[Magdalen] Heather Cook

[Molly Wolf]

 I don't doubt, as Don has said, that the family has the right to bring suit for civil damages.  But "menial" duties and rubbing the criminal's face in his or her crimes is retributory justice, not restorative justice.  The object isn't to bring the offender back into right relationship with God and the community, but to destroy the offender.  Strictly eye-for-eye stuff.

I think Don has a better right to speak to this than I do.  In my active alcoholic days, I too drove drunk.  I'm coming up on six years of sobriety, and I never had an accident, but it gives me a sense of "there but for the grace of God..."

Molly

The man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. -- Mark Twain

> On Oct 28, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, restorative justice would, at least to me, demand that
> Heather Cook be liable for a rather large sum of money to Tom Palermo's
> family, and that perhaps she also should serve in a menial capacity in an
> ER on weekends for a goodly stretch of time so that she could see and deal
> with, on a visceral level, the results of drunk driving, and other
> alcohol-related crimes. (The latter has been pretty effective with teen
> drinkers, BTW.)
> 
>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015, <thedonboyd at austin.rr.com> y thwrote:
>> 
>> As some of you know, my daughter Amy was killed in November of 1992 when a
>> drunk driver drove his vehicle head-on into the car Amy was driving.  I do
>> not claim that this circumstance gives me any special authority or wisdom
>> greater than any of the rest of you, but it is fair to say that I have had
>> a long time to think about the issues around drunk driving.  Here is what I
>> think at present:
>> 
>> (1)  The wishes of the family of the man who was killed are irrelevant to
>> the criminal case against the driver.  To define drunk driving as a crime
>> is to declare it an injury to the state, to all its people, and the
>> criminal justice system should aim to make them (not the family of the
>> decedent alone) whole if possible, and to deter others from committing
>> similar crimes in future.
>> (2)  "Retributive justice,"  aka vengeance, is not something I can
>> endorse, nor can I understand what people who claim that it can help to
>> give the victim's family "closure."
>> (3)  There is no such thing as "closure" as the term is used above.
>> (4)  To the extent that a fiscal injury to the family of the victim can be
>> demonstrated, there are civil remedies that may apply.  Liability (as some
>> of your posts have suggested) may attach to Ms Cook's employer as well as
>> to her person.   (Here--and only here IMO--are arguments about equity in
>> magnitude of punishment in relation to magnitude of offense relevant.)
>> (5)  As far as my awareness goes, drunk driving cases are extremely
>> difficult to prosecute.  This may be due to the very high incidence of
>> alcohol and/or drug abuse (and hence the disposition of jury panelists and
>> judges to think that in some circumstances they themselves could have
>> committed similar offenses).
>> (6)  As others have pointed out, severity of sentencing does not correlate
>> with reduced recidivism.  There is no evidence that the high cost of
>> incarceration is compensated by reduction in the incidence of offenses.
>> 
>> Finally, sin is sin is sin.  Heather Cook's sin (in this and in all her
>> life) is between her and God, and is none of my (or anybody else's) damn
>> business.
>> 
>> God be merciful to me, a sinner.  God be merciful to Heather, a sinner.
>> 
>>