I'm having a hard time understanding how Drew isn't responsible, since part of what she did was to tell the girl the world would be a better place without her.
If I told you to jump in a river, would you do it?
No, but:
a) I'm not clinically depressed
b) I'm not 13.
c) Telling someone once to jump in a river is very different from constructing a persona for the expressed purpose of tormenting someone over a sustained period of time.
Drew was dealing with someone she knew was emotionally vulnerable and unstable, and she took advantage of that. If you simply ignore those factors, you'll never get a full understanding of what actually happened. This wasn't some anonymous flame war among adults (or even children).
go hang out on 4chan for a minute and tell me that the internet should be safe for children. that's like saying central park should be safe for children: it sure can be WITH PROPER PARENTAL SUPERVISION. shit, even some filtering software. but asking your child not to do something that you as a parent deem detrimental to their health? fuck that, TELL THEM. disconnect their internet.
I'm not saying that her parents should be nominated for Parents of the Year. I would argue that disconnecting the Internet altogether is the wrong solution, because it doesn't teach the child how to deal with the Internet (which, as I said, is becoming pretty much ubiquitous, at this point). But doing the wrong thing and being irresponsible are two different things. A lot of parents simply park their kids in front of a monitor and don't care or understand anything about their Internet access, and don't have relationships with their kids where the kids can tell them things. This doesn't appear to be one of those cases.
It also seems to me that the parents didn't deem the Internet detrimental to her health. Otherwise, the discussions they had about it would've been very different (from what's been reported, at least).
oh, and i'm pretty sure i never said her parents were responsible for her death, just that they were irresponsible as parents. unfortunately, they lost their child because of it.
You are saying they were responsible of her death, if you say they "lost their child because of" their actions.
I think you meant Megan Meier, rather than Lori Drew. Drew was the harasser, not the harassed party. (At least, in respect to Meier. Drew is apparently getting some much-deserved harassment herself now.)
On a literal level, of course, you're correct: No one killed Meier. She killed herself. But law and morality separately both acknowledge indirect responsibility for death.
To give you an example (although I'll admit this is more extreme than the case in question):
If you were to pose as someone's doctor, and tell them that they had a terminal illness that would cause them to die a painful death (or if you were their doctor, and decided to do it), and they decided to kill themselves, rather than to die that way, would you or would you not be responsible for that? (Assume that it's not the correct diagnosis, and you know it, for the sake of this discussion.)
Certainly, it was the person's own decision to kill themselves, but it's not like you were just standing there minding your own business. If not for the information you provided, they would be alive. And you would reasonably be expected to anticipate that suicide as a potential reaction to the diagnosis.
The main difference here is that Drew could reasonably say that she didn't intend for the suicide to happen. But given the totality of what she knew, Drew certainly acted with reckless disregard, because to any reasonable person who knew what she knw, that was a possible result of her actions.
In a just universe, Lori Drew would be stoned to death by angry townspeople using the sharpest rocks possible. (Obsidian sounds about right.)
Like women should be stoned for adultery under Sharia law?
Just asking...
Well, since you're just asking, no, this has nothing to do with Sharia law. Stoning is a punishment that's much older than Sharia law, and was used for much more than just adultery back then.
The reason I specified stoning is because it's the most direct expression of a community's condemnation of a person, because everyone with a rock participates. Remember that I specified a just universe, in which (presumably) people could agree on the concept that a 40-something woman anonymously tormenting a teenage girl is inherently evil and not fit to live among the rest of us.
I am not saying Megan should have toughened up. However, her parents clearly should have monitored her internet usage quite a bit more.
I can certainly agree with that. I just don't think their failure to monitor the Internet (which is becoming ever-more difficult, given how many different ways you can access the Internet now) is enough to put the responsibility for her death on the parents, rather than on Drew. Drew was the one who went above and beyond to cause the girl torment. For the most part, Meier's parents reacted the way most parents would (e.g., becoming angry at being defied). The fact that she discussed these things with her parents in the first place would seem to indicate she had a closer relationship with them than many children her age.
It's bullshit to say that a child should just "toughen up" against the orchestrated attacks and manipulations of full grown fucking adults.
There are people, many younger than 12 years old, who had to put up with a lot more than nasty IMs from adults in their lives. Most of those people are still here, trying to get on with their lives.
Yes Megan Meier's suicide was tragic. Yes Lori Drew's behaviour was reprehensible, even illegal, and was a direct cause of Meier's decision to commit suicide. But it's clear to any reasonable person that Lori Drew, vicious as she was, was in no way the sole reason for Meier's death.
It would be wrong to say that Drew was the sole reason for Megan's death. But the fact of the matter is that Drew knew the girl's vulnerability and mental state, and preyed on it. I'm quite certain that she didn't intend for Megan to kill herself (she probably just wanted to torment her as long as she could, for her own amusement), but she certainly acted in reckless disregard of what should have been seen as a possibility.
It should also be noted that clinical depression is a medical condition, and someone suffering from this condition can't just suck it up and get over it. They sometimes require lifelong medication. So expecting Megan Meier to respond to the situation even as well as a typical teenager would (which in itself wouldn't be particularly well) isn't reasonable.
I certainly can concede the point that merely making offensive statements toward someone online shouldn't be a crime in itself, but this kind of targeted harassment, where the tormentor had knowledge of their target's mental state, is another thing entirely, and that should be taken into account. This isn't a case where the person doing the harassment could reasonably believe that they were doing something harmless.
Actually, she had been seeing a psychiatrist for 5 years, and had been taking various medications, none of which (because of her age) could be given to her without consent of her parents (and some of which are actually controlled substances). All of this means that the parents had to have taken an active role in her treatment. Here's a good article on the whole thing.
I understand that some people are just contrarian by nature, and want to blame the parents when everyone else wants to blame Drew, and I'm certainly not saying that the parents did everything right, but this does not appear to be a neglected child, in the sense that her parents saw that she was troubled and did nothing.
Anonymous Douchebag:
She was under the care of a psychiatrist since the third grade, including taking numerous medications. Who, pray tell, do you think took her to the appointments with the psychiatrist and paid for the medications? Are you truly that much of an idiot? Try researching the case before you spout your mouth off.
The right thing for Drew to do in this case is to sue the government and, specifically, the lead prosecuting attorney.
No, the right thing for Lori Drew to do is to commit suicide. She's using up valuable oxygen and polluting the gene pool. In a just universe, she'd simply be stoned to death and the world would be a better place.
Parents should be there for their child to help them get through those tough times, hers weren't and ignored everything telling them they should be helping her, child negligence. Neglect coupled with not having the tools to be able to handle that sort of thing is what lead to her death, Lori Drew just gave the final push, her parents are the ones who put her on the cliff naked and alone.
I don't think it's that simple. Sure, they made some mistakes, but I'd hardly call them negligent. They were getting the girl treatment for her depression, after all. They weren't just ignoring her.
Short of locking your kid up, he/she is always going to be able to find a way to defy the rules. Parents can't be held responsible for everything their children do. That's especially true when the rebellion in question is over something that should be safe to do. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of teenagers go online every day without any harm at all befalling them. It's not the big, bad Internet's fault. It's this worthless piece of crap of a human being who decided to torture a 13-year old girl.
Besides that, we are fast approaching a time when it will be literally impossible to "stay off" the Internet. If anything, the girl's parents are guilty of not giving the girl practical guidance, rather than failing to make sure their guidance was followed. Staying off the Internet wasn't the solution to the problem in the first place.
The solution would've been to find out who was sending the message and take action against them. By "action", I mean talking to the parents, if it turned out to be a minor, and talking to the police, if it turned out to be an adult. As others have pointed out, harrassment is both a crime and a violation of most ISPs terms of service. At the very least, the parents could have, if they had been more savvy, gotten the account of the perpetrator pulled. But that still doesn't make the parents responsible for the death. Not in any rational way, at least.
What is the purpose of separating child criminals from the adult ones? If it is so that the adult criminals don't prey on the (physically weaker) children then it's jail just with a different name and the children are responsible for their actions (since they (and not their parents) were sent there). If the juvenile detention is different from adult jail in more ways than just the age of prisoners then you can say that it is different. Otherwise it's the same as prison for men vs prison for women.
Anyway, I do not live in the US, so I know little about its penal system.
Juvenile detention is not meant to be a kiddie prison. It's more like a reform/boarding school kind of situation.
For the love of all that is holy, please try to exercise some common sense! Please?!
If I tell my child, "Don't go down that dark alley.", and he/she goes down the dark alley anyway, and someone shoots her, are you seriously contending that I, and not the goddamn shooter, am responsible?!
Maybe someone should get on lexus-nexus and post all her info to 4chan and fark and all the rest of the shady underbelly of the net. Someone somewhere will have the time to truly make this woman suffer for her actions.
I'm fairly certain that all her personal information is already readily available online. I don't know what acts have been taken against her by her fellow citizens, but I certainly wouldn't shed a tear for her, whatever they were/are.
She was 13. Children of this age are not typically tried as adults. That's what juvenile detention is for. And the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to execute a child, meaning that it is unconstitutional to hold a child to the same standard as an adult. (There are some circumstances under which an adult may be executed, so this difference alone means we always treat children as different.)
Huh? No one said she should be charged with murder (which is what would happen if she were held responsible for what the girl did to herself).
I'm having a hard time understanding how Drew isn't responsible, since part of what she did was to tell the girl the world would be a better place without her.
Drew deserves the worst society could possibly do to her. I am utterly without sympathy for that pathetic piece of crap.
When you make speech subject to jury review regardless of how seemingly reasonable that is you gut the idea of free speech.
Additionally, while I think this woman is a worthless piece of crap why is she responsible for the actions of another who harmed themselves. Personal responsibility plays a part in all things and we're so ready to find others to blame we ignore that. Just because she is worthless, mean, and stupid does not make her responsible for another's actions.
A few things of note here:
"Speech" covers a very broad area, and some of it has to be subject to review. If I advertise that my magic potion can cure diabetes and eliminate the need for the consumer to take insulin, and someone dies because of that, shouldn't I be responsible for that "speech"? If I incite a mob to kill someone, shouldn't I be responsible for that? Speech has consequences, and "freedom of speech" doesn't cover all sins. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
In the case at hand, one could argue that an adult would be responsible for his/her actions, and should have been expected to handle the situation better. But this was a child with mental health issues that were apparently known by her killer (which is a word I use very deliberately).
Personal responsibility is all well and good for an adult, but we don't hold children to the same standard in civilized countries. And we do hold adults responsible for exploiting children. I can't think of a more clear-cut example of someone exploiting that vulnerability than the case we have here.
In a just universe, Lori Drew would be stoned to death by angry townspeople using the sharpest rocks possible. (Obsidian sounds about right.)
It's 15 years if someone ends up killing someone, right? So losing 15 years of one's life in exchange for doing something stupid resulting in someone else's death seems kind of fair. But, we forget, can't someone get a reduced sentence? Is 15 years mandatory sentencing?
Unfortunately, the NY Times article referenced in the OP says "up to" 15 years.
No offence, but I find it incredible you would even be eligible for a license.
No offense taken. I took driving lessons ~ 20 years ago. Back then (I don't know what the rules are now in NJ) the issues were:
1) Can you pass the written test?
2) Can you pass the driving test?
At the time, my ADD was undiagnosed. I had some obvious attention issues, but I was borderline, and I had learned how to compensate, mostly. The cognitive problems were completely undiagnosed. (Again, I compensate well.) The depth perception was more of an obvious issue (because the strabismus was documented), but the odds of me being able to drive (according to the rehab center I was learning at) were put at ~ 50%. (And there was no way to guarantee I wouldn't pass the test and still be a consistently safe driver.) It was that 50% that convinced me not to drive. A 50% chance of failure is simply too high when "failure" can mean death to me or someone else.
Please don't bother to cite any sources regarding how dangerous any of these things are or any evidence to show that texting takes more thinking. You are obviously the expert in the area.
There are many studies that deal with this question. However, I am not your personal search engine. If you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with any of the statistics before spouting off, that's simply not my problem. Sorry.
You make a good point, except you wouldn't be protecting society by putting people in jail for 6 months if they're caught texting, you'd be bankrupting society because it's so expensive to put someone in jail.
What's the market value of a human life? In addition to that calculation, you have to factor in the fact that the very reason to have harsh penalties is to dissuade people from doing things you don't want them to do. Presumably, if you harshen the penalties, fewer people will commit the crime, relative to if you just make them write a check.
But, hey, if you insist on a fine, rather than jail time, then $500,000 per offense (which you could sell your home to help pay, if you prefer), plus the public auction of your car for the benefit of the state, sounds about right to me.
I don't drive or have a car (medical reasons). Most of the cars I ride in, though, are pretty much like the ones you describe, which would blow hot or cold. Turn it on to get it to the temp. you desire, and then turn it off when it reached that temp. Repeat as necessary.
In fact, blowing hot or cold sounds like something less taxing than actually adjusting a temperature setting.
Virginia did it (split itself into two states), Why can't other states follow the same procedure?
That's not really what happened. What happened was that West Virginia broke away from Virginia during the Civil War. This meant that:
1) West Virginia seceded from the Confederacy, which recognized secession as legitimate.
2) Virginia didn't split "itself", exactly. The citizens of West Virginia simply unilaterally did it (which is different than if the state legislature, for example, makes the "decision").
3) West Virginia seceded and became a territory, not a state. It was still the U.S. federal government's action (by voting them in) that made West Virginia a state.
Good point. I only meant that I don't see the need for adjusting the A/C while you're driving. Presumably, you already know how hot it is in the car before you set off. But your point is well-taken. It's a relatively trivial thing, compared to texting or driving drunk.
You should consider the possibility of killing someone while driving, period.
I think too few people actually do this. It's one of the reasons I don't drive, actually.
I have ADD, cognitive problems, and no depth perception. (The depth perception problem is caused by strabismus.) Around 20 years ago, I made the decision that I didn't want the responsibility of one of my problems being the cause of someone else being maimed or killed.
Frankly, it pisses me off when I hear about people being so casual about driving that they do this shit. As far as I'm concerned, it's intentional homicide, and should be treated as such.
Slashdot Mirror
If I told you to jump in a river, would you do it?
No, but:
a) I'm not clinically depressed
b) I'm not 13.
c) Telling someone once to jump in a river is very different from constructing a persona for the expressed purpose of tormenting someone over a sustained period of time.
Drew was dealing with someone she knew was emotionally vulnerable and unstable, and she took advantage of that. If you simply ignore those factors, you'll never get a full understanding of what actually happened. This wasn't some anonymous flame war among adults (or even children).
go hang out on 4chan for a minute and tell me that the internet should be safe for children. that's like saying central park should be safe for children: it sure can be WITH PROPER PARENTAL SUPERVISION. shit, even some filtering software. but asking your child not to do something that you as a parent deem detrimental to their health? fuck that, TELL THEM. disconnect their internet.
I'm not saying that her parents should be nominated for Parents of the Year. I would argue that disconnecting the Internet altogether is the wrong solution, because it doesn't teach the child how to deal with the Internet (which, as I said, is becoming pretty much ubiquitous, at this point). But doing the wrong thing and being irresponsible are two different things. A lot of parents simply park their kids in front of a monitor and don't care or understand anything about their Internet access, and don't have relationships with their kids where the kids can tell them things. This doesn't appear to be one of those cases.
It also seems to me that the parents didn't deem the Internet detrimental to her health. Otherwise, the discussions they had about it would've been very different (from what's been reported, at least).
As for the Internet in general: MySpace is not 4chan. Granted, the Internet gives you access to both, but I haven't seen any evidence that the parents didn't know what she was doing online. In fact, this seems to indicate that the parents were involved with her computer use, and, with the exception of the day of her death, did insist on being present when she was online. Now, admittedly, I don't know how much of that is actually true, but it's at least consistent with the way things seem to have come out.
oh, and i'm pretty sure i never said her parents were responsible for her death, just that they were irresponsible as parents. unfortunately, they lost their child because of it.
You are saying they were responsible of her death, if you say they "lost their child because of" their actions.
I think you meant Megan Meier, rather than Lori Drew. Drew was the harasser, not the harassed party. (At least, in respect to Meier. Drew is apparently getting some much-deserved harassment herself now.)
On a literal level, of course, you're correct: No one killed Meier. She killed herself. But law and morality separately both acknowledge indirect responsibility for death.
To give you an example (although I'll admit this is more extreme than the case in question):
If you were to pose as someone's doctor, and tell them that they had a terminal illness that would cause them to die a painful death (or if you were their doctor, and decided to do it), and they decided to kill themselves, rather than to die that way, would you or would you not be responsible for that? (Assume that it's not the correct diagnosis, and you know it, for the sake of this discussion.)
Certainly, it was the person's own decision to kill themselves, but it's not like you were just standing there minding your own business. If not for the information you provided, they would be alive. And you would reasonably be expected to anticipate that suicide as a potential reaction to the diagnosis.
The main difference here is that Drew could reasonably say that she didn't intend for the suicide to happen. But given the totality of what she knew, Drew certainly acted with reckless disregard, because to any reasonable person who knew what she knw, that was a possible result of her actions.
In a just universe, Lori Drew would be stoned to death by angry townspeople using the sharpest rocks possible. (Obsidian sounds about right.)
Like women should be stoned for adultery under Sharia law?
Just asking ...
Well, since you're just asking, no, this has nothing to do with Sharia law. Stoning is a punishment that's much older than Sharia law, and was used for much more than just adultery back then.
The reason I specified stoning is because it's the most direct expression of a community's condemnation of a person, because everyone with a rock participates. Remember that I specified a just universe, in which (presumably) people could agree on the concept that a 40-something woman anonymously tormenting a teenage girl is inherently evil and not fit to live among the rest of us.
I am not saying Megan should have toughened up. However, her parents clearly should have monitored her internet usage quite a bit more.
I can certainly agree with that. I just don't think their failure to monitor the Internet (which is becoming ever-more difficult, given how many different ways you can access the Internet now) is enough to put the responsibility for her death on the parents, rather than on Drew. Drew was the one who went above and beyond to cause the girl torment. For the most part, Meier's parents reacted the way most parents would (e.g., becoming angry at being defied). The fact that she discussed these things with her parents in the first place would seem to indicate she had a closer relationship with them than many children her age.
There are people, many younger than 12 years old, who had to put up with a lot more than nasty IMs from adults in their lives. Most of those people are still here, trying to get on with their lives.
Yes Megan Meier's suicide was tragic. Yes Lori Drew's behaviour was reprehensible, even illegal, and was a direct cause of Meier's decision to commit suicide. But it's clear to any reasonable person that Lori Drew, vicious as she was, was in no way the sole reason for Meier's death.
It would be wrong to say that Drew was the sole reason for Megan's death. But the fact of the matter is that Drew knew the girl's vulnerability and mental state, and preyed on it. I'm quite certain that she didn't intend for Megan to kill herself (she probably just wanted to torment her as long as she could, for her own amusement), but she certainly acted in reckless disregard of what should have been seen as a possibility.
It should also be noted that clinical depression is a medical condition, and someone suffering from this condition can't just suck it up and get over it. They sometimes require lifelong medication. So expecting Megan Meier to respond to the situation even as well as a typical teenager would (which in itself wouldn't be particularly well) isn't reasonable.
I certainly can concede the point that merely making offensive statements toward someone online shouldn't be a crime in itself, but this kind of targeted harassment, where the tormentor had knowledge of their target's mental state, is another thing entirely, and that should be taken into account. This isn't a case where the person doing the harassment could reasonably believe that they were doing something harmless.
Actually, she had been seeing a psychiatrist for 5 years, and had been taking various medications, none of which (because of her age) could be given to her without consent of her parents (and some of which are actually controlled substances). All of this means that the parents had to have taken an active role in her treatment. Here's a good article on the whole thing.
I understand that some people are just contrarian by nature, and want to blame the parents when everyone else wants to blame Drew, and I'm certainly not saying that the parents did everything right, but this does not appear to be a neglected child, in the sense that her parents saw that she was troubled and did nothing.
Anonymous Douchebag:
She was under the care of a psychiatrist since the third grade, including taking numerous medications. Who, pray tell, do you think took her to the appointments with the psychiatrist and paid for the medications? Are you truly that much of an idiot? Try researching the case before you spout your mouth off.
The right thing for Drew to do in this case is to sue the government and, specifically, the lead prosecuting attorney.
No, the right thing for Lori Drew to do is to commit suicide. She's using up valuable oxygen and polluting the gene pool. In a just universe, she'd simply be stoned to death and the world would be a better place.
Parents should be there for their child to help them get through those tough times, hers weren't and ignored everything telling them they should be helping her, child negligence. Neglect coupled with not having the tools to be able to handle that sort of thing is what lead to her death, Lori Drew just gave the final push, her parents are the ones who put her on the cliff naked and alone.
I don't think it's that simple. Sure, they made some mistakes, but I'd hardly call them negligent. They were getting the girl treatment for her depression, after all. They weren't just ignoring her.
Sorry, but that's crap.
Short of locking your kid up, he/she is always going to be able to find a way to defy the rules. Parents can't be held responsible for everything their children do. That's especially true when the rebellion in question is over something that should be safe to do. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of teenagers go online every day without any harm at all befalling them. It's not the big, bad Internet's fault. It's this worthless piece of crap of a human being who decided to torture a 13-year old girl.
Besides that, we are fast approaching a time when it will be literally impossible to "stay off" the Internet. If anything, the girl's parents are guilty of not giving the girl practical guidance, rather than failing to make sure their guidance was followed. Staying off the Internet wasn't the solution to the problem in the first place.
The solution would've been to find out who was sending the message and take action against them. By "action", I mean talking to the parents, if it turned out to be a minor, and talking to the police, if it turned out to be an adult. As others have pointed out, harrassment is both a crime and a violation of most ISPs terms of service. At the very least, the parents could have, if they had been more savvy, gotten the account of the perpetrator pulled. But that still doesn't make the parents responsible for the death. Not in any rational way, at least.
That's what juvenile detention is for.
What is the purpose of separating child criminals from the adult ones? If it is so that the adult criminals don't prey on the (physically weaker) children then it's jail just with a different name and the children are responsible for their actions (since they (and not their parents) were sent there). If the juvenile detention is different from adult jail in more ways than just the age of prisoners then you can say that it is different. Otherwise it's the same as prison for men vs prison for women.
Anyway, I do not live in the US, so I know little about its penal system.
Juvenile detention is not meant to be a kiddie prison. It's more like a reform/boarding school kind of situation.
For the love of all that is holy, please try to exercise some common sense! Please?!
If I tell my child, "Don't go down that dark alley.", and he/she goes down the dark alley anyway, and someone shoots her, are you seriously contending that I, and not the goddamn shooter, am responsible?!
Maybe someone should get on lexus-nexus and post all her info to 4chan and fark and all the rest of the shady underbelly of the net. Someone somewhere will have the time to truly make this woman suffer for her actions.
I'm fairly certain that all her personal information is already readily available online. I don't know what acts have been taken against her by her fellow citizens, but I certainly wouldn't shed a tear for her, whatever they were/are.
She was 13. Children of this age are not typically tried as adults. That's what juvenile detention is for. And the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to execute a child, meaning that it is unconstitutional to hold a child to the same standard as an adult. (There are some circumstances under which an adult may be executed, so this difference alone means we always treat children as different.)
Huh? No one said she should be charged with murder (which is what would happen if she were held responsible for what the girl did to herself).
I'm having a hard time understanding how Drew isn't responsible, since part of what she did was to tell the girl the world would be a better place without her.
Drew deserves the worst society could possibly do to her. I am utterly without sympathy for that pathetic piece of crap.
When you make speech subject to jury review regardless of how seemingly reasonable that is you gut the idea of free speech. Additionally, while I think this woman is a worthless piece of crap why is she responsible for the actions of another who harmed themselves. Personal responsibility plays a part in all things and we're so ready to find others to blame we ignore that. Just because she is worthless, mean, and stupid does not make her responsible for another's actions.
A few things of note here:
"Speech" covers a very broad area, and some of it has to be subject to review. If I advertise that my magic potion can cure diabetes and eliminate the need for the consumer to take insulin, and someone dies because of that, shouldn't I be responsible for that "speech"? If I incite a mob to kill someone, shouldn't I be responsible for that? Speech has consequences, and "freedom of speech" doesn't cover all sins. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
In the case at hand, one could argue that an adult would be responsible for his/her actions, and should have been expected to handle the situation better. But this was a child with mental health issues that were apparently known by her killer (which is a word I use very deliberately).
Personal responsibility is all well and good for an adult, but we don't hold children to the same standard in civilized countries. And we do hold adults responsible for exploiting children. I can't think of a more clear-cut example of someone exploiting that vulnerability than the case we have here.
In a just universe, Lori Drew would be stoned to death by angry townspeople using the sharpest rocks possible. (Obsidian sounds about right.)
It's 15 years if someone ends up killing someone, right? So losing 15 years of one's life in exchange for doing something stupid resulting in someone else's death seems kind of fair. But, we forget, can't someone get a reduced sentence? Is 15 years mandatory sentencing?
Unfortunately, the NY Times article referenced in the OP says "up to" 15 years.
No offence, but I find it incredible you would even be eligible for a license.
No offense taken. I took driving lessons ~ 20 years ago. Back then (I don't know what the rules are now in NJ) the issues were:
1) Can you pass the written test?
2) Can you pass the driving test?
At the time, my ADD was undiagnosed. I had some obvious attention issues, but I was borderline, and I had learned how to compensate, mostly. The cognitive problems were completely undiagnosed. (Again, I compensate well.) The depth perception was more of an obvious issue (because the strabismus was documented), but the odds of me being able to drive (according to the rehab center I was learning at) were put at ~ 50%. (And there was no way to guarantee I wouldn't pass the test and still be a consistently safe driver.) It was that 50% that convinced me not to drive. A 50% chance of failure is simply too high when "failure" can mean death to me or someone else.
Please don't bother to cite any sources regarding how dangerous any of these things are or any evidence to show that texting takes more thinking. You are obviously the expert in the area.
There are many studies that deal with this question. However, I am not your personal search engine. If you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with any of the statistics before spouting off, that's simply not my problem. Sorry.
You make a good point, except you wouldn't be protecting society by putting people in jail for 6 months if they're caught texting, you'd be bankrupting society because it's so expensive to put someone in jail.
What's the market value of a human life? In addition to that calculation, you have to factor in the fact that the very reason to have harsh penalties is to dissuade people from doing things you don't want them to do. Presumably, if you harshen the penalties, fewer people will commit the crime, relative to if you just make them write a check.
But, hey, if you insist on a fine, rather than jail time, then $500,000 per offense (which you could sell your home to help pay, if you prefer), plus the public auction of your car for the benefit of the state, sounds about right to me.
I don't drive or have a car (medical reasons). Most of the cars I ride in, though, are pretty much like the ones you describe, which would blow hot or cold. Turn it on to get it to the temp. you desire, and then turn it off when it reached that temp. Repeat as necessary.
In fact, blowing hot or cold sounds like something less taxing than actually adjusting a temperature setting.
Virginia did it (split itself into two states), Why can't other states follow the same procedure?
That's not really what happened. What happened was that West Virginia broke away from Virginia during the Civil War. This meant that:
1) West Virginia seceded from the Confederacy, which recognized secession as legitimate.
2) Virginia didn't split "itself", exactly. The citizens of West Virginia simply unilaterally did it (which is different than if the state legislature, for example, makes the "decision").
3) West Virginia seceded and became a territory, not a state. It was still the U.S. federal government's action (by voting them in) that made West Virginia a state.
Good point. I only meant that I don't see the need for adjusting the A/C while you're driving. Presumably, you already know how hot it is in the car before you set off. But your point is well-taken. It's a relatively trivial thing, compared to texting or driving drunk.
You should consider the possibility of killing someone while driving, period.
I think too few people actually do this. It's one of the reasons I don't drive, actually.
I have ADD, cognitive problems, and no depth perception. (The depth perception problem is caused by strabismus.) Around 20 years ago, I made the decision that I didn't want the responsibility of one of my problems being the cause of someone else being maimed or killed.
Frankly, it pisses me off when I hear about people being so casual about driving that they do this shit. As far as I'm concerned, it's intentional homicide, and should be treated as such.