Really sad story. Cannot imagine what the poor mum is going through.
I kinda agree though that the case should have been brought. Morally, it's not right, that is plain to see. But it is only once in a blue moon that interpretation of the law throws up an absurdity, and this is one of those times.
She has been punished in the fact that she has been brought before the courts, but to be fair her sentence was not as harsh as it could have been. This makes me think she has been shown compassion on some level through the suspended sentence.
It is difficult for us in the UK to understand a law that we don't have. To us it seems strange for it to be an offence to cross where there is no crossing. I've been to America a few times - to Vegas, Chicago, New York...and to smaller towns in Milwaukee and Michigan...and even the "smaller" towns have roads that you would never attempt to cross in a million years. This puts the jaywalking law in perspective.
In the eyes of the law it is not good enough to say she has suffered enough so it should never have been brought to the courts. The fact remains the law was broken. If it starts getting decided outside of the courtroom who should and should not face prosecution (in the case where the evidence is clear that a crime has been committed) then it would in some way make a mockery of the jury system - which is a system I am fully supportive of.
It's a tough one, granted, but there is a difference between an empathetic interpretation and a legal one.
My heart goes out to the mother though - what an awful thing to have to live with.
still seems unfair.
LEGEND!!!
