So over the weekend I read this book about a woman who, having spent 2 years in prison for killing a mother and her 12 year old daughter while driving drunk, only to discover some 20 odd years later that she hadn't actually been behind the wheel at the time. During these 20 years she joined AA and maintained her sobriety, doing everything she can to amend for her sin, her entire life now structured around doing the right thing for others.
When she finds out that she wasn't the one to mow the mother and daughter down, her relief is palpable--like a sheet of grief lifting off her life--but her husband does not share her joy. According to him, even though she wasn't the one driving, she set the steps in motion which resulted in their death. She went out, intent on getting drunk, driving on a suspended license due previous drunk driving convictions, and while it was true that she gave her keys to a man she thought was more sober than she, she was prone to drinking so much that her judgment back then was perpetually impaired. And so, based on her husband's ethical code, this potentially liberating discovery that someone else was behind the wheel is no more than a technicality on the scales of justice.
An interesting proposition. What do you think? Just because she wasn't driving at the time, is she absolved of accountability? Two years in prison--basing her whole life thereafter on trying to be better. Or is she still guilty, having defied the law by repeatedly driving with a suspended license, drinking to the point of amnesiac black outs, and on route to possibly hitting someone anyway?
I think it can, and should, be taken both ways. We know that your judgement can be impaired by drinking. If she was sober, she probably would not have given the man the keys and would have driven herself. However, she already had a suspended license, so if she had driven herself, she would already be braking the law, so I think the husband is right, even the judgement is a bit unfair. Also, if she had not been drunk while driving, her license probably would not have suspended. But then again, good things came out of her being jailed.
ReplyDeleteShe's partially guilty. Why on earth was she driving without her license? That's illegal. She's still accountable for the events leading up to their death. She went out and got drunk, then asked another, less drunk person to drive her home. Using the car she gave him permission to use, he killed the two people. And something's fishy here: She thought she killed them? Are we sure the whole case has come to light?
ReplyDeleteI don't think she should be guilty: for all they know, the man tricked her into giving him her keys. Knowing that she was drunk, he might have used her. Everyone gets drunk sometimes, but also vulnerable. So maybe it's not her fault.
ReplyDeleteWho is she trying to kid? She got drunk, asked someone else who drank less than she did to drive home. Then, he killed two people. And Bella, your right, why did she think she killed them? I get she was drunk... but she has a memory. It's really weird. I think that the woman lied a LOT, and so did the other man.
ReplyDelete