To the editor:
I am confounded after reading last Saturday's headline story about Sean M. Scott's 2.5-year sentence for taking the life of Felicia A. Bland on K-10 on Sept. 16. Several seemingly important questions remain.
What were Judge Janette Sheldon's sentencing guidelines in the case? Does judicial precedent suggest Mr. Scott's punishment to be light or severe? What is Judge Sheldon's philosophy regarding the deterrent effect of punishment? Her statement, "When you make a decision, you own it," seems to communicate a sense of responsibility for the crime, but is there a disconnect between her statement and the punishment?
How was the charge of involuntary manslaughter decided upon? From your story, it seems Mr. Scott's decisions to drink and drive were voluntary. Can someone offer a plausible explanation how such voluntary decisions with highly predictible outcomes could result in an involuntary act?
How was the decision not to conduct a jury trial arrived at? Does the Johnson County District Attorney, who I assume prosecuted the case, plan any further action?
What legal responsibility does Mr. Scott's family, who apparently observed their minor age son and brother drink, and who likely knew he had access to an automobile, bear?
Do the Lawrence Douglas County chapters of MADD and SADD plan any response to this decision? I guess the fact that I drive K-10 daily as do thousands of other Douglas and Johnson County residents set me to wondering what my life is worth.
Kim Grubbs,
Lawrence
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.