[Magdalen] Heather Cook

[Molly Wolf]

She already knows the consequences of her actions, unless she's up to her ear balls in denial, and if she is, pushing against denial always only strengthens it.  Nor will punishing her "teach a lesson" to others who drink and drive.  They never believe it will happen to them (denial, again). The civil damages issue is, I gather, already settled. 

Molly

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

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I sort of disagree, because the point of that is to open their eyes to what
> drunk driving *does*. I would actually prefer something more in the nature
> of servitude to the family, but not sure how that would be accomplished in
> this case. I don't consider either revenge at all.
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Molly Wolf <lupa at kos.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>>