I agree also.

I disagree, becasue I think some people do not think it to the end.

There must be a penalty, and a compensation. Both are not just one and the same. Also, in this case, there must be technical prevention against the offender doing future damage again, which must be feared to be likely due to her shown incompetence as well as her brutal egocentrism, and lack of empathy. The psychological prevention is hoped for by giving a penalty: the experience of the penalty should motivate the subject to change its behaviour and not do again what it got punished for.

So: compensation means she has to come up for the costs of her victims' medial treatment and rehabilitation, losses in earnings it suffers in the time being ill, and if the victims stays paralysed, she also has to compensate for the lost chances in life this would mean, as well as the living costs of the victim.

Punishment means that the victim can demand a kind of retaliatory measurement that is equal to or below the intensity of what the victim suffered from her. The punishment should not exceed the severity of the original offence/fellony - then the punishing side would become the offender. To artificially paralyse the driver (if it comes to that outcome for the victim of staying paralysed forever) obviously would not be helpful because then she cannot work to produce the money she needs to compensate her victim. The victim should have the right to demand a smaller penalty, it should even have the right to demand to pardon her, if that is what the victim wants to see, due to considerations of mercy.

Considering the punishment must include to differ between carelessness, incompetence, and intention. To accept to expose others to risks from one's own careless actions, is a form of intention.

To sack her driving license, obviously is neither punishment nor compensation here. It is prevention.