News Article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/29/francisco_garzon_santiago_de_compostela_the_driver_of_the_spanish_train.html?wpisrc=flyouts
The article first described the situation that happened near Santiago de Compostela. There was a train crash and 79 people died. The train driver who made a mistake was 52-year-old Francisco Garzon. The prosecuters finds him guilty of criminal charges, but the author of this article thinks differently. The author says that there are too many questions to be asked about this situation and to put all the blames solely on the driver is not right. The author says it could be a technical problem, which could be true as well. The authors point of view in prosecuting the driver is expressed in the word, "scapegoating".
In my point of view, I think the driver can be prosecuted with criminal charges because he is responsible for the death of 79 people. The author said there are too many questions to be asked, but there are just too many evidences and his own account of the story tells us that he is solely responsible. It is a tragic accident, however, somebody must pay the price for it. Since the driver is the only person to blame, I think it will be hard for him to get out of this one.
The author's article was overall well stated and directed. The description of the situation is not biasly stated, but he clearly expesses his opinion on this accident afterwords. Even though he did not persuaded me to think like him, but I think he captivated many people with this article and persuaded number of people. The final paragraph speaks of not prosecuting the driver because of his simple mistake. This really set me apart from his side because the "simple mistake" killed 79 people. So I think his last paragragh needed more cogent words to persuade other people. Other than the last paragraph, I think the author did a well job of explaining the situation and stating his opinion.
I agree that this wasn’t a minor accident, I saw the news and read articles about this tragic accident. However, I don’t think it is a good time to make an opinion or assumption about whose fault it is because there are no clear evidence yet. Indeed, I agree that the driver should charge with some action because he was the one that had all the ability to control the train. Although people can argue that he was the one to blame for this accident, but I think that we need to wait for the further investigation.
ReplyDeleteI think you did quite well on this blog! Your summary wasn't just copied and pasted from the article and you stated your opinion in your commentary.
ReplyDeleteAside from that, I might have to disagree with you. It is a bit harsh to put all of the blame on the driver because there is usually more than one reason for a cause. Also, there has not been enough evidence to confirm that it is solely his fault.
I would rather him not be prosecuted as a criminal. Although we wish it didn't happen, lawyers are selective when presenting information. Lawyers attempt to fight for their client; that is why the article states that is is encouraging opacity rather than transparency. The community will get nothing out of sentencing this man to jail or whatnot. The community will benefit more if this was a civil case. Those that are dead will not come back to life. Even if we bring them justice, nothing will happen but momentarily put us at ease. The people that are still alive today is who we should focus on. At this point, justice is not more important than protecting the ones that are still living. I don't know what will happen to Garzon, but I do hope that whatever decision is made is geared towards what is best for the people.