All of you have interesting and valid points-- but the most important thing someone mentioned here is that it would be better that the specific details of the circumstances of the accident be learned before judgement is passed by anyone here. Keep in mind that likely the article released would be aimed at casting a critical light upon the judicial system; rarely do peices of work on matters of the law get published otherwise.
Yes- the man did make what would seem to us (people who were not actually in his position, were not of his age, and more importantly, would not have really known his state of mind at the time of the incident as it occured) and more than likely to him, now, a bad decision (it was obviously more than just a bad decision-- I'm not cold hearted, I think what he did was terrible and yes it did take lives and to simplify what he did as a 'decision' seems detatched and apathetic)---but he had to avoid hitting a car.
If you wanted to avoid hitting a car the first thing you do is brake, or, more unsafely, but still justifiably, swerve out of the way. He missed the brake.
He panicked. His judgement was poor- possibly because of his old age, possibly not. If we put any one of us in his position, there is still a possibility-- a reasonable possibility that we would freeze or make wrong decisions, or lose control of the car, or just not even realise that what we are doing is incredibly dangerous and wrong.
If you hit someone. If anyone hits someone on the road. YOu will most likely STOP! Right? what if all of a sudden you hit 2 or 3 people that are close together. Your mind will be in greater dissarray. But the car doesnt seem to be slowing fast enough!! Which pedal was it again? Why isnt the car stopping?!?! How do I get back onto the road? But I can't! Can I? What am I doing?!?!!
You can see how quickly a situation can get totally out of hand...
In moments of panic, no one thinks clearly. This certainly doesn't justify what he did. But you can see how the maximum sentence of someone who deliberately drives into a crowd of people bent on bloodshed would compare to a man who shows remorse and who additionally, shows little to now volition or intention to do what he did.
Put yourself in his shoes.
I feel very sorry for the people that lost their lives or were hurt from this incident--particularly their family members. What he did would have affected the lives of many, many people. But the law's sole purpose is not to grant retribution to victims. In that, justice itself is not always served. But on the whole, I think that in this circumstance, his age, his thoughts at the time of the incident and following on thereafter, and his personality in general would have played a major part in his setencing-- a murderer who gloats and shows no remorse is clearly going to be looked upon less favourably than one who is aware that he or she has done wrong and is sorry (along with more trivial economic details that were more likely the judges' way of justifying their decision-- let's face it. Putting one man in prison will hardly put a dent in any national treasury).
But these things are only factors in sentencing-- how much punishment this man should be given. He was found guilty. His punishment was just tailored to his circumstance-- as it would be for any other person going through the system.
The judge did what he or she did for a reason; surely there will be bad judgements made, but as you can see, there are many things that are initially not obvious that need to be considered before passing judgement yourself upon the decisions of the courts.
