From CNN:
BUTLER, Pennsylvania (AP) — A judge ordered a woman to carry a photo of the man she killed in a head-on collision, and the man’s parents complied by sending a picture of him in his casket. Now, her lawyer is crying foul and the family is refusing to provide another picture.
Prosecutors said Jennifer Langston was drunk and talking on a cell phone in June 2002 when she crossed the center line and hit a pickup truck carrying teacher Glenn Clark and his pregnant wife, Annette. He died, his wife remains in a coma and their son, born by Caesarean section five months after the crash, is being raised by relatives.
Besides vehicular homicide, Langston pleaded guilty in September to reckless endangerment and reckless driving. A judge sentenced her to 30 days in jail, plus house arrest and probation, and ordered her to carry a picture of Clark for five years.
She got 30 whole days in jail?? But wait, there’s more…
Clark’s parents gave court officials a photo of their son in his coffin.
At a hearing Wednesday, Langston’s attorney, Michael Sherman, said the “spirit of the agreement” was that the photo be of Clark when he was alive.
“It was very unreasonable and cruel that she was given that picture,” Sherman said.
He must mean something different by ‘cruel’ than I usually do.
Sounds like she got off cheap.
Yep. The lawyer should be thankful that the judge didn’t order to have that picture tattoo on her forehead.
BigFire –
I was thinking the exact same thing!!
Then again, I have a Snow Crash related plate on our car…
A.L.
Dear Armed Liberal,
Please pardon my ignorance in asking what is probably a stupid question, but what do you mean by “Snow Crash”? It’s been [mumble] years since I read the Neal Stephenson book of that title, so if it’s something out of that, I still don’t get the reference. 🙁
Yup, it relates to the book…past that my pseud can’t go.
A.L.
I don’t know about getting off cheap. If you really want to hurt someone, to punish them, the most effective way to do it is to mess with their head.
It won’t work with everyone, some people will laugh it off and for them jail would be the best way to go. But for some people, forcing them to face what they have done really can be the most effectve punishment.
Plus, a snapshot from Kodak is much cheaper than keeping someone locked up and feeding them three square meals a day.
But hey, I’m English. Its your tax dollars, not mine…
Andy, If I were the Judge, I would have had her wear that photo on a necklace all the time, so that everyone, when they looked at her, would see the face of the man she killed. And she would know that, every time she talks with someone.
Even after 5 years, Jennifer Langston will still be alive, and Glenn Clark will still be dead. instead of carrying that cruel photo, perhaps Jennifer could do some community service, like CARE FOR ANNETTE CLARK WHILE SHE’S IN A COMA AND HELPING HER THROUGH GRIEF COUNSELING WHEN SHE RECOVERS.
In the novel Snow Crash there is a character with a tatoo on his forehead that reads “POOR IMPULSE CONTROL” (or something to that effect).
I can’t say I object to the punishment, especially given the circumstances of the crash.
The woman who killed my Dad 3 years ago in a head-on collision was speeding and failed to maintain a lookout as she passed the cars in front of her on the 2-lane road (although she wasn’t under the influence), and she didn’t even lose her license. Damnum absque injuria, she’s judgment-proof. She’s never attempted to apologize; I imagine she rarely thinks of what happened.
Sorry to overshare, but stories like this make my blood boil.
She got more time than the Hero of Chappaquiddick™.
I’m not at all sure I approve of such “innovative” punishments.
What’s the point of sentencing her to carry a picture around? Note that she’s not required to keep it someplace visible or to ever look at it; she could duct-tape it, face down, to the inside of her wallet and never think about it again, if she was that sort of person. (And if she is not, she’ll remember her actions forever, regardless of a photograph and judge’s order, won’t she?)
This reeks of pointless judicial posturing, and while it’s technically valid for any punishment at all to be part of probation (since no-one is forced to go on probation, generally speaking; it’s an alternative to being in prison), this reeks of pointless posturing. Is her probation officer going to waste his time (and thus tax dollars) checking to see if she has the photo on her? If not, why bother? If so, is this really a worthwhile use of said time/money? Why not just send her to jail for an extra month? I just don’t see any point to it.
(The real objection is the one in the paragraph above; if she’s not at all remorseful now, she never will be. If she is remorseful now, the photograph requirement is useless. If she’s somehow borderline, the requirement is as likely to cause resentment as remorse, no?)
True, Sigvald. But if she isn’t remorseful, and never will be, we also need to ask, what is the use of throwing her in jail? (Other than our own personal satisfaction). By sending her to jail, you are just wasting even more money.
Neither answer is entirely satisfactory.
Talking from a slightly different angle – before he died, my father was researching the family tree. His father’s side of the family was the harder one to get information on, and a year or two ago, one of his aunts asked him if he’d like a picture of his uncle Roscoe on that side.
He replied that, of course, he’d like the picture.
She sent him a photo of Roscoe laid out in his coffin.
Well, Annette passed away, 5 years to the day that her husbands life was snuffed out.
Please pray for thise she left behind. Particularly their son Michael Anthony….
May you rest in peace, Glenn and Annette, until the glorious resurrection!