system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Anna Sacoolas should return to the UK voluntarily and face trial

For those unfamiliar with this incident, Anna Sacoolas is the partner of an American consular official based in the UK. She was driving on the wrong side of the road and caused a traffic accident which killed a 19 year old on a motorcycle in Northamptonshire. Following this incident, she fled the country under what was believed at the time to be diplomatic immunity. This was back in October 2019. Since then, it has been determined that she did not in fact have diplomatic immunity because she was only the partner of a consular official, and she was based outside of London.  

Recently the UK's Crown Prosecution Service have determined that the evidence is sufficient that she could be charged with the offence of "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving". They have now begun extradition processes. The maximum penalty for an offence of this kind could be 14 years in prison.

Representatives of Ms Sacoolas have described the incident as "a terrible but unintentional accident" and argues that the charge and potential sentencing is "disproportionate".

The reason I think she should return to the UK is pretty simple.

She did it.

No one is disputing that she was driving on the wrong side of the road.

Failing to obey a road traffic law out of ignorance is bad enough, but you don't need to be married to a consular official to know that the UK drives on the other side of the road to the US. She can't have been ignorant. She can have been negligent.

The fourteen year jail sentence is the maximum. Not the expected result. Although refusing to face justice is likely to increase, rather than decrease, the sentence length. Also, it isn't the job of Americans to interpret what is and is not 'proportionate' in the British legal system.

Even if she had diplomatic immunity, it is not a literal "everything-proof shield". It's purpose is to prevent diplomats being taken advantage of by another nation's laws. It's not there to let diplomats get away with serious crimes.

If the situation were inverted, there's not really any way that the US would tolerate the UK holding a British diplomat who left the country under mistaken diplomatic immunity.

Why should she be able to perpetually take advantage of a mistake and not face justice? She committed a crime. No one is disputing that. It doesn't matter if the crime was done by accident or not.

Criminals should be tried and punished according to the legal system.
gpt
>Even if she had diplomatic immunity, it is not a literal "everything-proof shield". It's purpose is to prevent diplomats being taken advantage of by another nation's laws. It's not there to let diplomats get away with serious crimes.

That's exactly what diplomatic immunity is.