This morning I'm reading the Independent , the Rawlings case. Prosecutor wants Daniel in jail.
This seems an unusually stiff penalty for a guy whose been charged but not convicted of a crime.
You can't know what Mr. Rawlings thoughts were before he pulled into the flooded creek. It may be his past experience that that military truck was able to handle large amounts of water without injury, however past experience does not always dictate current results which obviously turned out less than ideal.
What was going through his head anyone can speculate on however I don't believe his thoughts and intents were malicious being as how he was in the truck also. Mr. Rawlings has been and will be into the future regretting his actions on that day and that should be hell enough to change thoughts and action in the future.
It seems to me from an impartial observer who does not know the defendant that to prosecute him and and his wife and seek to incarcerate them at the expense of the tax payer. Causing someone else to raise his remaining children is an injustice of the highest order.
When we have white collar crimes booming national, state and local levels and more than abundance of malicious crime that should be prosecuted, we have elected officials adding an insult to injury.
I wonder if this being an election year and close to the election if this has anything to do with the severity of the penalty persuade by these elected court officials. Where is the common sense?