LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/20/marke ... index.html

Terribly sad for all parties concerned, however the sentencing portion is going to be hurtful no matter which way it goes. Is punishing an 89 year old man for the last few years of his life, most like a grandfather who shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place going to really make a difference?

"I tried to take the control knob and jam it into park. Everything. Anything that I thought would stop the action of the car," he said.

Should have tried the brake pedal, or maybe the e-brake.

Beta wrote:Is punishing an 89 year old man for the last few years of his life, most like a grandfather who shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place going to really make a difference?

With that attitude, you might well ask if any punishment for any crime can make any difference, since the damage has already been done. And the fact that he shouldn't have been behind the wheel is exactly the point: he was negligent, he killed 10 people, and there are laws against that sort of thing.

If you let him go, you send the message, "Hey, old people, if your faculties are eroding and you can't drive safely, drive anyway! Even if you kill 10 people, it's no problem!" Far better to send a message that discourages people from driving if they aren't up to the task. Will it discourage everyone? Of course not. But it will discourage some. If you don't believe that, than I'm not sure what you think the point of the criminal justice system is.

I don't imagine he'll being doing time in Oz. His "prison" sentence will either be spent in a very minimum security prison, maybe even a halfway house, or in a hospital. Don't feel sorry for this guy.

LaxRef wrote:

Beta wrote:Is punishing an 89 year old man for the last few years of his life, most like a grandfather who shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place going to really make a difference?

With that attitude, you might well ask if any punishment for any crime can make any difference, since the damage has already been done. And the fact that he shouldn't have been behind the wheel is exactly the point: he was negligent, he killed 10 people, and there are laws against that sort of thing.

What happened wasn't intentional and from the way they make it sound he isn't going to make it through the rest of the process anyways. Our justice system is meant to be a "correctional" institution and if someone is on the last few years of their life, sticking them in the can isnt going to make them a better driver in the afterlife. And it's understandable that the message sent out is important...but how many elderly people are going to say "Im too incompetant to drive after 60 years of doing so...Ill just stop driving now"? Who is to decide who should drive and who shouldnt? Perhaps govt re-examinations for licenses should be enforced...not that it seems like any drivers nowadays have a license. It's scary to think that if he were under the influence he'd get a lighter sentence.

Many states require pensioners to get their licences renewed yearly. What this man did, by taking lives, whether intentionally or not, is wrong and against the law. His age should not have factored one bit in the decision. Possibly in the sentencing phase but one assumes responsibility once they get behind the wheel of the car. This man killed people. Period. He must pay his debt, not only to the families of the victims, but also to society.

Then again, if he dies he could possibly get his sentence vacated like Ken Lay did.

Oh I totally agree it was wrong...Im just sayin that it's a sad situation either way you look at it. It was more of a metaphorical-type question in the first place. Things worse than age, mental competance has factored in legal decisions before. Attractiveness in that Florida teacher/student sex case played a factor. That case (the market crash) is def not one I would want anything to do with. Too much to handle.

Prosecutor Ann Ambrose said in her opening statement that Weller, 89, didn't completely lose control of his 1992 Buick as it raced through the outdoor market, and that witnesses said he told them immediately after the crash, ''You should have gotten out of the way. You saw me coming.''

I heard several jurors interviewed after the verdict. They all commented that the fact that he didn't express remorse or take responsibility for his part in the tragedy weighed heavily on their decision.

Living in the epicenter of I-meant-to-step-on-the-brake (S. Florida), it seems that we could start road testing drivers at some age and extend the privilege of driving to those who are physically able and deny it to those who aren't. However, the people responsible for enacting such a law would be voted out of office by the very people the legislation would target (they are a tenacious voting block).

peterwho wrote:

Prosecutor Ann Ambrose said in her opening statement that Weller, 89, didn't completely lose control of his 1992 Buick as it raced through the outdoor market, and that witnesses said he told them immediately after the crash, ''You should have gotten out of the way. You saw me coming.''

I heard several jurors interviewed after the verdict. They all commented that the fact that he didn't express remorse or take responsibility for his part in the tragedy weighed heavily on their decision.

Living in the epicenter of I-meant-to-step-on-the-brake (S. Florida), it seems that we could start road testing drivers at some age and extend the privilege of driving to those who are physically able and deny it to those who aren't. However, the people responsible for enacting such a law would be voted out of office by the very people the legislation would target (they are a tenacious voting block).

Ahhhh. I read up on the crash-case but I never came across him saying that...that about wraps it up.