Well, not to put too fine a point on this, or to draw out a political discussion on this board, but frankly I think this whole "Ted Kennedy v. Janklow" argument is missing the point.
In the Kennedy situation an adult woman of sound mind chose to ride in a car with a person she knew had been drinking. Yea, she died, but let's not overlook the FACT that she voluntarily put herself in that situation and knowingly accepted that risk. This was not some totally innocent passer-by in life, despite what her parents and the press would ask you to believe. The motorcycle rider who was killed by Janklow did NOT agree to accept the risk of getting plowed over by a reckless Congressman. In contrast to Mary Jo Kopechne, he was 100% blameless in his death and had no choice in the matter. In short, he did not assume the risk as she did. Yes, riding a motorcycle you do assume lots of risks. You assume the risk that the pavement will not be in good shape, that your tires might blow out, etc. I don't think you assume the risk that some driver will 100% disregard the law, and speed right through a stop sign. What Janklow did was way beyond careless, or even reckless, driving. He was quite literally a deadly accident waiting to happen, and not only he, but much of the State of South Dakota (including citizens and the state police), knew that. I am NOT pro-Ted Kennedy, but the argument that these two got disparate treatment and should have gotten the same treatment is BS. These are two completely, completely different situations. Kennedy should have known that based on his actions something bad MIGHT happen. Janklow should have known that based on his actions something bad WILL DEFINITELY happen. One involved careless behavior with a willing participant; the other involved completely reckless disregard of human life, with a totally unwilling victim.
