Another example of misguided priorities:
SHAILA DEWAN: Rebecca Horting was a woman who was charged with texting while driving, and reckless endangerment, I believe, was the charge. She hit a girl who was riding her bicycle down the side of the road, causing brain damage and the loss of a leg. And she was offered pretrial diversion. She paid about $1,200, I believe, and is on course to have her case dismissed outright. So, this is a deal that the prosecutor will make with you: “Fulfill these conditions, and we’ll dismiss your case.” And, in general, it’s a pretty good, progressive idea to give defendants a way out of the huge consequences of getting a record.
“The Price of a Second Chance”: NY Times Exposé on How the Rich Pay to Expunge Criminal Records
There is nothing “pretty good” or “progressive” about letting drivers essentially get away with destroying the lives of bicyclists and pedestrians through reckless behavior (easily avoidable texting while driving). There currently exists a major problem in terms of prosecutors refusing to charge drivers who injure cyclists and pedestrians (aside from more general problems with prosecutorial discretion). Relatively speaking, such drivers are much more deserving of long prison sentences than most current prison inmates….people should not be able to injure or even kill someone with almost no consequences merely as long as they are driving cars when they do it. So, aside from the contrast drawn in the linked interview between the reckless driver and a completely different scenario, isn’t it more accurate so say that this is regressive? At the very least, this is a terrible example to use, because it holds up a terrible problem as some kind of model outcome.