She was in charge of keeping things safe, she failed in her responsibilities and someone died. She is at fault and should face the consequences.
I know right. The logic seems to be “well he didn’t get charged for it so I shouldn’t be either”. Yeah, but keeping weapons safe was your job, not his.
The case was dismissed because of misconduct by the police and prosecutors. It has nothing to do with being charged, he was charged. She’s saying the same thing happened in her case, so if his case was dismissed so should her conviction. So yeah, if the same misconduct happened, then it should obviously be overturned too.
And make no mistake about it, if you accidentally caused the death of someone, you would be looking for every opportunity to have the case dismissed too.
You think it was an accident? It was an accident she didn’t do her job? It wasn’t an accident, it was negligence.
What’s the ultimate goal? If it’s purely punitive, then sure.
But if the goal is anything other than that, I don’t see the point. It’s not any rehabilitation she needs would come in prison. It’s not like anyone who look at this and say “well, I can be careless and just bank on the cops fucking up,” so the deterrence is already there. And I can think of hundreds of better ways she can make it up to the victims.
So is that it? Is it really just about “facing the consequences?”
At what point do you think people should be held accountable for their actions? Her negligence CAUSED a death. She only got 18 months in jail and that’s too much?
At what point do you think people should be held accountable for their actions?
My view is very pragmatic: I believe punishments for crimes should be restorative, for rehabilitation, or act as a deterrent. I don’t see how any of these are met by her going to jail for 18 months.
I’ve answered your question, so I’ll try mine again: Is it simply about “being held accountable”?
