No Jail Time, Either--Next Up, Sylvania?

What do you think would be an appropriate sentence, Wulf?

From the WTVG story:

So the driver didn't directly hit the motorcyclist, but it still seems a light sentence, since the driver should not have been behind the wheel. No big deal, I guess. Just a poor choice by the driver.

I assume Wulf's Sylvania reference is related to last month's fatal accident that killed a student.

Jan 24, 2010 - WTOL - Police complete investigation into crash that killed student :

Jan 25, 2010 - Toledo Blade - Investigation into Northview student’s death may take weeks :

A few years ago, a student in neighboring Oregon was killed at a bus stop by a driver distracted by a cell phone.

Blade story :

Well, if a person gets caught for DWI, they get three days in jail, upon conviction. The taking of another persons L-I-F-E should result in a minimum sentence as well, at least thirty days, period. The problem is with judges, who are elected, and judge in many cases, as their constituents vote. That's why their discretion should be curtailed with minimum sentencing guidelines.

Wulf - aren't minimum sentencing guidelines partly responsible for the overcrowding in prisons ?
There are many people in prisons that simply do not belong there.
Sentencing alternatives could be employed by the sentencing court.

Each case should be judged individually.
There is no justice when 'cookie-cutter' justice is dispensed.

Yeah, and not enough floor space is another reason prisons are overcrowded, too. There are also lots of people on the street who don't belong running around loose, either.

There is something wrong when DWI advertisements are on the radio and tv for defense attorneys. These ads tell you they can help you get out of charges and save your license. This is a clear sign that attorneys have gone way too far. Instead of healthcare reform, we need to review our legal system. Enforce the laws, make the punishments more strict, reduce the number of appeals, and for goodness sake stop the stupid lawsuits that only make attorneys richer.

If we took all the piece of shit rapists, child molestors and killers out of jails and carried out the sentence they deserve we'd have plenty of room for this woman to carry out a sentence of some type. Not to mention the millions upon millions of dollars the taxpayers would save every year.

Blast from the past:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090710/NEWS02/907109969

I think all involved and their families have suffered enough...

understand, wulf, that floor space is NOT the answer to overcrowding.
Prisons are capacity-driven instruments.

If you increase your bed space, sentencing judges will fashion their sentences
accordingly and fill those beds.

We can not build our way out of this problem.
It is like a dog chasing it's tail, in a way.

As in so many other problems in life,
the answer is in education.

We need to allow judges to utilize the full availability of resources
of their courts. This is in an effort to construct a sentence that will accomplish as many
as possible of the criminal justice system's sentencing goals.
Community-Based Correctional Facilities are a very effective sentencing alternative.
They attempt to educate the offender and hopefully to change his/her ways.

Minimum sentencing guidelines put some people in prison that do not need to be there.
It is important to use the beds that we do have to house the most violent offenders.

I believe it has been proven that you cannot "reform" or "correct" a sexual predator. They are like that for whatever reason and will remain that way.

Most crimes of sexual predators are crimes of violence, hf.
Those predators are part of the group that needs to be incapacitated.

Anyone who has an extensive traffic record, and causes an accident resulting in an innocent person being KILLED-should go right straight to J-A-I-L! Make that "effing" J-A-I-L. The same goes for the slug that killed the student in Sylvania.

I drove by the accident scene last summer, shortly after it happened. The body was still lying in the street, but with a white sheet stretched over it. Parts of the sheet were red, where blood had soaked through.

I just remember thinking what was probably going through the mind of the motorcyclist, in the 1 or 2 seconds before he collided with the car that got pushed in to his lane. His last thoughts were probably "This is how it all ends."

Why did the judge just give her a slap on the wrist ?

Driving on a suspended license, she should have received a harsher sentence than would normally be appropriate.

what if she had a slight seizure just prior to ?

i meant that for Wulf.

Did anybody catch the last part (few seconds) of the ABC News video at the link, at the top of the page ?

ABC's Lee Conklin quipped....that Leigh Bishop had resolved her traffic fines in Michigan, and was driving with insurance the past few months. Huh ? There should have been a law in place, that would have automatically suspended her license for a minimum of another 6 months, for driving with a suspended license back in August - (when she caused the accident).

What about this case in Sylvania, with the 66 year old lady that ignored the flashing lights of a school bus ?

I don't know - Wulf is making some kind of crystal-ball projection.

I will make one for you, wulfster....
don't ever sell ex-prosecutor Judge Ramey short....
he can hand out the whoopin's with the best of them.

"What about this case in Sylvania, with the 66 year old lady that ignored the flashing lights of a school bus?"

Officials are apparently compiling data and evidence to carefully bring the correct charges which, I should think, are much more severe than the charges police could have filed at the scene. Once charges are filed they can’t be changed from a misdemeanor to a felony, for example.

"Idrove by the accident scene last summer, shortly after it happened. The body was still lying in the street, but with a white sheet stretched over it. Parts of the sheet were red, where blood had soaked through.
I just remember thinking what was probably going through the mind of the motorcyclist, in the 1 or 2 seconds before he collided with the car that got pushed in to his lane. His last thoughts were probably "This is how it all ends."

This strikes a nerve.

The next time you drive think about someone pulling in front of you and you try to take evasive action but it’s too late.

There is that second or less that you know there’s nothing you can do; you are suddenly faced with an external locus of control, a total resignation to fate.

“This is how it all ends" You wonder.

Such a fate happened to me and a friend while on motorcycles. We both hit, he died, and I walked away.

Flesh and bone can’t compete with steel, glass, and concrete.

I don’t know where I’m going with this other than to remind all to drive carefully. I've had my warning.

Intent is key in cases like this. This woman had no criminal intent, nor did she act recklessly. It is mere neglignece that causes traffic accidents. That is why they are called "accidents." She was negligent in operating her vehicle, that is all.

If the dead man was in a car, he would not have been injured, and we would not be taliking about this subject, although the woman Wulf wants to throw in J-A-I-L would have committed the exact same offense of simple negligence.

"She was negligent in operating her vehicle, that is all."

I don't think "that is all" with this woman/case.

A suspended license. Does that mean the woman was not supposed to be operating her vehicle? If so, the motorcyclist is still alive if the woman obeyed the law regarding her driving privileges.

From the news story, it's obvious the woman was caught being "negligent" with her vehicle multiple of times prior to the accident that killed the man. She's a menace. She refused to pay fines. Plural. She has no regard for laws. She has no understanding of penalties. To me, this is why the spineless judge made a mistake here. It appears the judge condones dangerous driving.

It was not an accident with this woman. It's habitual behavior. Her history shows she chooses to violate driving laws. She chooses to be a danger to other motorists.

well spoken, jr.

Tough wood Co. case!
McClure man gets 39 years in fatal crash >>

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100204/NEWS02/2040389

The judge in this case, IMO, could be worrying public support for the driver could mean a loss in the next election, especially if he's in a close race. How else could his reprehensible "sentence" be explained?

Jr. nailed it. You don't get your license suspended for just anything. If it had been due to a DUI the story would have said so. So she must have had a fairly large number of citations to get it suspended.
She basically told the court, f.u., and drove anyway.
This "sentence" is tantamount to spitting on the corpse of the victim. Disgusting.

And what do you folks think the chances of this person paying her new fine are? Somewhere between slim, and none, I'm sure.

..and what are the odds she continues driving?
Like a friend of mine said, "gee sure glad the judge suspended her already suspended license".

Why all the hate from you two guys?

There are numerous ways to have your license suspended. If she didn't pay a ten dollar fine at any court in Ohio, that court can issue a license cancellation on the first day the fine is late. Her suspension could be as simple as that. But you two make all kinds of assumptions to work yourselves into a frenzy. Get a grip.

Actually jeep maker you can have your license suspended without ever having a traffic violation. All you have to do is drive without insurance, or have a registered car that is not insured (whether you drive it or not), and you can have your license suspened. They even send out random request for proof of insurance with a date in the past (so you can't just run out and get insurance, if you can't show that you had insurance on that day you lose your license for (either 60 or 90 days can't remember which) plus then you have to get an SR22 before they will reinstate your license.

You can also get your license suspended for not paying child support.

Not saying that's the case here, but not many people know that little tidbit.

A note about negligence...

Criminal negligence exists, it's what creates negligent homicide (IE: Vehicular Manslaughter).

Despite the fact that there was no intent to kill a man (IE: mens rea), the driver can still be put in prison if it is deemed that she was driving negligently. In fact, significant prison time is possible with a vehicular manslaughter conviction.

She STILL thumbed her nose at the court. She was ordered NOT to drive, and drove anyway. She caused the death of someone and doesn't get worse then 100 days electronic monitoring?

Johnny, just be glad it wasn't you or a family member.

An accident can happen to anyone, but in her case it WOULDN'T have happened if she had not been driving illegally.

There is no such thing as "criminal negligence" in Ohio.

A person cannot go to prison upon conviction for Vehicular Homicide or for Vehicular Manslaughter. These are misdemeanors. The VH carries up to 180 days, and the VM cariies up to only 90 days, and only in jail, not ODRC.

In order to go to prison (Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction), one would have to be convicted of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide, which requires a higher level of proof of recklessness on the part of the defendant. That wasn't even charged here. This woman was charged with the lowest level of offense that results in a death.

There are thousands of people driving cars right now around Toledo who are under suspension. Being under suspension rarely has anything to do with the person's skills as a driver. More often than not, it is a penalty imposed on drivers by the State of Ohio who do not have the financial means to pay for fines/auto insurance/child support/reinstatement fees and the like. Welcome to reality.

Apologies, I was not very clear. All I was attempting to say was that just because she didn't mean to, doesn't mean she couldn't go to prison. I was not advocating one way or the other, merely stating that the possibility for the prosecutor to charge her under the ORC was possible in a result of prison sentence.

And yes, the charge would have had to be Aggravated Vehicular Homicide to result in felony prison term. Thanks for clarifying that.

I'm glad you know the difference between J-A-I-L, and prison. Which do you think is worse?

Prison is worse, generally speaking. There are exceptions, such as club fed.

She was driving on a suspended licsense! There must have been a reason, she caused an accident that resulted in someones death...she deserves to spend some time behind bars. By giving her no jail time she now thinks the system is soft and will not think twice about breaking the law again.

Hey Johnnymac what if she would have killed someone in your family??? You still gonna feel the same way??? I don't think so. Is she your sister...girlfriend??? Wake up fool!!!

It was an accident. Whenever you step out into the world, bad things can happen. I would not be happy, for sure, but her license being suspended has nothing to do with the causation of the accident, and I don't think that would factor in to my grieving process.

By the way, she is serving 100 days on the electronic monitoring unit, which does restrict her freedom, and costs about $10 a day. Is that enough to satisy the blood lust around here? Probably not.

If a drunk driver can get mandatory time, so can a negligent driver whose actions result in an innocent person getting killed. A monitoring unit doesn't restrict someones freedom anywhere near as much as a coffin does.

JohnnyMac said:

Got it. We should blame the dead man for engaging in a legal form of transportation instead of the woman driving illegally on a suspended license.

JohnnMac added

Got it. The woman's illegal driving is justified because "everyone" is breaking the law.

What's the point of a driver's license law if? Make it voluntary for people to obtain a valid form of identification.

JohnnyMac also said:

Then how does the person afford a vehicle to drive: maintenance, fuel? If you cannot afford auto insurance, then ride TARTA. You shouldn't be driving.

Another reality is some people get into a financial mess by making stupid, personal life decisions, so how does that justify breaking the law?

Sorry, gotta agree with those who say she should have gotten more than an ankle bracelet.

Accident or not, she killed someone. Her actions directly caused a persons death. It's not about blood lust. I'm not suggesting that she should get the death penalty, but more than what she did get would make me feel a little better about the justice system.

About the ankle bracelet-it does cost about ten bucks a day. And, people who go to jail now have to pay room and board. But, if you don't have any money, in either case, you won't go to jail for not paying-the total gets added to the rest of the bills these people can't, and won't be forced to pay. And the actual cost is of course, picked up by the taxpayer.

From JohnnyMac: Why all the hate from you two guys?

Likely they see this as a massive injustice which triggers the same emotional response that inevitably leads to lynching, crucifixion and more gun control laws.

From JR: Then how does the person afford a vehicle to drive: maintenance, fuel? If you cannot afford auto insurance, then ride TARTA. You shouldn't be driving.

Easy. People can afford to buy an inexpensive car, do their own maintenance and scrape together gas money to get to work. Auto insurance doesn't even appear on their list of necessities. The list is already overcrowded by rent, food, clothing, doctor visits, the dentist when the toothache gets so bad it will drive you out of your mind and a choice between the electric bill or the gas bill. If you want these people off the road xor insured, build a public transportation system that works or make auto insurance affordable. Currently we have neither.

I would also like to note that we do have the technology to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving a car, such as an RFID chip in the car and a card reader for the license. No one has even tried to suggest anything like this be implemented.

Another reality is some people get into a financial mess by making stupid, personal life decisions, so how does that justify breaking the law?

It doesn't, and no one is suggesting otherwise. In this case the punishment is fitting the crime: Vehicular Homicide. The driver was operating without insurance and with a suspended license, and she can be punished for those two crimes separately.