The woman who killed two people after texting “2drunk2care” was sentenced to 24 years in prison followed by 6 months probation.
In real life, how long will this person actually be behind bars?
I’s sure glad they put that 6 months probation on the end of 24 year sentence.
If it was in Virginia, she would have to serve a minimum of 85% of her sentence. We have no parole here, excepting geriatric parole which is very limited.
So about 21 years.
I have no idea how Florida handles that.
Florida? That translates to what, six, seven months?
You know, as much as I abhor the actions of this woman, 24 years is an astoundingly unproportionate sentence from my perspective. Yes, it was a terrible event. A terrible event that could have easily been prevented. A terrible event that she was aware of the possibility of due to her text message: but 24 years in jail? I can’t agree with that.
In Canada, well Ontario anyway, I’m pretty sure this would be something like a 5 year sentence and parole after 3 years, plus a lifetime driving ban.
I’m not sure what to think of 24 years for a really stupid decision to drive drunk. If the point is to send a message, then it’s been sent I guess. A five year sentence also sends a pretty strong message though.
I dunno.
If I were Queen Empress of the world, that bitch would get out of jail when her victims could be made alive again.
She killed two people!
Kill, alive, what is truth, really, in this relative universe?
Whoa! That’s heavy, dude. 
Without intent. Due to stupidity and terribly wrong decision making. I ended my post with “I dunno,” 'cause I really don’t. But 24 years? Really?
I can give you links with 2 year to 5 year sentences in Canada if you want. 24 years is fucking ridiculous if you ask me.
I sort of get where you’re coming from, and i don’t generally consider myself a particular supporter of draconian punishments and outlandish prison sentences. I think that all non-violent drug offenders should be released, and i think that non-violent property crimes should be dealt with more leniently than they often are.
But at the same time, i get sick of people thinking that they can pilot two tons of metal at high speeds without paying attention, or while drunk, or while texting. I understand that accidents happen, and that a moment of inattention or miscalculation can lead to a crash for even the most careful driver, but there are some behaviors that so dramatically increase your chances of killing someone that we need to make it very clear that doing those things behind the wheel is unacceptable.
Automobile accidents, even with modern levels of car safety, kill tens of thousands of people every year in North America. As a society, we understand that mass car use brings with it costs in death and injury, but we accept those things (while trying to reduce them as much as possible) because of the convenience and the benefits that come with mobility.
But if regular driving is a trade-off between risk and reward, things like drunk driving and driving while texting deserve strict punishments, especially when they cause injury or death, precisely because there is absolutely no need for them. It is incredibly easy not to drive drunk. It is incredibly easy not to text while you’re driving. Doing these incredibly risky things is made even more unacceptable by the fact that they are so unnecessary, and even when they don’t result in a crash they have little or no no benefit.
You say that she did these things without intent. I’m sure you’re literally correct about this, especially in legal terms. But there are some things that are so clearly stupid and dangerous that the simple fact of doing them should, by itself, qualify as intent of some sort. The law generally deals with this sort of thing by using terms like “reckless” or “negligent,” but in my view some things are so reckless or negligent that, when they result in injury or death, they are, for all practical purposes, the same as having intent.
If i throw a computer out of a tenth-floor window in the middle of a busy city, and it kills someone, then even if i just threw the computer because was mad that it didn’t work, i think that the act itself is so reckless that my punishment should be little (if any) different from someone who committed the same act with the specific intent to kill. I have to know, in committing the act, that a likely and predictable result of my action is death or injury to another person. I look at driving drunk in pretty much the same way.
+1
Ok, but the thing is, making the punishments stiffer doesn’t really make a difference when the person is “2drunk2care”. The decision to drive was foolishly made while intoxicated, so obviously the person is not acting in the own self interest. So why would you expect stiffer penalties to produce such behavior? I think a few years in prison and a lifelong revocation of driving privileges is adequate punishment. 24 years is excessive.
This is the problem in the US with judges being elected. Throw the fucking book at everyone, and elect me next term.
Fuck that noise. Killing someone while driving drunk is basically a hairsbreadth from premeditated murder. The sentence is appropriate.
:rolleyes: bull-shit.
Yes, it does. Because she killed two people, which means she has to face restitution for those deaths, as she is solely at fault for them. You don’t get to get drunk and then not face the consequences for the actions you committed while drunk. As long as you chose to get drunk and got behind the wheel, you are just as responsible as if you were sober.
Otherwise you could just get drunk, jump in a car, and do whatever the hell you want. No, you have to pay for your damages–in this case, the needless deaths of two people.
Maybe in some hypothetical world where all the actions of all drunk drivers were levied on everyone, you could just treat her like a drunk driver. But, in the real world, if she hadn’t killed people, she would have gotten off light because “at least no one got hurt.” Well, it has to go the other way around, too. When not one but two people do not just get hurt but die, the punishment has to get heavy.
Did I say that she didn’t have to pay for her actions? I did not. Putting her actions on par with those of someone who intentionally kills another person, that however, I just can’t get on board with. Manslaughter charges, I could understand.
And as an aside, I have no doubt that there are a whole helluva lot more people here on the board that have driven drunk than would ever have the fucking spine to admit it. So let’s not get carried away with the sanctimony here.
And, no, this isn’t a way to say that drunk people can’t be too drunk to consent. I used to think that, when I thought it just meant drunk people who got horny and wanted sex, but were too drunk to make a rational decision.
Now that I know it’s about people who are really so drunk that they can’t understand the question or act on their own in any way (way too drunk to even physically handle the movements of driving), I am wholeheartedly on board with that. It’s not remotely the same thing as the driving drunk issue.
Maybe you guys were smart enough to figure that out, but I wanted to head that argument off at the pass.
The point is, punishment is not just about reform but also restitution. It’s like putting the thief in jail but letting them keep the money.
Yes, you did. You said that it made no sense for her punishment to be made stiffer because she killed people. Your words are still there.
And it would be manslaughter either way, whether sober or not. She drove on the wrong side of the road and killed people, without malice aforethought. Whether she did it because she was drunk or because she was an idiot who chose to drive on the wrong side of the road is irrelevant.