Two verdicts don’t equal, two cases don’t equal also.
But how to explain this to Martha?
While being in prison Martha is interested in other verdicts, which are passed in Ireland.
She is interested, and she can’t understand.
She can’t understand a “string” verdict, she can’t understand the verdicts on conscious action for depriving someone of life, which were passed lately in Ireland.
The punishments for those actions can’t be compared to the verdict passed in her case.
The punishments are minimal, often symbolic…
In case of Martha there was no planning, no motive.
Martha didn’t use any violence.
She didn’t torture.
She found herself in the same situation as passenger, her life was also seriously endangered.
She had no criminal record.
She was released pending trial and…
The verdict was like if she was a serial killer.
Are those judgements in the case law?
In case of European law, the “paragraph” law, there is slight “forks”.
Here, in anglo-saxon case law (to not to say “wig law”), these are huge forks. It’s cosmic, incomprehensible spread.
How to explain this to Martha?
Martha asked her family such a question.
They didn’t know what to say.
The sister said, that others cooperated with DPP.
Martha told everything she know to the DPP but she defended her innocence.
She couldn’t plea guilty of something she didn’t do.
Could anyone plea guilty, contrary to oneself, contrary to the truth, of something one didn’t do?
To make DPP happy?
To get lower sentence?
On the other hand, Martha said definitely not enough regarding the behavior and actions of the passenger in the last moment before the accident.
But most of all, Martha answered the questions of DPP, and somehow the wasn’t to many questions about the behavior of the passenger…
This aspect of the event somehow wasn’t interesting for DPP…