CAN A KILLER BE PUNISHED BY A MONETARY FINE?
The following news story has caused me much concern:
“The family of a Calgary senior struck and killed by a cyclist who ran a red light believes the justice system has failed them. A member of the victim’s family said the $1,000 fine handed to the cyclist, coupled with a victim fine surcharge of $150 wasn’t punishment enough.‘I wish the justice system could’ve done more,’ a member of the victim’s family said, shortly after the cyclist pleaded guilty to a Traffic Safety Act charge of running a red light.’My understanding is this accident (was) preventable and the cyclist should obey the law,’ the member said.”
My first reaction after reading it was outrage. And the questions began to flow:
Is a human life only worth a fine of $1000?
Was the senior’s age (75) a factor in the conviction?
Did the man’s heritage (Oriental) enter the deliberations?
Would a small child’s demise have been treated more seriously?
Would a child’s death elicit more community outrage?
The cyclist was very remorseful apparently. Wouldn’t anyone be?
If he hadn’t been remorseful would he be awarded a bigger fine?
If the victim or cyclist had been female, would the case have been treated differently?
Was the cyclist only charged with a violation of the Traffic Act?
Although the death was an accident, was there a need for greater punishment?
What kind of punishment would have been appropriate.?
Was justice served or not?
What kind of closure did the family expect?
Are we really seeking justice or revenge?
As the questions raced through my mind, I thought that this story was very unique. A person was killed accidentally following a traffic violation, but the killer was only fined for his involvement. The accidental killer will be affected for the rest of his life by the incident and yet the serious end result of his illegal action did not enter into the verdict. The tragedy of the death of the elderly Chinese man had a major impact on his family and friends, and yet there was no meaningful closure for the family. It seems like everyone - the victim, his family, and the cyclist all lost because of the incident. There were no winners at the end of the trial. I thought it was a most unusual story with some very unique elements that I have not encountered before. Very frustrating and very sad for me!
How do you feel about the story?
3 comments:
I would make a horrible judge. However, my feeling immediately after reading the story is that we have become complacent in application of the law. It happens in some of our homes where discipline of our young people and consequences do not exist. In my career as a counsellor, I listened to young people already in trouble with the law, saying my parents gave me rules but they never followed through. It would have taken work.. I believe the consequences of that kind of parenting reflects in many of our youth as they become adults.
So where am I going with this. Well, I think rules are made for the protection of all and they must be consistent and followed. He did go through a red light. He killed someone.
If someone kills someone, having pre-meditated over it, they should be locked up forever, not for punishment, simply to protect the rest of us. If someone loses their cool and kills someone, they too should be locked up, for the protection of the rest of us. And they shouldn't be released until the rest of us are sure we're safe.
But where someone causes another's death unwittingly, we in New Zealand call it manslaughter. Not sure if Canada has such a law. Fatal traffic accidents are often manslaughter - a death was caused but not deliberately.
And then there's negligence or carelessness. And Ken's example is in this category. The cyclist was careless and as a result, an innocent 75 year old man died. That careless person should be locked up and rehabilitated so that next time there's not another death by their carelessness.
Last year, in New Zealand, 15 year old Nathan Kraatskow was hit by a car driven by 19 year old Rouxle Le Roux. She had been drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, and didn't have a driving licence. He was on a bicycle. Her car hit the boy on the bike and she drove off. Hit and run, we call it. In court, the Judge said she had had a tough childhood. Nathan's parents' separated when he was 5 years old. The Judge said she had shown remorse. But she'd posted jokes about it on her social media. The Judge sentenced Rouxle Le Roux to 11 months of home detention. Effectively she was grounded for 11 months. Nathan died at scene.
No, she didn't premeditate his death. Will 11 months of having to stay at home teach her anything? Will the rest of us be safe from her carelessness?
But there's more... the incident happened at about 11:00PM. Nathan wasn't wearing a helmet, but he was wearing earphone, listening to music. And he was riding through a red light when he was hit.
It was a school night so he should've been at home asleep. He shouldn't;t have been listening to music. He should've bene wearing a helmet. And he shouldn't have been riding through a red light. But none of those 'crimes' have a death penalty.
It is amazing that so many of us think in this fashion and yet our elected officials and legal minds bend and twist the rules under the umbrella of "human rights". What about "victim's rights"?
Post a Comment