I understand the reasoning and why he was sentenced, I'm just not sure I entirely agree with that logic. Accidents do happen, and why should someone automatically be presumed to be guilty just because they might have been at fault because they were doing something they weren't supposed to. It could have been a glass of beer instead. Do we automatically assume that if he hit someone it was because of the beer?

What I'm saying is the connection between weed and this accident doesn't seem entirely clear cut.

From what I have researched, these types of cases are fairly common, and the sentences are often a lot longer than 8 years. How often is it just a coincidence that the person behind the wheel was doing something they weren't supposed to do (drugs, alcohol, texting, etc) and then there was a fatal accidental crash?

Some people may say that's for the courts to decide, but from what I've looked into, the courts don't always seem to be very good at making correct decisions in these situations. At the end of the day it's just someone's personal opinion.

When I am turning left (or right) across a crosswalk at an intersection, whether I have a green light/arrow or not, I LOOK AT THE CURB to see if any pedestrians are approaching. They ALWAYS have the right of way, green arrow or no, unless there is a pedestrian signal indicating otherwise. Even if they cross against the signal, it is a driver's responsibility to yield. Didn't they teach that in driver's ed?

First you say you didn't see the accident. Then you start adding details that indicate that you DID see the accident -- and they are contradictory: "The truck was going kind of fast, though" " The truck wasn't going that fast" "But he accelerated kind of fast".

"The truck must have merely bumped them" How would you know that? "I don't think he had smoked a lot of it" Again, how would you know?

Sounds to me like you are a friend of the driver, perhaps even one of the others in the truck, or are someone who also drives under the influence and doesn't want to face the fact that that is, in fact, a crime.

He had smoked pot, was driving a 2 ton deadly weapon and got into a fatal accident. It seems like any one with a brain can make the correlation. There is no such thing as being just slightly stoned - you either are or you aren't. It is not the same as drunk driving - that's why they have 'legal limits' for alcohol and zero tolerance for dope. If you smoke or ingest pot you are impaired. Period!!

First you say you didn't see the accident. Then you start adding details that indicate that you DID see the accident -- and they are contradictory: "The truck was going kind of fast, though" " The truck wasn't going that fast" "But he accelerated kind of fast".

I saw enough to be able to make several inferences. This happened a while ago so I may not be remembering all the details completely clearly. The truck was going a faster than it should have been, for that particular situation, but it was not going fast if we compare it to normal driving speed on a road not in that downtown area. I think he just accelerated too fast as he was turning.

I believe the old man had a cane and the woman might have been using a walker (a little one), but I might not be remembering that accurately.

"I don't think he had smoked a lot of it" Again, how would you know?

I can't remember exactly. I just remember that was the perception I had at the time. There could be a few details I am forgetting.

I suppose it's even possible he might not have smoked at all, but they just assumed he did because the entire inside of the truck smelled like it, and I think there could have been a marijuana leaf design on his shirt too. So he might have had marijuana in his blood system if they did a test, but as has been prior mentioned in this thread, that does not necessarily mean he had been smoking that day. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to charge him even if there was no absolute evidence he personally had been smoking that day.

I do think I remember looking at his eyes, they didn't seem to be unusually red. (I might have been 28 feet or so away)

It does seem unlikely to me that, since he was with his friends, he hadn't smoked at all that day. The guys were being very rambunctious in the truck, I believe, shouting stuff right before the crash (or maybe I'm misremembering that). I think the truck might have been stopped at the intersection as I was crossing the street.

The couple were laying 3 feet in front of the truck, the truck had gone just slightly beyond the crosswalk area, and I don't think the truck had reversed (because I looked up as soon as I heard the screech of the breaks), so I'm assuming they must have bounced off. Even 15mph can do that when there's enough force behind the object.

I Can leave out the weed from the equation and he is still as guilty! He was the one in control of a large vehicle which in his hand, became a deadly weapon. Screw the pot, the guy broke several laws and acted in a reckless way which resulted in death and serious destruction of humans.

To much is hinky about this story. Again I ask why was he exiting the truck from the passengers side? Was he the driver? Why not exit his side? He was not paying attention to the situation he was in, he was distracted, he was playing with a loaded gun oh no oops a giant truck! Not much difference. Death occurred.

Why is all the impetus put on the driver?

Because the pedestrians had the right of way! As I wrote earlier, even if not high, the driver was still in the wrong.

Your personal opinion is also wrong. The cane does not matter. A walker does not matter. What they were discussing does not matter. The ages of the victims, or the driver don't automatically matter (I say automatically only because certain things do have age-influencers, but they do not apply in this case.)

I'm sorry, I meant the drivers side, not the passenger side. Too late to go back and edit that now.

I mentioned their age and fragile bodies because it seemed like there likely would not have been as much injury if their bodies had been younger or stronger. What happened to them, seeing them laying there, seemed out of proportion to the force of what hit them, especially considering that the teenager had (apparently) floored the brakes right before bumping them.

To say it again, the truck hit them as it was making a 90 degree turn (right at the end of making such a turn, rather). He couldn't have been going that high of a speed when turning in such a situation. Probably like a football linebacker.

I also suspect that if the couple had been more agile they might have been able to get out of the way before being hit. There was probably a second of time where they realized a truck was about to hit them. The older man seemed pretty deep in thought and the woman was attentively focused and listening to him. When I saw them they were not paying much attention to what was going on around them.

This was not a high speed accident. What happened to the couple seemed unreal. How could a bump cause a man to be strewn laying over another person and leave both unconscious?

If it had happened to a younger stronger person it probably would have just knocked them over and maybe caused a bad bruise. I suspect the fall might have been what killed her (especially with the man laying on top of her), not the actual force of the collision itself.

I understand your empathy for the driver, parker. He will be incarcerated during what should be the best years of his life, but as someone else said, he didn't lose his life and will still be very young when he gets out. Hopefully, many other teens will remember his accident and make better choices because of the consequences.

Regardless, 8 years is nothing compared to a life lost and her partner's suffering, both physical and emotional.

Since you feel so strongly that the intersection is particularly dangerous and could have contributed to this accident, you might consider trying to get changes made to make it safer. Your city or state should have records of all accidents there for some years back. That would be a start.

If it had happened to a younger stronger person it probably would have just knocked them over and maybe caused a bad bruise. I suspect the fall might have been what killed her (especially with the man laying on top of her), not the actual force of the collision itself.

Now you are just inventing stuff. When a one or two ton truck hits a 200 pound object, whether that object is young or old or a mailbox is not going to make a lot of difference, it is going to be damaged..

Why did you come here, insult old people , disrespect judicial process (did you write the judge?), and minimize drug use? Really, why did you post this?

A driver operated a vehicle improperly and struck a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The accident killed the pedestrian, that's a felony. Nothing else matters.

8 years is too light a sentence,

parker, your comments are shocking to me.

His crime was accelerating too fast around the turn. Then he wasn't able to stop fast enough when the couple, not paying attention, walked right into the crosswalk. They were maybe 5 feet from the sidewalk too.

It's kind of hard to see pedestrians down below right in front of you when you're in such a high truck. So the driver probably didn't have much time to react.

One would THINK that when you see a green arrow telling you it's okay to turn that would mean that the crosswalk sign for that crossing would be red, telling people not to walk. But that wasn't the case.

If I can just ask another hypothetical, what would you think if the couple had started crossing when the light was red (illegally) ?

Honestly, give it a rest. Haven't you noticed that this is clear to everyone but you?

I know that but I have difficulty accepting that. The world is not just.

But you said "He was smoking, but I don't think that much" Either you know, or you don't know. If you don't know you can't assume that the sentence is unfair or unnecessary. From what I've read, it was both fair and necessary. The driver was criminally careless in several ways.

So now you say that the couple were walking with a cane and a walker, but even though you passed them, heard their conversation, and viewed the scene, you aren't sure of that. Well one thing, if they need those assist devices to walk, they weren't moving that fast, and couldn't move so quickly into the intersection (five feet?) that one second they weren't there, then the next they were.

If you almost hit someone, in an intersection that you know to be difficult, then YOU need to be more careful.

I already answered your hypothetical. In my state, the responsibility to yield to pedestrians, and to avoid an accident, rests with the driver.

Keep in mind that the truck hit them as it entered the crosswalk, they were in the crosswalk, but the truck's front was past the crosswalk and they landed several feet even further. The force of the hit threw them that far, it wasn't just a bump, and that could severely injure or kill any age of pedestrian -- all it takes is to strike the head on the pavement.

They didn't seem like they relied on their cane or walker too much, they just had it with them. They probably started walking at a brisker pace the moment the pedestrian light turned white and they entered the intersection.

As I stated before, the teen was actually from out of town, so in all likelihood he wasn't aware of the peculiarities of that intersection, and probably didn't have much familiarity driving through that type of downtown situation. It can be really difficult and kind of dangerous if you're not familiar driving through a downtown like that. You're not even sure whether the next street is going to be right or left way only, so you have to be constantly paying attention, and that can distract you from paying attention to other things.

probably

That word has been in nearly all of your posts, showing that your posts are not factual.

People, just stop replying to this nonsense. Parker, for some reason, is trying to justify the actions of this stoned driver. Pretty soon this thread will have hundreds of replies. Just stop, and it will go away.

I know people say "He was smoking weed (illegal) and drove his car into someone killing them, end of story"

But people drive cars all the time, and accidents are bound to happen on occasion. Especially when somebody else walks right in front of your path! Yes, it was illegal for him to smoke while driving, or before getting into the car, no matter how little. But should we automatically hold him responsible for any accident simply because he was not following the law? That's a question that should be asked and thought should be given to it.

To say "he was stoned so he crashed into someone" is a non-sequitur.

One does not automatically follow the other.

I'm not against holding people responsible for what they cause, but only when they deserve it. I question whether that's truly the case here. Not saying he shouldn't have been punished at all, but 8 years does seem much beyond what he deserves, in my personal opinion. And if the punishment was more than what he deserved, however bad the accident may have been, that's not right.

Even if he was sentenced to only two years, and suspension of his license, wouldn't that be enough to deter other drivers to be more careful?

"The truck was going a faster than it should have been, for that particular situation, but it was not going fast if we compare it to normal driving speed on a road not in that downtown area. I think he just accelerated too fast as he was turning."

"As I stated before, the teen was actually from out of town, so in all likelihood he wasn't aware of the peculiarities of that intersection, and probably didn't have much familiarity driving through that type of downtown situation."

AND he was smoking,or at the very least breathing in the smoke-AND he had music too loud-AND he is from an area that is rural,so he doesn't"know" that intersection......

I am rural-learned to operate a vehicle rurally over 45 years ago-that sure as he!! doesn't give me an excuse to not know the rules of the road ANYWHERE.

Ignorance of the law and the rules of the road is NO excuse for anyone operating a vehicle......it is a "privilege" to use a motorized vehicle on the road-NOT a right....and these kids abused it all...simple as that.

8 years for cutting short 2 lives...no,he didnt get enough time-and just maybe he'll learn something from this-but I doubt it.

I'm out of here. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Here's the news story. That "old" woman was only 61.... News Story - MUCH more to the story

I don't believe you are honestly representing the facts, parker; correct me if I am wrong, but this is where the stories sent me. Olympia, Washington on google maps. The report states he was turning from 4th Avenue (left) onto Columbia Street. I don't see any visual obstructions, dangerous/tricky intersection style or parked cars that would obstruct views. In fact, the signal light (Google map dated Sept. 2016) shows a green light with no turn arrow.

ETA: left

That old lady probably didn't have a huge number of years longer to live anyway, and 8 years will pretty much ruin the best part of this teen's life.

What a truly disgusting comment!

Here the rule is that, green light notwithstanding, drivers _must_ give way to pedestrians crossing the road. I'm amazed it's not the case there.

And as for your contention that a younger, fitter person would have survived, so many young, fit people here have died as the result of being hit and falling to the pavement and hitting their heads, that they've made a special law to deal with such cases. You are talking through your hat.

One thing dear Parker here has left out of the "facts" is that not only did the jerk driving a Ford F 250 truck hit these people he then slammed on his brakes and backed over them!

"Dishon reportedly told officers that he didn’t see the couple crossing the street because he was “looking back” while turning left onto Columbia Street. He said that when he hit them, he put on his brakes and then backed over them."

GEE pretty important fact left out.

So the story we are told is he barely bumped these 2 ancient people who could barely walk, to the actual facts of the story, they were in fact healthy individuals she 61 years old a Yale graduate and a graduate of religious studies who was in fact herself a minister, were not impaired and were legally crossing in a marked crosswalk! Jared the driver admitted he wasn't looking where he was driving but instead looking at something behind him.

Now I would like to ask Parker. If you were the one that had been walking a bit slower and you were the one run over then backed over and let's allow you to live but be paralyzed from the neck down for life with internal injuries too. What would your feelings be towards Jared? You spend the rest of your life paralyzed enduring surgeries and who knows what, Jared he will be a free dude in just a few short years to enjoy his life to the fullest. What do you say Parker? Fair deal? You OK with that deal? And you get to live! Put your self in their place! It could have very very easily been you.

Those interested in the facts of the story read the article.

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article133011804.html

Parker this statement you made is absolutely baffling! OF COURSE IS THE ANSWER

"But should we automatically hold him responsible for any accident simply because he was not following the law? That's a question that should be asked and thought should be given to it."

HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW! Guilt applies!

And thinking a healthy happy 61 year old ladies life is worth only a 2 year sentence? What have you been smoking? She is younger than me. I can guess what you think I am valued at.

Again I think this is a trolling. I would much prefer to think that than to think someone among us is so callous and unfeeling and insensitive and truly believes human life is worth so little.

Rest in peace Maria.

Good grief! Parker, it pains me to read your responses -- no, let's call them what they are -- EXCUSES and FABRICATED ASSUMPTIONS.

The very first line of my first response to your post was this: "There is SO much going through my mind after reading your post..." I was so angered by so many things that you said, and now, coming back to the thread and reading what else you've written has made me even more outraged.

I am making one assumption here -- that you are a young punk with no respect for the law or for the lives of other human beings. There are so many parts of your multiple responses that I am tempted to copy/paste here and then respond to, but it would take too long because there are so many. I'll address just a few of them.

You are obviously not aware of the fact that deaths have been recorded in accidents where the vehicle was going only SIX MILES PER HOUR. You've said the truck was going (at least) more than twice that fast. You've also said that the driver was from out of the area and not familiar with that intersection, which is an argument for why he should have been driving extremely slowly and cautiously. All of the things you've described as his actions that day (or was it at night?) show reckless disregard for the life of others (not to mention your own disregard for the value of a human life if the person is already "too old" in your opinion).

Now, if you're still with me here, let's try to teach you something about the law. (Pay attention, because you'll probably need this knowledge in the future.) It's called the eggshell skull theory or the "you take your victim as you find him" rule. It means that the frailty of the victim is not a defense in a tort case. So, even if the "old lady probably didn't have a huge number of years longer to live anyway," the teenage driver is responsible for killing her even if "their bodies [were] so fragile."

Your descriptions of what happened, and of what you observed, are all over the place. And, by the way, you cannot tell how much weed someone has smoked by how red their eyes are. You wrote, "I do think I remember looking at his eyes, they didn't seem to be unusually red. (I might have been 28 feet or so away)" You THINK you remember looking at his eyes? What is the definition of "unusually red"? You were "28 feet or so away" and are legally qualified to render judgment on whether or not someone is impaired by looking at their eyes???

Prosecuting attorneys would LOVE to have you on the witness stand. They'd tear you a new one before you knew what happened.

"I'm not against holding people responsible for what they cause, but only when they deserve it. I question whether that's truly the case here." Yes, he deserves the sentence he was given. That is truly the case here.

"Even if he was sentenced to only two years, and suspension of his license, wouldn't that be enough to deter other drivers to be more careful?" In a word, no. Drunk drivers are sentenced to jail all the time. Does that deter others from drinking and driving? No, it doesn't. Neither does suspending someone's license. If they want to drive somewhere, they're going to drive somewhere whether they have that little card in their wallet or not.

As to your question "If I can just ask another hypothetical, what would you think if the couple had started crossing when the light was red (illegally) ?" The laws can vary greatly from state to state, and I am not familiar with the laws outside of California. But, in California, the pedestrian has the right of way in a crosswalk. There is a law that says, “No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.” CVC 21950(b). But, by your own description of the incident, the couple was already in the crosswalk and in the process of crossing the street when the truck hit them. So, in answer to your hypothetical question, I'd still say the driver would be at fault for hitting the couple, even if they did not have a green light to cross.

And I'd still feel the same way even if the driver had been stone cold sober, well rested, intelligent, educated, driving a small sedan, and 35 years old.

I don't know how old you are now. I don't know the age of the woman who died. But I do hope that you live to be that woman's age. And if you do, I hope that on your birthday that year, that you think back to this incident and ask yourself if you are willing to die right then and there because you "probably [don't] have a huge number of years longer to live anyway." In fact, you should ask yourself that question every single day, because you never know when someone might plow you down.

parker, Maybe the teen will straighten out his life now. Hanging with the wrong crowd could make it much worse than eight years (likely to be less) in prison. And none if it will bring back the life taken. (((hugs to the family and friends of those she left behind)))

Let's see - he killed a woman(age is immaterial), her husband lost his mate(and suffered serious injuries), her children lost their mother, her grandchildren lost their grandmother - all because some kid decided to smoke pot(for whatever reason) and drive. I think he's lucky to get off with 8 years. Maybe he'll learn something in prison.

This thread is...WOW! While I hate to see a young person sentenced to a substantial number of years in prison, this guy deserved more than he got. In addition to driving under the influence of marijuana, he was taking a medication used to treat opioid addiction! He doesn't sound like a fine upstanding young man.

As for the victim, she was 61 years old, so she probably had a number of good years left to live. She has a daughter; she was a minister who devoted her life to helping others. Her life mattered!

Parker, your sympathies are severely misplaced in this matter. Perhaps the young man will use his time to turn his life around; perhaps incarcerating him will save the lives of others--either directly, or indirectly through the message sent to others.

This is a classic example of why I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana!! If foolish people want to legalize its use, they should require users to sign a legally-binding statement that they will not drive for X number of hours following use...or will forever forfeit their driving privileges. I also wish people realized that marijuana IS harmful...it does have lasting effects on the body...and it is a gateway drug to "bigger and better" highs. Our local newspaper reported that more than half of all crimes in our little rural area are drug-related. That is tragic.

This thread is really suspect! parker, you say you witnessed this accident in Olympia WA and gave the impression that you were familiar with the area and the specific intersection in question and yet remarks in other of your posts indicate you live in Southern California............. So what's the deal? Did you just recently move? Or did you just make your 'participation' at the scene up? Considering your back pedaling and confusion of what you saw or didn't, I'm leaning towards the latter.

And giving you the benefit of the doubt that you DID actually witness the accident and are familiar with WA, then you should be aware that this state cracks down hard on vehicular homicide and even more so if drugs or alcohol involved. While WA state has legalized marijuana, it has also enacted a zero tolerance policy for driving while under the influence. The kid actually got a bit of a deal - what he did is a Class A felony and he could be spending 10 years in jail instead of only 8.

btw, Shelton is not all that "rural" an area. Yeah, it is out in the sticks a bit but Olympia is the closest 'big' city (only 22 miles away!!) and that's where all the kids go to party and hang out because there's much more action and activities of interest for the younger crowd than there is in a small town. I don't think for a minute the kid in question was unfamiliar to driving conditions there.

As to the actual sentence, it was worked out between the teen's attorney and the prosecutor with an admission of guilt.............so obviously the defendant recognizes his own culpability. It seems like you - for some unknown reason - are the only one who is questioning the sentence. Why is that??

I think you will have to hunt a very long time to find someone who will not agree that committing vehicular homicide while under the influence of any impairing substance should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If you are looking for support for your point of view, I doubt you will find any here.

OMG. What an incredible read! I'm slayed by it. Parker, you never have answered the questions about whether you know or are related to the driver.

Here's another picture of the "elderly woman" ....

And this is from another article about the accident, shortly after it happened:

"After striking the couple, Dishon backed over them. Dishon told police he did not see the couple because he was “looking back” during the turn, but looked forward in time to see the man grab Hoaglund in a hug and turn his back to the truck to protect her. "

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/crime/article73829442.html#storylink=cpy

Parker, I think you're inventing "alternative facts". I find your argument frightening.

Parker, I think you're inventing "alternative facts". I find your argument frightening.

He does the same thing on Hot Topics.

In spite of my comment above that I wouldn't come back here, I did. And I truly regret it now that I read that the OLD LADY WAS 61!!! OMG. I am 61.

I feel really, really devalued and hurt. You feel my life is nearly over and my usefulness is spent? Seriously?

Parker, if you were there, didn't the police and the DA speak with you?

When I first read OP original post, I thought it was to get reactions. I don't feel bad the kid got 8 years. Just the other day I coming up to a right hand turn at a light, it was red and I was getting ready to stop and then it turned green so I kept going to make my turn and low and behold someone was getting ready to step off the curb!! I didn't notice them till I was already making my turn.

When I wrote my long response in the middle of the night (it shows "17 hours ago"), the photo that Raven posted (showing "18 hours ago" although it's now immediately before my post) wasn't there. At the time I was writing, I hadn't seen any photos of the victim, I hadn't read any articles about the accident, I didn't know her name, and I didn't know her age.

Now, however, I have read several articles and have more knowledge about what happened. And I'm beginning to think that Parker must, indeed, either know or be related to Jared (the driver), or was possibly even one of the passengers in Jared's truck. I think that Parker's stated "observations" about the conversation of the victims, etc., are all alternative facts, proffered in a failed attempt to have us think that Jared got a raw deal.

The photos I have seen of Maria Hoaglund show me that she was anything but frail. None of the articles I have read about the accident or about Maria Hoaglund and her life and life's work mentioned anything about her using a walker. And isn't it convenient for Parker that both victims needed devices to assist them in walking -- Maria using a walker, and her companion using a cane. Obviously they didn't deserve to live because they were both so frail. It's a shame the man lived because, after all, he's in his sixties and doesn't have much time left anyway. [/sarcasm]

Parker seems to have such intimate detail of everyone and everything involved in this accident, but somehow failed to mention that, "... while Dishon has no violent-criminal history, his driving record contains infractions for following too closely, driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit, failure to stop at a signal and driving with his wheels leaving the roadway."

Another thing that has bothered me about Parker's musings is that with all of the outrage expressed about the grossly unfair sentence handed down (with Jared's attorney's blessing and agreement, by the way), Parker never once even came close to saying anything even remotely like, "gee, I'm just so glad that I passed the old people in the crosswalk so I was out of the way and didn't get hit myself."

I got the impression that the OP was really enjoying the telling of this tale.

Sounds like it was a "crash," something that could have been prevented (by not driving under the influence of drugs known to slow reflexes) - not an accident.

April 21, it would have been daylight. 6:30 PM and most of the shops, offices closed for the day. Intersection of 4th and Columbia

"... a bunch of teenagers being idiotic..."

The two passengers were adults. Still does not excuse anything.

And since his description of both the victims and the location of the accident are faulty, we can consider his version fiction.

comtessedelacouche -- are you aware of the actual facts of this accident? Jared was 19 years old at the time of the accident. That's a legal adult. He has had prior trouble with the law as far as his driving is concerned. Not sentenced to jail time before, so apparently giving him the benefit of the doubt hasn't done anything to help him "learn, grow and give back something to society."

I don't know what model year his truck is, but the current model year has a base price (depending on whether it is "regular cab," "super cab," or "crew cab" that starts at over $32,000 (base price on the "crew cab" is over $36,000). The curb weight of the truck (without all the options that can be added) is from 5,683 to 6,695 pounds, depending on which "cab size" it is. He didn't simply "bump" the pedestrians as Parker tried to make us believe. He ran over them, then backed up and ran over them a second time.

Note: My long post is a response to a similarly long post by a member here who then deleted her post. Rather than delete mine also, I have decided to leave it because I hope some of my thoughts are relevant to the whole series of conversations here.

However angry we may feel at the tragic consequences, it's clear that however long and how severe the punishment, it won't reverse what happened or bring back the poor lady who was killed, heal the gentleman's injuries any faster, or take the ache from the hearts of all concerned. Surely we have to ask ourselves what purpose is served here, that would not be equally well served by a 'short sharp shock' of jail time (not inconsiderable, if the tales we hear of what happens to 'pretty' young lads like that in jail are to be believed), a sizeable fine in relation to his potential earning power, and a long period of license cancellation along with some kind of rehabilitative programme and/or community service enabling the perpetrator to learn, grow and give back something to society.

There are a number of philosophy of law books that may help understand why societies have various consequences to prohibited criminal activity and the purpose of various sentences in relation to that criminal activity.

Certainly I believe it is just to hold people accountable for their actions, and while many systems of law have different rules for small children, at 19 those who are licensed drivers must be accountable for their driving. Age brings better judgment, but at 19 many have jobs, families, and are able to understand the consequences of their actions, and are able to perpetrate the sort of crimes that rules and law have been set up to handle that protect society.

While diminished capacity has long been a defense to some crimes, the legal response to those who voluntarily drink or take drugs that lead to diminished capacity has been overwhelmingly on the side of holding that person accountable, and they are held accountable in a similar manner to others, not merely given a slap on the wrist which is not an adequate response if protecting society is one of the goals of law.

In addition, there are a number of factors, some statutory, others that leave a judge with some leeway on sentence length.

And in addition to that, there are other practical factors such as the economy which come into play, in a downturn there may be less or no funding for rehab programs as you describe.

A particular sentence for a particular crime is always met with differing opinions, (the parties involved, their friends and family, readers) and it is exactly those differences that make the framework of law set up prior to the crime valuable.

I believe that the anger many felt here was directed, in addition to this heinous crime (you can argue youth and lack of judgment and mitigating circumstances all day long, but backing up over someone just run over is not an 'oops' action), at the way the OP presented the situation and at his professed feeling that some lives are worthier than others.

I don't believe a young person's years are worthier than an older person's years, as an older person myself, I object to and resent any thoughts that consequences for crimes against me should be discounted because of my age.

Thank you so much Lucille for that interesting and thoughtful response to my post. (I don't know why it disappeared - perhaps I was editing one or other of its botched sentences..) For now I just want to say that I particularly appreciated that you were able to stick to addressing the issue, challenging facts and opinions without personal attack on those with different, or perhaps just poorly expressed ideas. I know that's not always easy, by any means.

I'd be sad if this friendly forum were to fall into the type of endless seething rancour the Hot Topics forum wallows in daily when opposing views are expressed. My feeling is that it's a great thing to have a 'safe place' where one can discuss issues of public as well as purely private interest, just as one might with friends around the Kitchen Table - so long as it can be done (on the whole!) in a civilised, thoughtful and considerate manner, no matter what the differences of opinion. Others may see it differently...

I will try and get back to respond to some of your points, and those of others, later today.. :-)

The couple were walking with the light, in a properly designated space.

The truck entered that lane of traffic, when it was legitimately occupied, so they had the right of way. He didn't.

The driver is in the wrong, whether due to impairment, not watching the road, not judging that his trail of travel was occupied (or about to be), or for whatever reason.

Even had the couple been walking against the light, in many jurisdictions, apparently including this one, they are to be given the right of way.

Maybe a sentence that included less jail time and more community service, or, as in some indigenous circumstances/circles, a restorative requirement, might have been helpful. In the situation as it is, a number of contributors here have suggested that he may well serve only part of the sentence behind bars.

We get so accustomed to getting behind the wheel ... but every time that we do, and through the whole time that we control a vehicle, we are required to be hugely vigilante ... as the consequences of lapsing, even for a second or two, can be devastating, often/usually? to a substantial number of people.

ole joyful ... who's had a few fender-benders, himself; no injuries or death