Unbelievable,
You say she had no intent to hurt then you compare her crime to vicious inhuman animals with full intent to be savage. That's quite a gross contradiction that doesn't make sense regarding your view she had no intent. A proper comparison would be others who have no intention to harm like drunk drivers who kill defined legally as vehicular manslaughter. Here are the penalties in all 50 states for those who KILL without intent.
http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/Vehicular_Homicide_Overview.pdf If you read the specifics they all require years when death results.
What I find disturbing is:
You are treating this woman like an idiot. An idiot who knew nothing of the law and had no intelligence at all to realize the danger of what she was doing.
You devalue the death of the father and daughter as no more than a "stupid move". It's just a "stupid move" that two people lost their lives in a brutal way inferring the woman had no way of knowing stopping in the high speed lane or on the highway at all was dangerous.
You forget the reason for this tragedy, chasing ducklings on the highway, as if that somehow could ever make these deaths less tragic.
You concentrate 99% of your arguments on anything that excuses this woman from serving time in prison...and offer nothing about paying for the crime leading to the deaths of innocent people...except her poor guilty conscience. "Emma" wanted to save ducklings but killed two people. Is that how you balance lives? Justice? With a guilty conscience! OMG!
Oh right, she'll suffer the pain of what she did to two people she didn't know and didn't care about. That's fair in comparison to the mother's loss of a husband and daughter? Fair to the family? Oh yeah, let all the drunk driving killers out too because they had no intent and suffer so much for what they did. Right....have a drink.
Merlot