Let’s say that back in 1998 you spent 5 years in prison for the traffic deaths of a 62 year old woman and her 6 year old grandson. Your blood alcohol level at the time was .235 (almost 3 times the legal limit).
Let’s say that you already had AT LEAST two previous DUI convictions in the 1990s.
Let’s say that you no longer had a driver’s license because of above convictions.
Would you (a) Act like a reasonable human, take public transportation…and not act like human sludge or (b) Have a 7 year old and 10 year old girl in the car while you’re liquored up and driving?
If you answered (b)…then your name is Bruce Fish .
So now you’re in court for said offense…what do you say?
Some folks seem to find a niche and stay there. There was a guy arrested for robbing a bank in Pittsburgh recently. While out on bail he held up a couple more.
Some people are a danger and detriment to soceity, and need to be forcibly removed from it. Death penalty or life imprisonment, it doesn’t matter, just don’t let such individuals continue to make life worse for everyone who comes into contact with them. Unfortunately, the courts and, even worse, the politicians don’t always get it right regarding the best people to remove. How many more people does this guy have to kill before soceity makes sure he is never, ever given an opportunity to get behind the wheel of a car again? Obviously, simply removing his driver’s license (and presumably, his auto insurance) isn’t enough. Five years in prison isn’t enough. He’s had his chances, now it’s time to tell him he’s fucked up one time too many and he is no longer of use to soceity as a whole.
Why should there be a problem with a defense lawyer advertising, regardless of what type of offense the lawyer specializes in defending? Isn’t every accused person entitled to a defense at trial?
I agree completely. Regardless of how worthless this guy is, he has rights just like everyone else. Rather than condemning it, we should be applauding it. The world does not judge us on how we treat nice, upstanding citizens, but how we treat our rejects and lawbreakers.
Do you consider it a plus that we treat our alcohol-abusing lawbreakers in such a way that past DUI convictions can get covered up on technicalities, thereby resulting in lesser sentences than their actual track record of DUIs would merit? Do you think the world looks upon us favorably for doing so?
I’ve got patients who have had more than 10 DUI arrests, but they get sentenced to a year or two, because only 3 or so of them actually counted. One bragged that he had a “clever lawyer” who managed to keep his drug crime history concealed when it came to sentencing, too.
I’m all for fair and adequate representation, but when the “best” lawyers specialize in taking advantage of a flawed system to keep their clients from escaping the consequences of their actions, I get tired.
My husband is deputy warden in a prison-- I too see the results of crime and the anguish it causes the victims. I’m not saying these guys should get a slap on the wrist, but that they should be treated fairly under the law. If the laws need to be changed, then that’s what you should push for.
As it stands, we don’t put people in prison for life for potential. Yeah, a guy gets 10 DUIs, but we can only really throw the book at him after he kills someone, not because he *might. * We have a reactive system.
Secondly, in the story you mentioned, I think that it was quite appropriate for the “clever lawyer” to fight to keep his client’s drug history out of the courtroom. He wasn’t on trial for drug use, but for driving while intoxicated. The prejudicial nature of that information would outweigh any probitive value. It’s irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Lawyers have a tough break, in my opinion. I’m sure most of them went to law school with high-minded ideals of fighting to right injustices, but found there aren’t a lot of innocent people being persecuted by the system-- at least, not enough to make a living. Worse than that, even guilty assholes are entitled to a zealous defense, meaning that even if the lawyer secretly despises his client and thinks he should rot in hell, he still has to do his damndest to defend him.
A lawyer’s *job *is to try to get his client as light a sentance as possible. Yes, it means that the lawyer is trying to lessen the consequences of his client’s actions, but that’s the way the system works, like it or not. The prosecution tries to get as much as he can, and the defense tries to shave off as much as he can, and they try to reach a happy medium.
Though I understand the frustration, I fully support throwing out cases on “technicalities.” The system must strive for flawlessness. We can’t excuse shoddy police work, or violation of a suspect’s rights based on the fact that we really don’t like this guy and feel that he deserves it. I’d rather the asshole was in the pokey, but I want it done right. If we can’t get him fairly-- if we have to cheat and allow “little” technical violations of his rights-- what does that make us?
I’m with Lissa on this. Every person accused of a crime has the right to counsel, and every lawyer has the obligation to fight for their client using every legal strategy. This goes for accused serial killers and child molesters, and it certainly goes for drunk drivers.
As far as lawyers advertising their services, that might be a little oogy, but it’s certainly not illegal, nor is it especially reprehensible, IMO.
Personally I’d rather get hit by a drunk driver were he mismanaging a bicycle. Also I think he’d be harder pressed to imperil underage passengers on that sort of conveyance. Just sayin’.
