The defendant was driving in the left lane of a freeway. She spotted a family of ducklings on the highway, and being an animal lover, wanted to save them. To keep them from being run over by other cars, she stopped and parked her car in the travel lane. Two motorcyclists behind her, a father and daughter, slammed into her parked car and were killed. They were doing 70 to 80 mph in a 60 mph zone. The defendant was charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death, which is punishable by up to life in prison, and two counts of dangerous driving causing death, which is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The jury should:
[ ] 1. Acquit her on all counts, because she didn’t intend to hurt anyone, and it was the motorcyclists’ own damn fault for speeding.
[ ] 2. Acquit her of the most serious charges, but convict her on the lesser charges, because even though she didn’t intend to hurt anyone, she was indifferent to the safety of other people using the highway.
[ ] 3. Find her guilty of all counts because what she did was unbelievably stupid and dangerous.
If convicted, her sentence should be:
[ ] A. Life, because murder is murder, even if she didn’t plan to kill those people. (Note: Canada doesn’t have the death penalty.)
[ ] B. 10 years, because even though she didn’t intend to hurt anyone, she was criminally negligent.
[ ] C. 90 days in jail, 240 hours of community service, and banned from driving for 10 years, because no one whose stupidity gets someone else killed should expect to walk out of the courthouse as free as a bird, even if the victims were stupid, too.
[ ] D. Probation, because even though she was negligent she’s not a criminal, and prisons are meant for criminals.
For answers, go here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/17/canada-ducklings-highway-fatal-court/20513845/