Cameron Herrin accidentally crashed his car into Jessica Reisinger-Raubenolt and her 21-month-old daughter Lillia, causing their deaths. The incident happened in April 2018 when Herrin was 18 years old. Herin and his 17-year-old classmate John Barrineau were racing each other, illegally going over the speed limit. Barrineau pleaded guilty to two counts of vehicular homicide and a misdemeanor racing charge and was sentenced to 6 years in prison. Even though Barrineau did not actually kill anyone, he was seen as partially responsible for the deaths because he had decided to race with Herrin, in some way indirectly contributing to the accident involving Herrin's car. Herrin pleaded guilty to two counts of vehicular homicide and was then sentenced to 24 years in prison. The sentencing took place years later when Herrin was 21 years old. Herrin's lawyer has filed for an appeal of the sentence. The cult following for Cameron Herrin, who was sentenced to 24 years in prison, sends letters to his mom (msn.com)
Hopefully this will get the message through to all those Tik Tok followers that actions have consequences and it does not matter how “cute” you are if you break the law you do the time
I think that's a little bit of an oversimplification. His "crime" was being reckless on the road, going over the speed limit. The deaths were accidental. Although he is responsible for those deaths, at the same time you have to be really sympathetic towards this young man. I also think it is really questionable why his friend was sentenced to 6 years even though he did not kill anyone. Should anyone who races recklessly be sentenced to 6 years?
Yet again the OP displays a disregard for the LIVES of the MOTHER and BORN child that were needlessly KILLED. 24 years for KILLING two people seems like an APPROPRIATE sentence that will send a loud message to the rest of the IDIOTS who engage in this kind of potentially HOMOCIDAL behavior.
He's still alive, the mother and daughter are still dead.....from an "accident" that WOULDN'T have happened if these two twits had not been illegally racing on a public highway (a FELONY in my state). I see no problem here.
That isn't an accident, it is a predictable outcome of the drivers' reckless behaviour. I don't think seeking to minimise their responsibility for their negligent actions is a valid route for questioning the sentencing. As it happens, I've always felt that actual consequences of negligent or reckless behaviour shouldn't be a basis in sentencing but that isn't an argument for lower sentences. I'd argue whatever the sentence is should be the same regardless of whether the victims were hit or died. The drivers' crime was wilfully and knowingly creating the risk of someone being injured or killed. There is too much emotion surrounding incidents like this for such cold logic to be applied though. As for the specific sentences in this case, I couldn't find any articles detailing what the judicial basis for them actually was so I don't think we're currently in the position to second-guess them. If you really want to discuss it, you need to seek out and present more information. (The article you linked focused on an entirely separate issue related to this case anyway).
It is a tough call. Usually if you plead guilty, you undercut most arguments you otherwise could make on appeal, so I am not sure "I don't like my sentence" will get him very far. From another article I read neither had even a driving infraction before this but the dumbasses were going 102 mph in an area where pedestrians were (the mother and baby were on foot). If I had been the judge, the kid would have been doing 15. If the public outcry against these affluenza kids got them a little more time, I am not going to get upset about it.
Check out what an accident is. Accidents are unpredictable, unintentional and unavoidable. This incident was none of those.
I don't see the point of a 24 year sentence. It's unlikely change the behavior of the perpetrators (they will be much older anyhow) it is unlikely to act as a deterrent to others and it won't bring back the dead.
Wow, I think I would have been locked up for the whole of my life for the stupid things I did in my teens - and fortunately didn't hurt anyone.
I tend to think that we should be severe toward people who harm other people. However I'm a little bit more skeptical in that case. Those two young men killed two people because they were neglectful. People at that age tend to be very immature. It's likely they're already remorseful. But would they be extremely dangerous for the rest of society ? Obviously, being immature, neglectful doesn't excuse your acts. When you act like that you choose to not care, and you have to pay a price for that. I tend to see prison as necessary for dangerous people. I'm more skeptical toward the use of prison for instance drug use or like that. Young idiots like that aren't that dangerous. Justice has mainly two functions : protect society from it's dangerous members and also significate, by significate it's there the symbolic aspect of justice, to show the rest of population that some behavour aren't acceptable. In a short way, I think that for that kind of idiot, a shorter sentence would have been more adapted. 10 or 12 years seems a minimum for taking a life, further sentencing could be interesting as paying reparations. But even if I suppose there would be more adapted sentence, I'm not shocked by that kind of harsh sentence.
In my view, I think a sentence of 8 to 12 years would have been more reasonable, along with a 22 year driving ban (starting from the time of the incident). But I realize most other people seem to have a much stricter harsher view and are not so merciful or lenient. If someone accidentally killed me, I would want them to face enough punishment that it would deter any rational person from intentionally doing that or being very reckless, but I would not hold it against them as a matter of justice, that they deserve to pay in punishment for the full damages caused. I question whether people should really face the maximum punishment for doing something reckless that led to damage when the statistical probability that reckless action would actually result in damage was very low. Indeed, the outcome of what happened is relevant to the punishment, but so to is the level of recklessness and what chances there were likely to be of damage.
In my case it really depend of what kind of remorse that individual would feel. But beyond that, I would be curious to know how that individual would intend to absolve herself from that kind of things. Do you intend to work for community service ? Give large amount of your money to charity ? I suppose if one of my relative would be killed in this way, it would be what would matter the most to me. I suppose even that I would prefer to see that individual having no prison if he for instance worked hard to give a lot of money to charity. I suppose for me it would be a fair price for a life taken, a better repairment for everyone and a more honorable way to absolve yourself than simply being stuck in prison. But I never lived that, so I don't know how I would react.
I think the lowest he could have charged would have been manslaughter charges, which still would have merited prison time. Also, "street racing" is not the same as simply "going over the speed limit".
