It was a horrible situation, and my macabre sense of humor didn't help. Thankfully, I wasn't there, but let me set the stage. Two cars collide leaving four dead (three adults or near-adult and one infant) all from the same car. The driver of the other car was drunk.
It's an unfortunately too common scenario, especially as the drunk seemed to have only minor physical injuries. But when they showed the dead people's car on TV, I couldn't think of how that kind of damage could have been lethal to all aboard. The car had been hit and flung headlong into a tree, and it was an older model without airbags, but the passenger area, although toast, looked survivable from at least three of the four occupants. (The driver would have been lucky to get off with life-threatening injuries.) So they're throwing the book at the drunk (a newly-appointed state official with a history of DUI, 5 I think, thank you, Arnie Schwarznegger
), but I wonder if they should consider that although his actions are inexcusable, what about the actions of the victims that contributed to their own demises?
For years it's been a law in Californa that all occupants of a vehicle must wear seatbelts and children under a certain age must be in a Department of Transportation approved car seat, properly installed. (There are billboards up all over the state reminding people of this, and the Highway Patrol is more than happy to inspect car seats and adjust them if necessary.) None of the deceased were wearing seatbelts, and the infant was not in a car seat. There wasn't even one in the car, as I heard it reported last night.
So, although the drunk's actions ultimately put an end to four lives, how much of the deceased's glaring disregard for their own safety (and of the young life who had no choice) should be considered in sentencing? I don't feel this is a case of blaming the victim, as in "They shouldn't have been on the road." This was a matter of choosing to ignore two widely known state laws. I see it as about as negligent as the number of people who still think that lowered gates at a railroad crossing don't apply to them. It was fatal negligence.
Should that be considered?
How many strikes should a drunk driver get before they take him or her off the road for good?
(Where my macabre sense of humor came in was when it was reported this morning that one of the girls in the car had been talking about making changes to improve her life. My first thought was "Wearing a seatbelt would have been a good place to start.")
It's an unfortunately too common scenario, especially as the drunk seemed to have only minor physical injuries. But when they showed the dead people's car on TV, I couldn't think of how that kind of damage could have been lethal to all aboard. The car had been hit and flung headlong into a tree, and it was an older model without airbags, but the passenger area, although toast, looked survivable from at least three of the four occupants. (The driver would have been lucky to get off with life-threatening injuries.) So they're throwing the book at the drunk (a newly-appointed state official with a history of DUI, 5 I think, thank you, Arnie Schwarznegger
), but I wonder if they should consider that although his actions are inexcusable, what about the actions of the victims that contributed to their own demises?For years it's been a law in Californa that all occupants of a vehicle must wear seatbelts and children under a certain age must be in a Department of Transportation approved car seat, properly installed. (There are billboards up all over the state reminding people of this, and the Highway Patrol is more than happy to inspect car seats and adjust them if necessary.) None of the deceased were wearing seatbelts, and the infant was not in a car seat. There wasn't even one in the car, as I heard it reported last night.
So, although the drunk's actions ultimately put an end to four lives, how much of the deceased's glaring disregard for their own safety (and of the young life who had no choice) should be considered in sentencing? I don't feel this is a case of blaming the victim, as in "They shouldn't have been on the road." This was a matter of choosing to ignore two widely known state laws. I see it as about as negligent as the number of people who still think that lowered gates at a railroad crossing don't apply to them. It was fatal negligence.
Should that be considered?
How many strikes should a drunk driver get before they take him or her off the road for good?
(Where my macabre sense of humor came in was when it was reported this morning that one of the girls in the car had been talking about making changes to improve her life. My first thought was "Wearing a seatbelt would have been a good place to start.")