I'm really confused as to how this scenario makes sense in any universe.
A woman, whose son was killed by a vehicle while jaywalking with her, could face up to 3 years in prison for homicide by vehicle and reckless conduct. For whatever reason, she was out late in the evening with her children, and rather than wait any longer at night by herself with her kids, she decided to cross the street.
The man who hit and killed her kid (it was determined to be a hit-and-run) Jerry Guy, admitted that he had been drinking before the incident. According to the article I read, Guy served 6 months in jail. How in the blue fuck does this equate to justice?
I get it, the woman's actions contributed to getting her kid killed. I'm not saying that she shouldn't face some sort of punishment, but should she serve a sentence so much longer than the guy who actually killed her son? And better yet, the guy admitted to drinking before the incident. I don't know if he was technically drunk while driving, but still, what the hell?
What makes this worse is the fact that she has 2 other children. Now, not only does she have to live with the fact that she likely got her son killed, but now her other 2 children will have to suffer doubly by having to deal with their mother being in jail for 3 years. What could the reasoning behind the sentencing conceivably be? To be honest, I don't know.
What's confusing is that this article is incredibly vague about the details surrounding the incident. It mentions that Guy admitted he had been drinking before the incident, but it doesn't say if he was at all drunk while driving. There's also little in the way of describing the traffic situation, exactly what time at night she was out, or why the hell she didn't see a car coming her way. So how do we know who is more at fault?
We've all jaywalked, but when one jaywalks one usually is extra cautious as to the traffic situation. It could be, given all the evidence, that she is more culpable. If it was a pure accident, if the guy was not impared and the situation was such that he had no reaction time, then perhaps it was more her fault and she deserves a larger sentence.
What do you all think? Is this justice or not?