Earlier this week, John Pieri, an Amherst man, became the first person in the history of New York State to be prosecuted as an accessory to a hit-and-run crash.
In March of 2009, Pieri was in the car with his girlfriend, Andrea L. Glinski, when she hit Amy E. Stewart and Rachel L. Baird with her car, injuring both.
Following the crash, Pieri encouraged Glinski to drive away from the accident, which she did. Glinski was convicted on hit-and-run charges, and is currently serving one to three years in prison.
In Pieri's case, it was ruled that because Pieri had advised her to do this (which he confessed to doing), that he had also broken the law, and he was sentenced to one year in jail.
In the days following the ruling, there has been a lot of debate on the matter. This ruling could set a precedent in which other passengers could be prosecuted for the advice they give to the driver in hit-and-run cases.
While The Spectrum condemns Pieri's actions, and believes that he should've been punished for his role in the matter, we also believe the sentence he received was excessive.
Considering that Pieri was not driving the car, giving him a full year in jail seems drastic, to say the least. In hit-and-run cases, the primary responsibility lies with the driver. Pieri may have advised her to leave the scene, but Glinski didn't have to take his advice.
Pieri should've been punished in a manner that was proportionate to his role in what took place. If he had received probation, or a suspended license, that would've made more sense.
A full year in jail puts more blame for the accident on Pieri than he deserves. He was undeniably in the wrong, but it was Glinski's fault more than anyone else's.
Put it this way: if a youth is caught shoplifting from a store, and claims that it was done on a dare, we don't arrest the kid who dared him. The person committing the crime is always the one who is responsible.
Granted, Pieri is not completely without responsibility. He did advise another person to break the law, but consider the situation he was in. He may have not been paying attention, or may have been unaware of who or what Glinski had hit.
His words may have been nothing more than a snap reaction to a surprising situation. It seems unnecessary to give someone so much jail time for that.
This ruling puts an excessive amount of blame on someone who was merely a passenger. Pieri was essentially an irresponsible backseat driver. That may be wrong, and it probably is worth some form of punishment, but it hardly demands a year in jail.
We hope that this case does not set a precedent. Pieri's confession was essential to the prosecution's case. Otherwise, it would have been a game of "he said, she said." We cannot anticipate many similar rulings in the future as a result of this decision.
