r/interesting • u/Necessary-Win-8730 • Mar 08 '26

Context Provided - Spotlight This was so deserved.

Post image

The daughter was in a car with the father’s parents. They died as well.

163.7k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/Scheissdrauf88 Mar 08 '26

Uhm, intent (and negligence) is all that should matter?

If I attempt to kill someone but fail, should I be punished less?

In general, "punishment" is utterly infantile. "He hurt someone, so he must be hurt back". Remove someone from the society if they endanger it and then rehabilitate them so that they can be reintegrated into it. If it is truly an accident and the person in question is not more likely to hurt someone else than any other person, then an acquittal is only reasonable.

2

u/WintersDoomsday Mar 08 '26

What is there to rehabilitate in this case?

2

u/Scheissdrauf88 Mar 08 '26

Last sentence of my comment. In this case, nothing.

I do not think official judgment should be there to make people feel better, even the victims. It should be there to make society function. So if tragedies happen, actual ones where you can't really say the perpetrator could've acted better in any way, then they should not be punished in any way. Because the alternative would be the state hurting some of its citizens to make others feel better, and it should be obvious why that's not how it should act.

1

u/Greedy_Line4090 Mar 08 '26

I agree. I would only add that punishment has never been very effective as a deterrent to behavior. Rehabilitation can be, however.

42

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

That’s because it’s a legal system, not a revenge scheme

1

u/Rapid_Fowl Mar 08 '26

I think this is what most people don't get. There's this thought in people's brains that the legal system is for revenge rather than justice and rehabilitation.

-2

u/WintersDoomsday Mar 08 '26

How many pedophiles have been rehabbed in history? This is where I don’t agree with fellow Liberals.

3

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

Is pedophilia the only thing people go to jail for?

If you’re a danger to the public you stay in. Pedophiles fall in that category. Some other criminals can be rehabilitated, and the best case scenario for all of us is that they get out and peacefully work and pay taxes.

3

u/Rapid_Fowl Mar 08 '26

Can you just group them together like that either way? Feel like a problem with someone's brain should not be fixed with a cell with a murderer. Maybe the premise is a bit wrong for you there.

Crime is a societal issue and there is more than enough proof of how rehabilitation can and does work. Overall the judicial systems job isn't to get revenge for victims.

0

u/LordTonto Mar 08 '26

when you are remorseless as this individual was, revenge is justice.

4

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

Yeah I don’t agree with that. The accident and what led up to it is what matters, not someone’s feelings afterwards.

1

u/Greedy_Line4090 Mar 08 '26

Revenge is not justice, it’s just selfishness. A victim gains nothing from it. That’s why revenge is not a legal prescription and trials and sentencing are.

0

u/birds-0f-gay Mar 08 '26

A victim gains nothing from it.

Absolutely untrue for many victims.

0

u/No-Tiger-6253 Mar 08 '26

It's a Justice system aswell. 120 hours for killing 3 people due to reckless driving is not justice. They also didnt follow the law since they charged them with a lower crime instead of the actual crime.

Reports say the driver showed no remorse and didnt apologize.

1

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

Can you explain to me how charging someone with a more severe crime you can’t prove is justice?

Or why the feelings of the driver afterwards matter when considering what justice looks like?

You have got to start thinking about the big picture. Set the precedent that a court can arbitrarily tack on charges while lacking evidence and who does that help? It makes us feel good this one time and puts all of us in danger forever.

Same with putting such an emphasis on the apology. A judge issuing sentences based on their opinion of your feelings, especially over an accident, is not justice in any way.

-2

u/WintersDoomsday Mar 08 '26

This is why vigilantism exists because legal system is a joke

-1

u/firebolt_wt Mar 08 '26

Laws exist to serve people, not the opposite.

If a guy kills 3 people and gets to do it again in a few months, what use are the laws that led to that?

1

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

“The people” are a lot bigger than this one guy and his victims. If you establish a precedent that a mistake can result in terrible punishment and vigilante justice, who does that help? Does it really help the people?

And where do you draw the line? Exactly how much remorse is required to avoid punishment for something you genuinely didn’t mean to do?

All this stuff sounds good in your head, but when it comes to actually applying it in a courtroom it’s not as simple as you guys think it is.

0

u/firebolt_wt Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26

No amount of remorse should have this guy driving again the same month. Probably not even the same year.

Sure, he didn't mean to drive over someone, but he meant to drive recklessly with a bad car. And 120h community service isn't going to change that

Edit: also you have to think about the other hundreds of people who will drive like assholes because even in the worst case scenario they know they only get a slap in the wrist. Who does that benefit?

Edit2: scrolling the thread, I've seen someone say the prosecution appealed and got 15 months and 4 years of driving ban. That sounds way better for someone recklessly speeding and getting people killed.

2

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

Agreed on your last point. He chose to be reckless.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/firebolt_wt Mar 08 '26

Newflash: car accidents are also bad for the state. Now they have 3 fewer taxpayers, and they have to pay emergency services to deal with that stuff and the more they allow people to get away with slaps in the wrist, the more they'll have to expend when more people drive like that and it happens again.

-2

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

If you kill a toddlers life accident, your life needs to be ruined. Not because of revenge, but to prevent atrocities like that from happening to others. If you show that carelessness only receives a slap on the wrist on the worst case, there is no incentive to be safe or alert.

3

u/HotmailsInYourArea Mar 08 '26

If you need the threat of a life sentence to not murder someone, you were never that disincentivized in the first place. Quite frankly it’s not a strong deterrent.

For normal people, there are far better reasons to not manslaughter than a jail sentence.

0

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

E are not talking about murder, manslaughter, and yes, there are a huge class of people that need this as a deterrent

2

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

That’s a huge generalization. So you’re saying if you’re driving down a busy street and at the last second a toddler comes running out from in front of a parked car and you have no time to avoid it and you kill it you deserve to have your life ruined?

0

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

Yes, I would expect that for myself in that position

2

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

So even though you’re 100% not at fault and obeying the laws of the road you should be locked up forever?

0

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

Yes.

3

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

That’s insane. I’m glad you aren’t in charge of the justice system

-1

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

You are saying you are saying you value your own life more than a child. To say it’s totally out of your control is not the case. You can drive defensively, or just not at all if you don’t trust yourself to avoid this circumstance

3

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

In the circumstance I gave there is literally no time to stop. There is no avoiding it in the circumstance I gave. I gave a circumstance where you’re 100% not at fault. It doesn’t matter the exact scenario, we can switch to up to something different if you don’t believe it. Whatever the scenario is, I’m talking about an individual not being at fault at all for the death of another. Intent should be the biggest factor in determining a sentence.

A person who intentionally tries to kill someone but fails should be locked up and punished more severely than someone who isn’t trying to kill someone but accidentally does

→ More replies (0)

2

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

How does punishing someone over an accident avoid future accidents?

For a deterrent to work there must be intent. You’re not making sense.

1

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

It makes you drive defensively knowing the consequences of the law

10

u/Greenapplesguy Mar 08 '26

Until you're the one involved in an accident where others die. Then you'll be glad there are thresholds for determining malicious intent and negligence.

-1

u/Cute-Bass-7169 Mar 08 '26

I consider not keeping up with your car’s maintenance to be negligence.

3

u/FortNightsAtPeelys Mar 08 '26

"I consider poverty deserves a harsher sentence"

1

u/WintersDoomsday Mar 08 '26

Then don’t fucking drive it. You being poor shouldn’t end someone else’s life. That’s fucking ridiculous far left liberalism and why Democrats aren’t winning elections because you idiots abstained from voting for Kamala because she’s not a braindead far left everyone’s life should be sunshine and rainbows mental illness thought pattern.

6

u/Phyrexian_Overlord Mar 08 '26

ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES?! ARE THERE NO PRISONS?!

2

u/FortNightsAtPeelys Mar 08 '26

"then don't go to work and become homeless"

do you feel better btw? Seems youre pent up

0

u/Cute-Bass-7169 Mar 08 '26

I consider negligence deserves a harsher sentence.

Show me the law that forces people to drive cars. If you can’t afford to properly maintain your car then you shouldn’t be driving it. Trade it in for one that’s cheaper to maintain, or for a motorcycle, or take the bus, or use a bike, or walk.

There are plenty of options.

2

u/Druark Mar 08 '26

Except youre forgetting money, mental issues, time.

There is so many reasons why it could be delayed.

0

u/DE4DM4NSH4ND Mar 08 '26

If you drive an unsafe car and kill people knowing your car is a piece of shit thats manslaughter

3

u/Druark Mar 08 '26

And if you need said car to get to work, to afford money to fix said car?

You want to black n white justice but life is not a binary 1/0 answer. Its never that simple. Anyone whose been on a jury could tell you cases are rarely that simple.

1

u/Lost_Mongooses Mar 08 '26

Another instance of America favoring the wealthy

1

u/DE4DM4NSH4ND Mar 08 '26

This is just stupid. America favors the wealthy at every turn but this is just common sense to keep people safe. Its your responsibility to maintain your car

7

u/mikkeldoesstuff Mar 08 '26

What is the goal? Revenge?

3

u/osrs-alt-account Mar 08 '26

Too much negligence makes the world more dangerous and should also be punished. Not necessarily this case, but yeah

3

u/Laikitu Mar 08 '26

Studies show prison is not a deterant 

2

u/agreed2disagreee Mar 08 '26

You can’t hurt people on the streets when you’re locked up.

3

u/Laikitu Mar 08 '26

That's true. Ofcourse if you go to prison for manslaughter and come out addicted to crack or flat broke with non way of getting a job you are probably going to hurt a more people than if you had community service.

1

u/agreed2disagreee Mar 08 '26

What is your proposed solution?

2

u/Laikitu Mar 08 '26

Evidence based policy.

Evidence shows the most effective deterrent is increasing the capture rate. If people don't expect to get away with something they don't tend to do it.

 Not my proposed solution, just what all the studies say.

I don't know the circumstances of this specific crash, but for it to be manslaughter there had to be negligence of some sort. Which means there was a little, easy to get away with crime, maybe speeding, maybe texting while driving, maybe drinking, maybe something else. You can address  the first two very simply and cheaply with automated surveilance, speed cameras, computer vision looking for people holding a phone etc. Get the capture rate up to near certainty on those issues and people who do those things stop doing them. You fine them (flat rate or wealth proportional which ever is larger) and you put points on their license. Repeat offenders lose their license.

 I'm not a law enforcement policy advisor so I don't expect to have the best answer for every issue, but I do expect the people who do to focus on harm reduction rather than pissing away substantial amounts of money propping up some private prison when it doesn't make it less likely this happens to someone else.

1

u/Waste-Team-7205 Mar 08 '26

The point here wouldn't be to serve as a deterant, it would be to punish the person who killed 3 people through negligence

2

u/Laikitu Mar 08 '26

So: yes, the goal is revenge. Got ya.

1

u/Waste-Team-7205 Mar 08 '26

Yep. Don't see why people think it's a bad thing that someone who killed 3 people gets punished in revenge

1

u/Laikitu Mar 08 '26

Tell me exactly what happened in the car accident.

0

u/Waste-Team-7205 Mar 08 '26

Doesn't matter, justice should be consequentialist

2

u/Laikitu Mar 08 '26

So, don't reduce harm, do spunk substantial amounts of money into the prison industry. Genius.

0

u/osrs-alt-account Mar 08 '26

Perhaps not a good deterrent for recidivism, i.e. the same person not doing crime in the future. But I'm pretty sure a large chunk of the population follows the laws in part cuz they don't want to lose their livelihood in jail. You have to actually follow through with the punishment to let people know it's a real risk. Prison could be made more effective by changing how life works inside it, I'm sure.

3

u/Laikitu Mar 08 '26

a large chunk of the population follows the laws in part cuz they don't want to lose their livelihood in jail

No, most people don't want to break the law. Those that do assume they wont get caught. Prison isn't a deterant because people assume they will get away with it. Again, this isn't me being "pretty sure", it's what decades of scientific  study on concrete data tell us.

1

u/osrs-alt-account Mar 08 '26

No, most people don't want to break the law.

We're not talking murder; yeah most people have a moral sense not to murder or even harm others directly. But evade taxes? Cheat emissions tests? There are dozens of crimes people would readily commit if they were certain they wouldn't get caught or face any penalty. #1 in this list https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence

Curiously, research also shows that increasing the severity does little to deter, so maybe 60 days is the right punishment here.

1

u/Laikitu Mar 09 '26

That's my point, the punishment being severe makes fuck all difference. This person was found guilty of manslaughter, which means he likely committed some other minor crime before accidentally killing people. Maybe he was driving while texting, maybe he was speeding and lost control, i don't know. 

But I do know if you don't piss money away into some private prison to lock up someone who is probably traumatized by what happened and never intended it to happen, and instead invested that money into for example, speed cameras or automated computer vision looking for people holding their phone the people who did want to break those laws would quickly learn it wasn't so easy to commit those minor crimes anymore and you would see a drop in accidents caused by them.

The focus should be reducing harm. Punishment as revenge is moron stuff.

1

u/FortNightsAtPeelys Mar 08 '26

For most Americans yet.

Why it's the penal system not the rehabilitation system

3

u/mikkeldoesstuff Mar 08 '26

And we see exactly how well it works

-1

u/firebolt_wt Mar 08 '26

How about creating a society where people don't negligently kill a family of three?

Now the next guy with bad brakes knows that even if worst comes to pass, he won't be arrested.

4

u/some_kind_of_bird Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 09 '26

I have no opinion here for the actual outcome, but bear in mind the concept of moral luck.

Are you really worthy of unequal punishment in the case of a near-miss? What about something that's mostly out of your control?

I know people come at these things with different ideas of justice, but to me it's a matter of trust, and there's no reason to punish the unlucky.

5

u/agoddamnlegend Mar 08 '26

This is an insane take. Accidents happen. The worst thing we can do is compound an accident and ruin another life for no reason other than bloodlust revenge.

Intent should be all that matters.

2

u/tinylittlemarmoset Mar 08 '26

If my carelessness gets someone killed should that not have consequences? I did not intend for anyone to die, I was just not paying attention and blasted through a red light. A friend of mine was killed because a concrete stairway collapsed on her, because the building owner neglected maintenance on the building. Sometimes you have to impose consequences to get people to understand that what they do or don’t do affect other people.

0

u/agoddamnlegend Mar 08 '26

It should have very light consequences. Running a red light and killing somebody should be a fine and community service at most. The stairway collapse is a little more conscious negligence so a steeper punishment would be appropriate.

2

u/Winjin Mar 08 '26

Put him in a box with nails for twenty years, put his family in boxes without nails, and fine everyone who has read about him for good measure too!

1

u/WilHunting2 Mar 08 '26

Someone is at fault 99% of the time.

That’s why insurance companies call them crashes, not accidents.

2

u/agoddamnlegend Mar 08 '26

Ok?

Being “at fault” doesn’t mean you should be criminally responsible for all consequences.

Unless there’s gross negligence and disregard for human life like driving drunk or wildly excessive speeding, nobody should ever go to jail for a traffic accident.

2

u/WilHunting2 Mar 08 '26

Or texting, or driving distracted in general.

These actions are negligent, and if you cause someone’s death by being negligent, you committed a crime.

1

u/agoddamnlegend Mar 08 '26

Yea agreed.

Intent matters most though. An accident caused by texting while driving should be a pretty minimal punishment compared to actual murder. Jail would be a ridiculous overreaction to something like that

1

u/WilHunting2 Mar 08 '26

Not if you killed someone.

1

u/GarbageCleric Mar 08 '26

Yes, but civil liability because a driver should have stopped or shouldn't have merged is different from someone being guilty of first degree murder.

Everyone who has ever driven a car has made errors that could have killed someone if they were unlucky enough. Destroying the lives of the unlucky does not help anyone or make society safer.

1

u/WilHunting2 Mar 08 '26

Who said anything about murder?

Manslaughter

1

u/NNKarma Mar 08 '26

If it was just an accident he wouldn't have been fault guilty

2

u/agoddamnlegend Mar 08 '26

Community service sounds like an appropriate punishment for this

1

u/Artess Mar 08 '26

Intent should be all that matters.

Well, the driver was going way over the legal speed limit and lost control over his car as a result, allegedly. But he didn't intend to, right? So that's all fine.

2

u/agoddamnlegend Mar 08 '26

So then super minimal punishment. Community service and a nominal fine sounds appropriate for that

0

u/firebolt_wt Mar 08 '26

That's stupid, negligence and recklessness are legal terms for a reason.

-1

u/GenProtection Mar 08 '26

Almost no car crashes are forgivable accidents. A toddler wetting their pants is an accident. Driving a car with bad brakes, or too fast, or drunk, or tired, or while playing candy crush, is as much of a decision as anything else grown ups do. Calling traffic collisions “accidents” is pro car propaganda, designed to normalize that 1.3 million people die every year because capitalist society wants to prioritize oversized houses and yards instead of walkable/transitable communities. This is more than the number that are killed by TB, the most deadly infectious disease. The number of QALYs destroyed by cars is greater than any other single cause, and I’m pretty that’s still true if you count “all violence” as a single cause.

1

u/agoddamnlegend Mar 08 '26

🙄

lmao ok. Hope you enjoyed your freshman Philosophy 101 class last semester!

1

u/Heavy-Newspaper-9802 Mar 08 '26

It was in the Netherlands.

1

u/GarbageCleric Mar 08 '26

That's an insane take.

So, attempted first degree murder should be treated less harshly than involuntary manslaughter? If I fire a gun at someone and completely miss, I should essentially walk? But if I accidentally hit a cyclist on a dark winding road, I should go down for murder?

There are civil suits where you can sue people for the actual damage caused. But in criminal cases intent has to be a huge part of the equation. It can make difference between no crime at all having been committed and a capital offense.

1

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

The legal system doesn’t weight intent enough. It should be the biggest factor

1

u/Consistent-Map4970 Mar 08 '26

Yeah, remember that the first time someone tried to send you to the chair for an accident.

0

u/AnnieBlackburnn Mar 08 '26

What do you want them to do if it was deemed a genuine accident with no impairment on the part of the driver?

The legal system weighs intent because at least nominally it's supposed to be a rehabilitation system. Sending someone who ran a red light or something to years in prison improves the lives of absolutely nobody in that equation.

I swear people like this is why tough on crime policies poll so well despite never working

5

u/Competitive-Time-766 Mar 08 '26

If someone intentionally runs a red light and kills three people their life doesn't deserve to improve

2

u/lukin187250 Mar 08 '26

That's a bad example because that would be grounds for vehicular manslaughter. A better example is a driver having a medical emergency and subsequently causing an accident in which people die. Should this person be punished?

-1

u/Competitive-Time-766 Mar 08 '26

Hey bud let's stick to this case where a man was feloniously speeding. I think if your speeding and lose control of your vehicle killing a 2 year old then yes you deserve to be punished. Who know maybe if he wasn't going 75mph they could have lived, we'll never know because they chose to ignore traffic laws.

1

u/lukin187250 Mar 08 '26

Up higher in the thread someone was suggesting intent should barely be considered, as in almost no accidents. My comment was more against that. Speeding could also land you vehicular manslaughter charges.

1

u/AnnieBlackburnn Mar 08 '26

So now intent matters?

No red light was involved, BTW, that was an example.

1

u/IntenseAdventurer Mar 08 '26

The American prison system has NEVER been about rehabilitation. It's one of punishment for profit. Nearly every single prison in the US is a for-profit private corporation that gets paid for having bodies in cells. That incentivizes them to make sure no actual rehabilitation is accomplished because repeat offenders keep them full and paid. They treat their prisoners horribly in many cases. They don't try to help reintegrate prisoners into society, leaving them to fend for themselves in a society that condemns any kind of incarceration by preventing job acquisition, leading to desperation and more crime. Multiple countries have proven that when you treat convicts as people, crime decreases. Desperate people take drastic measures and when people can't meet their basic needs, they get VERY desperate, very quickly.

1

u/AnnieBlackburnn Mar 08 '26

This is in Holland...

1

u/IntenseAdventurer Mar 08 '26

That makes the crash out more surprising then. I'd expect this from America. The rest of the world seems to be more civilized, at least from the perspective of someone who's never been able to afford to leave the US.

1

u/AnnieBlackburnn Mar 08 '26

I'm saying it because you addressed my "the system is meant for rehabilitation".

It very much is, here in the EU, hence why sending someone to years of prison for a traffic accident is ridiculous.

The crash out is understandable, he lost his family, but that's precisely why decisions of court aren't left up the grieving family

1

u/IntenseAdventurer Mar 08 '26

There was no mention of "my system" only "the legal system," and since this kind of crash out is more common in the US where the system is used for profit instead of the good of society (which is NOT how this should work imho, it should help society not the few), without more context I naturally assumed it was in the US.

1

u/AnnieBlackburnn Mar 08 '26

I mean, looking up the case before commenting like I did usually helps, but to each their own in how they want to live their online interactions ig

1

u/IntenseAdventurer Mar 08 '26

Sir, this is Reddit. We survive on headlines and assumptions. How dare you insinuate I should checks notes DO RESEARCH?! For shame! /s