necessarily with fatal effects. so what are we outlawing? stupidity? entire nation would be in the clink. that kind of a sentence would make sense if she knew the man and his daughter, and purposely set a trap to end their lives. other than that, i’m thinking the judge who tried this case can be found to have some criminal negligence himself; because he neglected to pass up this opportunity, and chose instead to make a side show out of what is supposed to be justice.