Why would a woman who had two previous serious "drugged driving" offenses be allowed to continue to drive?
" Springdale Township woman who died in a crash while driving the wrong way on the Pennsylvania Turnpike was awaiting trial on two cases involving drugged driving, according to court records"
Her son, Aiden Baker, 2, who was strapped into a child seat in the SUV, escaped with a bruised left cheek, police said.
The Allegheny Medical Examiner’s Office ruled Baker’s death accidental and concluded she died from blunt force trauma to the abdomen and legs.
Toxicology results will be available in three to four months, a medical examiner said.
The truck drivers were not injured.
State police are still investigating why Baker was traveling in the wrong direction. A toll ticket found in her vehicle shows that she may have entered the turnpike at the Allegheny Valley interchange in Harmar.
Court records show Baker was cited twice in the last year for driving in the wrong lane.
Other citations from police in Springdale, East Deer, West Deer, Tarentum, Pittsburgh, North Versailles and Edgewood include careless driving, reckless driving, running a stop sign and ignoring a traffic control device.
Allegheny County Judge Jeffrey Manning had issued an arrest warrant for Baker because she failed to appear July 15 for a hearing on drugged driving charges filed in April by Monroeville police. Baker was found at about 1:40 a.m. April 26 in a sport utility vehicle that was hanging over the edge of a hillside, according to a police affidavit.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_634961.html
"…awaiting trial on two cases of drugged driving according to court records."
There is the key. Awaiting trial means she has not yet been convicted of these offenses, she is only accused of committing them. Her driving privileges would have been suspended or revoked if she had lived long enough to be tried, if she were convicted of the offenses.
Even though drugged driving is a serious offense, and a hazard to all of the other citizens in the communmity … she was still entitled to due process.
The simple explanation is because the government is less likely to take away privileges such as driving on the basis of a "what if." The government had no way of knowing that the person would drive under the influence again, and they had no idea that it would result in a fatal accident. It’s unfortunate, but it’s how we work. Also, the government is not responsible to ensure all of our safety at all times. Besides, had they taken away her driving privileges, that does not mean she would not drive.
It’s totally unfortunate, and I wish we had a better way to assess risk and act on it, but there are thousands of people with prior DUI/DWI violations that still drive without any problems at all. Should we take away all driving privileges from all these people? Is that the role of government?
References :
"…awaiting trial on two cases of drugged driving according to court records."
There is the key. Awaiting trial means she has not yet been convicted of these offenses, she is only accused of committing them. Her driving privileges would have been suspended or revoked if she had lived long enough to be tried, if she were convicted of the offenses.
Even though drugged driving is a serious offense, and a hazard to all of the other citizens in the communmity … she was still entitled to due process.
References :