Harry Dunn death

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but this is different. This isn't a drug dealer or a thief. This is a spy. That means there are national security implications. Not in terms of actually harming national security, but the precedent of extraditng spys is something that they won't challenge.

I'll get plenty of hate for this comment but here goes.

I absolutely sympathise with the Dunne Family. They have lost their son and I can understand why they want their pound of flesh. That said, Anne Sacoolas didn't set out to kill anyone. As far as I'm aware she wasn't speeding, drunk or drugged or engaging in anything else dangerous other than driving on the wrong side of the road. Yes, I know, that's illegal and it's a huge mistake that cost the young man his life but it was a mistake that's easy to make when you come from a country that drives on the opposite side of the road.

I can understand wanting to jail someone for causing death by dangerous driving if they were driving at 200mph or were scuttered drunk, but Anne Sacoolas made an error that's probably more common than we realise. I personally know of two incidents of the same here in Ireland that resulted in crashes but luckily no deaths (one was the boss in my old job, a German who momentarily forgot where he was and the other was an Austrian truck driver).

I'm of the opinion that Anne Sacoolas made a mistake that had huge consequences, but it was still a mistake nonetheless. Do I think Anne Sacoolas should be jailed for this mistake - no, I don't. Would I feel differently if it was my son killed, absolutely. But the law works better when emotion is left out of it.

I don't think the family will get any comfort as I can't see Socoolas appearing via video link. What obligation is she under to do so? Her lawyer said that hasn't been agreed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-59643750

Nobody sets off on a journey intending to cause a collision or kill someone, but when it happens it should be dealt with in a court, and the ability to flit off to another country does not affect that.

Hey Manic, what's the US Government's take on her having immunity? Do they assert that she had diplomatic immunity or not?

I haven't been following this very closely but I see that the UK High Court found back towards the end of 2020 that she did have diplomatic immunity.

Wasn't Dominic Rabb, then Foreign Secretary, heavily criticised and has since said that he should have put British citizens above the UK-US relationships, sounds like some wink and a nod indeed

What do you think will give them actual comfort? Seeing her in person? Seeing her admit to the killing (we all know she killed him)? An apology? Seeing her suffer by being imprisoned?

I don't think the justice system is in any way set up to comfort the victims so if they're after comfort then I think they're chasing something they will never get through the justice system. I think the best thing they can hope for is to set their goal at getting an apology via video link and her being convicted in UK court while living in america and draw a line under it, because that's the absolute maximum they will get.

What do you think will actually comfort the family?

Not sure about whether she can be tried in the UK without her participation.

It would be one thing if she can be tried from the US plead guilty and apologise and then be sentenced so that if she ever goes back to the UK she would serve the sentence. But she might have to give a mealy mouthed, half apology which was crafted by a lawyer to make sure she doesn't admit any guilt. I really doubt that would do anything but upset the family further. I don't know how these things work in reality. But I really doubt any of it will make the family happy until they draw a line under it and nove on with their lives.

They treated her as if she had immunity and the US suggested she had immunity all along. Its not clear whether she had immunity as a spy or they created the immunity after the accident. But its national security and diplomatic relations, so none of the parties involved have to be transparent about it.

The trial would be completely with her consent and would involve no enforceable or practical punishment. It would presumably be carefully curated not to set a precedent which would compel other spys or diplomats to stand any kind of trial in the future.

Was she on her phone?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15809499/claim-anne-sacoolas-may-used-phone-crash-harry-dunn/

The idea that someone would voluntarily go to prison in a foreign country, is Hollywood nonsense. Most people would avoid prison if there is a legal option to do so. I'd choose to deal with the guilt in freedom rather than dealing with the guilt in captivity.

If it's legal to avoid prison, and it is in this case, then she'll take that option like almost everyone else.

The fact that it involved diplomats means it's way bigger than Anna and Harry. The UK demanding she stands trial in the UK, or the US actually allowing her to be extradited would set a precedent which would have major ramifications for spys in the future. Its not about her.

I don't say anything about "just get on with your life? Forget all about it".

I imagine she's going going to be wracked by guilt. But I doubt going to prison will help anything for her.

I also explained why I think she'll have no choice in the matter of facing trial in the UK because its not about her, its about national security and the ramifications of setting such a precedent.

Given the choice of going to prison or legally avoiding going to prison, I'd choose the latter. What would you choose?

But we're talking about what she'll likely do.

It's not about what she wants. You keep ignoring the national security implications. So she might be able to give a private apology to the family, from the US, but she might not even be able to admit guilt.

But lest assume it was just a normal person with the option to legally avoid prison - prison would surely be a possibility. I would do pretty much anything to avoid prison. What about her family? Who cares for them, who earns money for the family? How do her children fare while she's going to prison out of choice? Be real for a second, there's no way you'd go to prison on purpose if you had the choice to legally avoid it.

She'll have to deal with the guilt her own way, that's up to her with therapy and whatever else. I'll be shocked of she chooses to deal with it by going to prison - one of the more stressful environments imaginable.

In reality, she has lawyers to strategise on her behalf. They'll be telling her to not admit any guilt at the moment.

If it were me, I'd want to at least apologise to the family. But I wouldn't volunteer to go to prison, nor will Anne Sacoolas. She'll only admit guilt or apologise to the family once she knows she's immune from prosecution and the UK agree to drop it. It will likely take years to sort out all the diplomatic angles and things settle down a bit. I'm just looking at it from the realistic point of view.