Statement during the Sentencing Arguments
Good morning,
My name is Jeremy, and I am Talia’s eldest brother.
The case for which Amiel Tzoref was convicted is not the common type of case in the statistics of accidents that occur around us every day. On the face of it, it is a simple case:
The intentions were good — he was on his way to save a life! The cause — an error of judgement; who does that not happen to? In short, the young man is practically an angel, who merely stumbled ever so slightly.
However:
This was not simply an error of judgement, but negligence. All the facts lay before him and were known to him — the state of the road, the weather, the road behaviour of the Abir ambulance — and nevertheless he chose to accelerate. This is not an error of judgement, but negligence, even if committed under pressure and in a split-second decision. As we heard during the trial, Amiel was trained in emergency driving and understood the dilemma between speed and safety better than most of us sitting here. Therefore, in my view, his actions as manifested in that accursed accident testify not only to momentary negligence, but to a dismissive and arrogant attitude. Sadly, this arrogance appears common among many professional drivers in the army, who might drive differently if the vehicle were their own.
In “The Spirit of the IDF”, the IDF’s code of ethics, under the value “Human Life”, it is written: “The soldier will act in a judicious and safe manner in all his actions, in recognition of the supreme importance of human life...”
Under the value “Discipline”, it is written: “The soldier will do his utmost to carry out fully and successfully what is required of him according to orders and their spirit. The soldier will ensure that he gives only lawful orders and will not obey manifestly unlawful orders.”
And under the value “Responsibility”, it is written: “...The soldier will act while constantly demonstrating involvement, initiative and diligence, with judgement and within the scope of his authority, and will be ready to bear responsibility for the results of his actions.”
In his actions, Amiel did not exercise his judgement as required of him within his authority as the driver of the Abir ambulance. He obeyed a manifestly unlawful instruction from the commander of the journey while endangering the lives of road users; he drove neither judiciously nor safely; he caused a fatal accident; and, throughout all of this, he also failed to complete his original mission — reaching the casualty of the first accident.
When deciding the sentence of Amiel Tzoref, we believe that the court should consider two principal aspects — punishment and benefit.
• Punishment — the implementation of the penalties prescribed by law, and an expression of the gravity of the act and its consequences in relation to accepted norms.
• Benefit — the benefit to the IDF and to the general public. This benefit has three components: deterrence, public awareness and education.
As regards the first aspect, punishment, the matters are known, and I shall leave any expansion that may be required to others who are more expert than I am. I shall, however, address the question of disqualification from driving.
A driving licence is not a birthright. To earn it, an applicant must prove that he is fit to drive — mentally and physically; that he knows the laws and the limitations; that he controls the vehicle; and that he drives responsibly towards his surroundings and himself. Thereafter too, this responsibility and ability remain the test of his fitness as a driver.
A person who fails in this — as in the case before us — has lost his right to hold a licence.
Taking a person’s life, even under the definition of “negligence”, is a grave and extreme act that justifies permanent disqualification from driving.
Freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of movement and the right to property are not the same as a right to hold a driving licence.
Disqualification does not prevent movement; it ensures that a person who has proved himself to be dangerous as a driver will no longer endanger the public.
A person who has caused death by negligence is in some respect like the manslayer mentioned in the Bible. There, although he killed inadvertently and not intentionally, he is called a killer and is exiled to a city of refuge for many years. The commentators wrote that his manner of conduct was flawed and that this misfortune therefore befell him. So too in the case before us: this accident did not happen for no reason. Someone was responsible for it, and that person was Amiel Tzoref. We therefore ask that, as regards disqualification from driving, his licence be revoked permanently.
As to the benefit to the public:
This trial constitutes a cornerstone in the fight against road accidents under the principle that “the end does not justify the means”.
This court has the power to convey a very important and firm message to all those who drive rescue vehicles of every kind, in the IDF and in civilian life: you are not above the law. The saying applies to you too: “It is better to lose a moment in life than to lose life in a moment.”
Please tell such a driver: when you are driving to an incident, do not allow excitement to take control of you. Remain calm, remain focused, and drive according to the road conditions. Otherwise, your smallest mistake may end tragically.
This message will be conveyed most clearly and effectively only if you impose a deterrent sentence upon the defendant.
Not only because of him, but in order to maximise the effect upon everyone holding the steering wheel of a rescue or emergency vehicle who believes that driving such a vehicle grants immunity from responsibility; who believes that, because he is driving a rescue or emergency vehicle, he may drive as he pleases and no one will hold him to account afterwards if, God forbid, something happens. If you do not impose a deterrent sentence, the lesson will not be learnt.
For us, Talia’s family, this is not about revenge. That is not our way and not our intention. Sadly, no punishment in the world will bring Talia back to us. The benefit to the IDF and to the public arising from this trial is, however, important to us. We believe that, in order to save other lives, it is important that justice be done and be seen to be done. Only in this way can deterrence be created. Only an appropriate and meaningful sentence can influence wider circles as well.
Ultimately, in this age of information overload, that which does not breach the wall of indifference, and that which does not depart from the ordinary, does not enter public consciousness.
It is your responsibility, the court’s responsibility, to tell the general public that taking a person’s life is an extreme act that must be treated with the required gravity. If you do so, perhaps you will help prevent the next case.
Thank you.
Faithful English translation of Jeremy Hyman’s original Hebrew statement.