Arizona republican., 1920-12-14
Another Sacrifice

Another life sacrificed to reckless driving in Phoenix streets. A driving with reckless speed is said be responsible for the accident true that he did strike the victim; he escaped even the consequences of a damaged car was so free from actual part in the affair that he could not be responsbly connected with the deplorable accident Yet, but for him, according the word of witnesses, it would not have happened He could only dealt with for reckless driving he and all others should be with that they would do reckless driving Here man. speeding, witnesses say, in the night time toward always less congested crossing a rate, bystanders say. of forty miles hour. Such has business the wheel an automobile. He is constituted that he overcome his de- ficency he should be forever debarred from driving.
 woman at this crossing saw, she said, that if she claimed her right of way disastrous collision would She instinctvey sought escape by the only avenue that seemed In emergency of that kind, the confusion of the night could not Into all the surroundings calculate the sults In this the driver only trying to get and in the path of her escape she could that fate had planned the death of another
 There is conflict of testimony to the of speed the woman driver making the time she discovered approach of flying automobile and the jury did not feel equal the task of differentisting between the drivers and returned open verdict the responsibility for the accident. But the investigation should not end there but the affair should fully sifted and pun shment should be meted in the measure in which it is deserved. The circumstances are such that it cannot easily be found that it was accident for which responsible.
 In handling cases of reckless driving the results should not be taken into consideration. The author ities need not go back of the circumstance that the law been violated and then punishment for the violation should be inflicted. If killed result of such violation, then course. there is serious charge. that of manslaughter, to be preferred
 The best effect of any law is it's preventive or deterrent effect and cannot have that effect cept by the prompt and uniform enforcement of the law. The guilt of offender should not be 1neasr ured by the consequences of his act but by the un+ lawful act itself.
 This brings up again the necessity of the CO., operation of public to traffic regulations The police cannot be everywhere to witness infraction. There must be organization of citi- zens including law-abiding automobile owners and drivers. It should be large organization so that member of it would be more likely to be at places where the laws violated.
 A private unattached citizen does not like to act the part of informer, but a member of a pri- vate organization formed a public purpose the citizen would not be hindered by such scruples but would feel free to report violations the law.
 Reports and complaints made by private citizens in this way would command greater attention the courts whose tendency is to be lenient towaz<. traffic vioators especially when damage has re- suited Policemen and peace officers often com plain of this tendency. The courts do not always give much consideration traffic officers as they should and not as much as they would give formal complaints by citizens representing an organized public sentiment.