MY TVC 1 5
Sean I recommend you do a search of the archives for the posts at the time. I think debate was pretty heated (mostly because of his actions). I'm not quite sure how he can say he wasn't drunk - the reports at the time had him breathalised and (well?) over the legal limit. Worse than this was that he'd been stopped shortly before the accident happened by the police for driving carelessly (i might be making this bit up but i think i heard that the first policeman who stopped him recognised him and let him off with a warning). The what ifs about this case are crushing because of how innocent lives might ahve been spared.
Originally Posted by SeaniBu
Opinion seems to be divided on whether he's best going to prison to serve his time for causing someone's death, or whether being free and able to work to pay compesation to the families affected is better. I'm honestly not sure but err more on the side of him doing time for committing the crime.
~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~
Are you sure this did not happen in Canada? It sounds like our Justice System. Time after time, felons get a slap on the wrist in Canada and do their "jail" time in the luxury of their own home. We did finally get justice though for one case. A couple of young men were deported back to their country after killing a woman in a hit and run accident. They were street racing in their fancy fast car. It took two or three years to deport one of them. I think we need to be more like Australia when it comes to deportation.
It does sound like Maxim is remorseful though and wants to do what is right.
I think it is perfectly fair ... I am glad he did not receive any jail-time though it is lamentable his skating career is as good as over ... :(
I'm not versed in Bulgarian law. In fact, I am not even versed in US Law on this matter.
A victim lie dead!
Some say it was accidental and not intentional. What's the penalty?
Some say, like me, it was negligence due to alcohol intoxiation. What is the penalty?
Justice isn't supposed to be based on how much money you have. I know that's practically a joke anymore, but I refuse to just accept it silently. So if I have 10 billion dollars, I can just run people over all day and pay their families a few million each time? He should be in jail for whatever time a poor person would be in jail. If he was drunk he was drunk, if it killed someone then he is to blame and should therefore take responsibility. He made a choice to drink and drive and/or to drive irresponsibly, as a result someone is DEAD. Human life should simply never have a dollar figure on it. He should be in jail. How long, I don't know, but it should be measured in years at least.
Off the ice
As Ant pointed out, there was already a long discussion on the subject of Staviski, and drunk driving in general, a few months ago. At the time he'd just gotten two and a half years, which he obviously appealed. Here's my two cents (I know you disagree at least in part, Ant):
Personally, I think that unless someone has no conscience and no ability to feel empathy for others - and those are psychiatric disorders, BTW - then living with the knowledge that you killed another person through thoughtlessness, recklessness or stupidity is far worse than anything the legal system can impose. People who drive drunk don't think "Cool, I'll just run over some people, nobody will care". They either don't think, or their judgement is impaired and they think they are perfectly safe on the road. Which obviously they are not.
Not that a person who caused a vehicular homicide shouldn't be punished, but I don't think tougher prison sentences would deter people from drinking and driving; is that what's stopping all of us from driving drunk? I don't think it is. Prevention programs, increased enforcement of existing laws and police presence on the roads, where drunk drivers can be stopped, and appropriate sentences for non-fatal DUIs - that seems to me as an effective way of dealing with this issue. And, I must say, it's not just drunk driving that's dangerous; there are other situations in which a driver's judgement and abilities might be impaired.
Staviski was stopped on the road and released. That's a law enforcement failure. The victims could have been alive and well if Staviski hadn't been criminally reckless, but they could also have been saved if the police officer who stopped him had done his job. As for the actual penalty, I have no idea what the average sentence is like for a similar offense is in Bulgaria, so I'd rather not comment on that.
Wicked Yankee Girl
People drive while doing all sorts of things that impair their ability to drive. I have seen people watching TV, knitting, applying makeup,and playing with their IPOD. My pet peeve is texting while driving.
People make this choice all the time. And it can be a fatal choice. This is a choice people make when sober, and in full control of themselves.
Texting caused the worse train wreck here in 15 years.
Would you recommend jail sentences for texters as long as drunk drivers? What sentence do you recommend if there is a texting fatality?
Dedicated follower of the black line
The reason people drive drunk, or while texting, or while doing anything distracting is because they believe that other people can't drive while doing this, but I can. I think driving instruction needs to include more emphasis on the consequences of driving while distracted.
I once read a Washington Post article about a guy who was seen by numerous readers driving on the Beltway while playing the tuba! He had part of the tuba sticking out the window and I think he was seen steering with his knees. The writer of the article was desperately trying to find the guy and talk to him, but was not successful.
yes I would... judgement is impaired with drunk driving, but you didn't start out that way. You CHOSE to drink you CHOSE how much to drink and then impaired or not you CHOSE to get behind the wheel.
Originally Posted by dorispulaski
same thing with texting you CHOSE to flip open that phone and you CHOSE to take your eyes and mind off the road and you CHOSE to drive and text. If it results in an accident your butt should be nailed just as hard...
I once witnessed an elderly woman rolled over by a bus. The woman had slipped in the snow from the sidewalk and landed in the street. No one was drunk. The driver did not see the woman slip into the street. The question was about the possibility of negligence.
Stavisky's case is that he drove while intoxicted. This is clearly negligence.
if the first case is ruled accidental, what should the penalty be?
If neglegence is the cause of Stavisky's 'accident', what should the penalty be?
Maybe different countries rule these two possibilities differently.
I don't want to get into the merits of this specific case at all.
Originally Posted by SeaniBu
But I think the meaning of the word "accident" allows for the possibility that no one was at fault even if someone dies as a result. Sometimes everyone does the best they can, but circumstances happen to come together in such a way that produces a bad result.
There's lots of things that are very dangerous for road traffic and aren't punished, at least not where I live. For example, people who are riding their bike while listening to music on their Ipod or talking on the phone. This is just as dangerous as DUI or while texting, eating, smoking or any other activity.
In any case, I don't think we can say 'they did it voluntarily, they have to be put in jail' and then feel so great because we critisized the legal system. It's not that easy. Even if we took that legal action. We'd put millions of people into jail every day if that were the case. We could of course do that but it'd be an action carried out in order to compel others to obey. That's definitely not what we need. Maybe people would stop doing it because they don't want to go to jail. But how many people would still do it because they believe they won't be caught? A lot, I believe. There's that tendency to believe that it just won't affect them, only some strangers that they don't know. What we need is raise awareness about the consequences driving while being distracted by texting, drinking etc. can have. And when saying consequence I do not only mean legal actions, but emotional, personal impacts that'd have on one's life.
Last edited by Alicja; 05-29-2009 at 02:28 PM.
Ummm... you're trying to argue that prison sentences deter intentional crimes, but not personal carelessness? That makes no sense.
Originally Posted by Buttercup
We have seatbelt laws here. I would wear my seatbelt anyway, but sometimes there's a situation where I am in a car for less than 2 minutes, and/or I am trying to reach my wallet or something, and I think "I don't really have to have my seatbelt on for less than 2 minutes", then I think "well, this could be the 2 minutes some jerk policeman sees me and fines me for not having my seatbelt on even though I always wear it" and I usually put it on.
Of COURSE monetary and other punishments are deterrents to careless behavior. Just because they would never stop it completely doesn't mean they aren't deterrents.