http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mom-convicted-son-jaywalking-death-never-end-151356884.html

A woman goes to prison because she was jaywalking with her three children, and then a drunk driver comes and runs down the 4 year old in the party.

The woman can possibly get a 3 year sentence, and the drunk driver is getting six times less the sentence the woman is getting.

This is just nuts! I see no way how this makes sense.

1) The woman wasn't smart for jaywalking, but in no way a criminal that should be sentenced for three years.

2) the Drunk driver was.. hmm... DRUNK, DRIVING, and fled the scene after he hit the child. He needs to be charged with driving under the influence, and a hit and run (which could lead to a possible murder charge for obviously killing someone and fleeing the scene) I would think that should get more jail time then jaywalking.

3) Even if the mother went down to the cross walk, would the drunk driver have stopped even then? There is the reasoning that if she took the time to get to the crosswalk, the driver would've already passed, but who's to say that the driver wouldn't have swerved on to the sidewalk and killed the child?

4) The nearest crosswalk was 3/10ths of a mile (1'528 feet). There is no way I would be walking all the way over that far. The city needs to put a cross walk closer to the bus drop off.

I am not understanding why this lady can possibly be getting a 3 year sentence, when all she did as jay walk. She didn't have the have the mindset that she wanted to kill her son, she wasn't drunk, she is not a criminal! The drunk driver is getting away scotch free. Of course she didn't make a wise choice when she jaywalked (it is an offense, but not one that gets you three years in prison), but come on people... really?

I hope with all my soul that this article is fake.............

I was at one point thinking that. If it was on april 1st then maybe, but it has a video and all...

Must...Resist...Urge...To...Rage...

It's all about how good the lawyer is.
Judge should have completely thrown that case out of court, the pedestrian, no matter if jaywalking or not, always has the right of way.
Jaywalking is a minor crime, a ticketable offense. Drunk Driving is a felony offense. So is homicide and fleeing the scene of an accident. Charging her for vehicular homicide for crossing directly in front of her apartment, is absolutely idiotic. The prison term he served for drunk driving should have been longer, and he should have been charged with the child's death, fleeing the scene of an accident, and drunk driving.
I bet within six months the drunk driver will be popped for it again.
That judge needs to be voted out.

I'm not surprised she's been charged and convicted since her actions directly put her children at risk of injury, but I am surprised that the drunk driver was so lightly sentenced. What was the drunk driver actually charged with?

Whoa, you elect judges in the USA?

At the state level. Most Federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

I'm praying that this ins't true, and if it is, I hope that judge gets put in jail themself.

Yes, judges are elected here every four years, on the local ballot.
and what mt pelion said.

The judge in this case was most likely local, not a federal judge.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the innocent get it in the ass and the criminals go free.

Happens all the time. Mortgage companies write bad mortgages and the home owner gets evicted because the bank that wrote the bad mortgage won't support it.

This thread is going to get locked. It'll turn political.

google:

running for judge in

and read what it takes in the different states to get yer own law abiding ban hammer. -sorry roh.

That's just wrong, plain and simple.

At the state level. Sates generally have a number of different courts for different things though, so in any particular state there might an elected superior court which has stringent requirements in order to run as a candidate, or a municipal court with appointed membership, to another court covering another set of issues that has electable positions but without stringent requirements to run for the office. And of course, it all varies by state.

@alex man, the judge hasn't committed a crime, so that's not very likely.

It's probably for endangerment or something.

Unfortunately the woman's actions put the child in danger because she decided to jaywalk. If it was just the woman herself I doubt if she would have gotten anything except a $50 fine maybe $200 at most. However as said she chose to jaywalk with her children and as a result she was liable for their safety.

I will say though I find it to be quite ridiculous that the drunk driver is getting a lenient sentence compared to the woman. To me the DD should be a minimum of 10 years in jail for Vehicular Homicide as well as being drunk behind the wheel. Personally if I had it my way if a person is caught drinking and driving they should get a minimum of 3 to 4 years community service. If they hit someone and that person is injured for the rest of their life they get an automatic 7 years in jail. In the event that person is drunk and kills someone they get an automatic 10 years in jail with 15 to 20 extra years tacked on due to previous records.

Don't worry, her conviction will be thrown out on appeal when it goes before a competent judge. In the US, there are no such thing as jaywalking "laws" as cities do not have the legal authority to create laws. Cities create ordinances which they have the authority to enforce.

The prosecutor argued that an ordinance violation created legal liability for an injury. The jury agreed and the judge failed to overrule the prosecutor's argument on procedural grounds (or the defense attorney failed to object). In reality, ordinance violations do not create legal liability in any situation because they are not laws.

i agree ith what you all are saying, but I am still not getting why the woman has to serve three years. I know she put her child in danger, and I know that jay walking is an offense, but 3 years? I would say that she should get maybe 6 months in prison and have to pay the fine of jaywalking. I think that is plenty enough punishment as it is. She lost a child. I would think that was enough to make her learn her lesson.

This, although I don't think she should get any jail time. Just the fine, and maybe six months of going to a school once a week and talking about the importance of street/sidewalk safety.

So a woman commits a very minor offense, loses one of her children to a drunk driver, and is now facing jail time. Not to mention that the kids need their mom most at this time, and she needs them. Thats sick.

Rubbish article, really.

1. It wants you to think that the mother will get three years, but sentencing hasn't even occurred yet. Three years is the maximum allowed by law. Unlikely that she will get that.

2. It says that the driver served six months. It doesn't say what his sentence was, nor whether he is currently on parole.

3. It doesn't say what the driver was convicted of.

Excuse me if I save my righteous indignation once I get more reasonable and informative portrayal of the relevant facts.

Honestly who takes their three kids across a street when there is any hint of a car coming?

What the [censored] lady.

How often does the justice system actually serve justice instead of just going by written policies... ackkkkk. No matter hpw you look at it, there is absolutely NOTHING to be gained by putting this woman in jail. Nothing at all.

Mmhmm. I can't believe how un-just this is Poor woman

People are misunderstanding: the woman is not facing a maximum of three years of jail for jaywalking. She is facing a maximum of three years jail for homicide by vehicle and reckless conduct. The article is misleading rubbish.