Infuriating

[JennK13]

Um, did you actually read the news coverage?

That's the whole point of restitution -- it's an attempt to make up for some of what the victim lost, and it is part of sentencing in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor claims that keeping the guy's earning ability (and the possibility of a civil suit) played a role in his decision because there will be "significant" restitution.

Um, yes, which is how I knew he was a surgeon.

So, basically, if you want to get out of a felony for committing a crime

1) earn a lot of money so your ability to pay restitution is taken into consideration when charges are filed (the more you earn, the better! that means you can pay more to the victim if they sue you, and the DA will consider that possibility when it comes to charges)

2) hurt some one who also earns a lot of money, thus justifying the need for your potential to remain since the more they earn, the more you MIGHT have a to pay.

3) do it in Mark Hurlbert's jurisdiction

But you're really in for it if you make minimum wage - since your ability to pay restitution is reduced, DA Hurlbert will help you out by charging you with the appropriate (or inappropriate charge - see the Leadville 100 case) which is more likely to lead to jail time (Hey! 3 hots and a cot!) or cause you to lose your job, which isn't that big of a deal since you don't make that much, anyhow.

I just don't get this reasoning. I also agree with Badger and SFA that the guy probably has substantial assests, other than his dented Mercedes, that can be sold off to cover restitution. He should be charged appropriately as dictated by law.

[PamNY]

I just don't get this reasoning. I also agree with Badger and SFA that the guy probably has substantial assets, other than his dented Mercedes, that can be sold off to cover restitution. He should be charged appropriately as dictated by law.

Your post said: "What about the victim and his earning potential prior to injury? The guy is a surgeon who will now be in pain and unable to work as he previously did." That's why I pointed out that restitution could be intended to address that issue.

I really don't want to argue about this; everything I've posted has been meant as a discussion point. I've read a bit about restitution playing a greater role in criminal justice, and wondered if that might be the case here. I don't know that it is; again, it just seemed like a reasonable idea to discuss -- but obviously not with this group.

[JennK13]

I really don't want to argue about this; everything I've posted has been meant as a discussion point. I've read a bit about restitution playing a greater role in criminal justice, and wondered if that might be the case here. I don't know that it is; again, it just seemed like a reasonable idea to discuss -- but obviously not with this group.

I was speaking to the case in point and this DA's history. He is "famous" for these kinds of things. As such, I don't believe restitution played a role in this particular case.

As for restitution's role in criminal justice in general, that would be a different discussion.

[Irulan]

having been on the jury on negligent death cases, fines are in part supposed to be punishment, not restitution.

[Trek420]

having been on the jury on negligent death cases, fines are in part supposed to be punishment, not restitution.

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV etc but if fines are are part of the punishment and I think I read somewhere they are then doesn't planning the fines, calculating his ability to pay etc before trial or even charges mean we're skipping that whole radical activist Constitutional "guilty until proven innocent beyond a" thang?

If they find me with the body, with my loaded slingshot, rubber band scars on my wrist from the sling shot and decide "no, we're not gonna book her for killing that @zzhole driver who cut her off because she has a phobia of being in the upper bunk bed and could never make it in a cell for the length of a murder sentence"

Guilty until proven and then we figure it all out is at least what I thought we do I could be wrong.

(I'm not saying he is innocent, sounds like he done it)

[Kathi]

Here is the DA's explanation of his decision posted in the Vail Daily.

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...ntprofile=1058

In Colorado restitution must be made by the person causing an accident before they can have their driver's licence reinstated. I know this because a drunk driver hit the corner of our house and fled the scene. No one was injured but it was his 2nd drunk driving offense. The driver was uninsured so our homeowners insurance paid the damages. We were responsible for our deductible. The court ordered the driver to reimburse us our deductible which he promply did. He also received jail time and lost his driver's license for over a year and probably his job. Our insurance company could have also gone after him to pay for our claim. No idea if they did.

Which brings up another point. If the bicyclists health insurance is paying any part of his rehabilitation they could go after the driver for reimbursement.

I wonder why his company keeps him, the publicity certainly is a black eye for them.

Also, bicycle Colorado is looking into this.

[pll]

NOt a lawyer here, and I don't understand why can't be charged and be convicted of a felony. As for the "felony deferred...", it could have repercussions in the future, depending on how the NASD phrases the relevant questions. If the NASD does what immigration authorities do, the question is whether someone was *ever charged* with a crime or offense, and the answer is a sworn statement, he cannot "deny that anything had happened," as Hurlbert suggests.

[PamNY]

I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV etc but if fines are are part of the punishment and I think I read somewhere they are then doesn't planning the fines, calculating his ability to pay etc before trial or even charges mean we're skipping that whole radical activist Constitutional "guilty until proven innocent beyond a" thang?

He was offered a plea bargain -- so no trial to determine guilt. That's the purpose of a plea bargain. At least that's how it works in other states.

[ny biker]

Bob Mionske's take:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...cites-outrage/

He feels the crime is definitely a felony, due to the severity of the injuries. Also he points out the court could refuse the accept the plea.

And also, from velonews.com, The Explainer weighs in:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...defense_149196