The basic facts of the news story are that retired NYPD officer Michael Elardo’s hit-and-run killing of 13-year-old Bryanna Soplin has resulted in his being fined $2,500 and sentenced to possibly up to four years in prison. Case closed, and justice is now officially deemed to have been served. But I don’t view it that way, and here are some of the reasons I consider this verdict an injustice.
After Mr. Elardo hit Bryanna Soplin with his car, he left her dying in the street and fled, not turning himself in until 42 hours later. So, technically, this was not a case of “hit-and-run,” but a hit-and-drive-away-like-an-irresponsible coward-rather-than-like-a-cop-with-a-conscience case. If he had immediately stopped and administered his policeman’s training first aid to Bryanna, or driven her to the nearby hospital, perhaps her life could have been saved.
But then, his blood alcohol level would have been tested, and he likely would have been in even more legal trouble for driving while drunk. The judge (Acting State Supreme Court Justice Jerald Carter) in this case naively says we’ll never know, and that the answer is “only known between (Mr. Elardo) and God;” but we laymen “know” what common sense tells us is one of the most probable reasons that Mr. Elardo did not turn himself in until 42 hours had passed and his blood would only make him appear “as sober as a judge.”
Why is Mr. Elardo being fined a merely token $2,500? Why isn’t he at least being fined $1,000 for each of the 42 hours he was hiding from the law? Or why isn’t he being fined the equivalent of the disability pension payments he will continue to receive while behind bars? And isn’t it somewhat ironic that he got this pension for only 13 years of service, while his reckless driving took away Bryanna’s life after she only got 13 years to live it?
In court, Mr. Elardo said “I can’t tell you the remorse I have.” I say that’s because he feels no genuine remorse for Bryanna and her parents; but only for the fact that he got caught and convicted. He also said “I accept full responsibility for my actions.” But I say that the only “full” responsibility for taking someone’s life is to give up one’s own—whether by the death penalty, a “life” sentence, or taking one’s own life. I think the Old Testament had the essence of “Justice” (not “mercy”) right when it said “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
Prosecutor Maureen McCormick hit the nail on the head when she pointed out that “when somebody leaves the scene and prevents us from obtaining evidence as to whether or not they were impaired or intoxicated, they get the benefit of a lower charge. It’s not right.” Still, she only sought a sentence of 2 1/3 to 7 years for Mr. Elardo, and ended up settling for even less: 1/3 to 4 years. And her boss, District Attorney Kathleen Rice is only asking the state legislature to increase the penalties for those who leave the scene of an accident to five to 15 years.
Why not life? Why not “a life for a life?”
At age 13, Bryanna likely had a good 60 more years of life expectancy in front of her. So why should Michael Elardo “pay” with barely more than one year of his life? Personally, I’d like to add an extra 10 years to his sentence solely for the hurtfulness of his claim that when he smashed into this special needs girl with Down syndrome, he thought he had merely hit a “traffic cone” or “construction barrel” rather than a human being.
And should the parole board give this dangerous driver early release before he has served every single day of his “up to four years” prison sentence, I think each member should be required to have Mr. Elardo drive their young children or grandchildren around town for the first year of his freedom.
Richard Siegelman
