>The question to me is what would be accomplished by the DA prosecuting? Probably 99% of the population does not frequent wilderness areas, so punishing him would not likely impact the behavior of many people at all, as does drunk driving convictions.
Nick: I agree that this yahoo isn't going to be throwing any more rocks off of cliffs. Almost no one who - drunk drives / randomly shoots a gun / drives 100 mph / leaves their babysitting charges near the pool / leaves high-voltage wires uncovered / etc - and kills someone will ever do that particular action again. In all those cases, you could say, they'll never do it again, they've already suffered, there's no need to rehabilitate him, it would cost money to prosecute/incarcerate.
> We need to remove drunk drivers from the streets.
Even though 99.9% of drunk drivers get where they are going without killing someone. But as a society we've agreed that drunk driving is unacceptable and we do that through fines for first timers, stiffer fines plus jail for repeat offenders, and manslaughter charges for people who, for a thrill or their convenience or pleasure put others at risk and wind up killing someone.
No one was being evil or intentionally violent in this incident. But Rudolph was taking needless risks - risks to other people - AND the very unlikely happened. That's the definition of manslaughter.
Maybe I was reading too much into it, but it seemed the DA felt sorry for Rudolph and that was part of the reason not to prosecute. What if the perp hadn't been a local? Was a minority? Had unpopular political views? Hadn't cranked up the remorse so much or had been unable to express his sorrow as well? DAs prosecute. PDs defend. It takes 12 citizens, none of whom have a reasonable doubt, to convict. There are a lot of safeguards in that system. If the survivors didn't argue against it, I'd say let the system work as intended and lead where it leads.
> To be honest it has never occurred to me to throw a rock off a cliff
It doesn't occur to me to DO it, but I'm very aware that people do, because I tell them off fairly often. Typically, the person throwing rocks has a very poor sense of the setting. I often know that there is a trail or a swimming hole or a fishing spot right below them. More worrisome is that they are often packing a .357 or .44 as "bear protection" raising serious questions about their firearm knowledge and wisdom. Interestingly, but maybe predictably, the rock throwing stops 5 miles from the pavement.
And yet, I don't disagree with your points and I respect your conclusion.
And I'm sure part of my reaction is because (regarding the climber): "That could have been my wife or daughter!" Whereas of the thrower, "That's not anyone I know."
I wonder if this is true: Kill a climber and get off - Outside magazine readers (1 million?) will learn about it. And some will wear helmets more often. Throw a rock and go to jail - People and USA Today and Paul Harvey listeners (40,000,000?) will hear about it and some will throw rocks less often.