[JumpCrisscross]

> She's not going to drive again

She gets her license back. That's wild.

> This is something that humans suck at

Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that, the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.

> You shouldn't punish her for other people failing to take action

You're punishing her for being criminally reckless. You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.

[mlyle]

> She gets her license back. That's wild.

In 3 years, at age 83, if she wanted to... she could try and take the driving test again and become licensed. This is just not going to happen :P In the end, the court can only prohibit her from driving while she is on probation.

Would it be great if this time she could be banned forever? Sure. But there's reasons why we don't just let judges make up arbitrary penalties and permanent restrictions on their own.

> Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that,

Humans don't misestimate their remaining ability with fatal consequences?

> the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.

Yes, by confusing gas and brake. She clearly has significantly reduced capacity.

> You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.

I do not think that the behavior of 80 year old people will be meaningfully changed by the degree of punishment applied here. This is a person that has lost a significant degree of capacity; unfortunately, humans losing capacity tend not to realize it or correctly estimate how much they have lost.

[JumpCrisscross]

> she could try and take the driving test again and become licensed. This is just not going to happen

Why? More importantly, why is it on the table?

> the court can only prohibit her from driving while she is on probation

This seems incorrect. Lau was placed on probation for 2 years and had her license revoked for 3 [1].

> Would it be great if this time she could be banned forever? Sure. But there's reasons why we don't just let judges make up arbitrary penalties and permanent restrictions on their own

Straw man. Harsh and arbitrary are mostly orthogonal.

If you kill someone from behind the wheel, and you are at fault, the default punishment should be long-term license revocation and jail time. In almost no case do I see a reason for removing the requirement to spend time in prison altogether.

> Humans don't misestimate their remaining ability with fatal consequences?

Humans get taken off the roads and otherwise criminally incapacitated.

> do not think that the behavior of 80 year old people will be meaningfully changed by the degree of punishment applied here. This is a person that has lost a significant degree of capacity

I do. If the headline were she got years in jail, I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.

[1] https://sfstandard.com/2026/03/20/mary-lau-sentenced-probati...

[FireBeyond]

> I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.

See my comment just above, where I reply to someone who replied to you. "Confronting a relative"? Shit, I'd be happy if a few less relatives actively enabled people, "That doctor doesn't know what he's talking about, you're fine, mom, besides, it's kind of a pain for us to drive 10 minutes over to your house to help with an errand and then 10 minutes home. Just drive, no-one's going to pull you over."

[mlyle]

> Straw man. Harsh and arbitrary are mostly orthogonal.

It's "arbitrary" because it's something that the legislature has not specifically allowed for. We do not allow judges to make up things on the spot for good reason.

> I do. If the headline were she got years in jail, I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.

I think the chance that grandpa might see prison time for driving is not really something that is going to change things much for families compared to "grandpa might kill someone" or "grandpa might get himself killed."

[wredcoll]

So your hypothetical is that someone reads the headline "elderly woman kills family of four with car due to incapacity, receives no jail time" and goes "oh, no jail? No biggie" but if they read a headline "... and receives life in prison" they're going to rush out and take away grandma's keys because now they care?

Really?

[sagarm]

The message that incapacity, even to the point of killing four people, will be excused is quite clear.

The deterrence argument is used to throw the book at people committing minor crimes like shoplifting. Let's apply it to quadruple homicide, eh?

Mary Long Fau should have died in prison.

[wredcoll]

> The deterrence argument is used to throw the book at people committing minor crimes like shoplifting

And it doesn't work there, so why would it work for impaired driving?

You seem to be operating under the idea that because she didn't go to jail, there were no consequences. This seems false.

[barry-cotter]

> And it doesn't work there, so why would it work for impaired driving?

It does actually. See how thieves resident in Florida travel to New York to work because of the different enforcement regimes for one of the clearest possible examples[1].

Even if deterrence didn’t work at all putting people in prison is good because of incapacitation. Committing crimes is stupidly right tailed[2]. Every career criminal in jail for a year is a year society doesn’t suffer their crimes.

[1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/02/02/cnns_john...

[2] https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-e...

[asveikau]

> Not only that, the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.

I don't defend that woman at all and as someone who walked by that intersection on the day of the incident, 70 mph seems physically impossible there for a reasonable driver.

But it was not a totally residential area, it was a major transit hub of that part of town, where light rail and bus lines meet, a verrry short block away from lots of retail and restaurants.. That actually is an argument to go slower than in a purely residential area, because it's actually a congested area.

[Aachen]

> She gets her license back. That's wild.

Definitely not given back. If I didn't misread it, she needs to take a new driver's test at 83, which she already declined applying for (though it'll be her right; we'd have to see if she stays by the decision or if the examiner deems her a safe driver)

> You're punishing her for being criminally reckless. You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.

Wtf? Try applying logic somewhere in the process. People don't enjoy killing others by accident, paying 64k, 200h community service, three years of trying to use American public transport before you can start the process of getting a license back, going through a whole court system, and, y'know, guilt that I'd imagine would cripple me for years

Edit: I'm very surprised, reading your other comments, they're overall legit sensible. Really struggling to comprehend how, here, you get from "someone did something by accident" to "you need life punishments or they'll have an incentive to mow the next person down". There's zero incentive for citizens to kill people in any society that I'm aware of, again even ignoring the internal problems it causes

[mlyle]

> Definitely not given back. If I didn't misread it, she needs to take a new driver's test at 83, which she already declined applying for (though it'll be her right; we'd have to see if she stays by the decision or if the examiner deems her a safe driver)

Pretty likely that DMV Driver Safety has her record flagged and wants some additional evidence of medical capacity if she reapplies, too.