Um, what? I never said she shouldn’t have to pay for her actions. Any words of mine you might be able to produce here from this thread would simply be your misinterpretation of what I said and meant. The idea that someone should get off scot free from killing a person while driving because they are intoxicated is LUDICROUS.
ETA: What I said was it made no sense to put her actions on par with those of someone who intentionally committed murder.
I’m sure there are, too. That’s because they know it was wrong, and that they are extremely lucky no one got hurt.
Lot of people do things that are horrible but are smart enough to not talk about it. I have no problem with people calling them out on that bullshit.
No matter what you think their legal punishment should be, a little sanctimony from some stranger who will still never know what they did is nowhere near as bad. If you’ve driven drunk, face the anonymous condemnation like an adult. It’s less than a slap on the wrist.
And I haven’t read anything since my previous post and will not, as my blood pressure is already too high. I never expected to see people arguing that 24 years is too long for killing two people–drunk driver or not.
Driving is not a right; it’s a privilege. As a privilege you know the rules before the fact. When you were granted the privilege when a license was issued to you, it came with the proviso you gave consent to authorities if you were ever accused and convicted of being a fuckwit driver.
She was a fuckwit driver because she was a drunk driver. She was accused and convicted of being a fuckwit driver that resulted in the deaths of two innocent people. Her sentenced punishment is just fine with me because some fuckwit behaviours should never have a Mulligan out.
But 24 years?! There is a vast middle between that and a “Mulligan out”. I suppose you wouldn’t find life in prison much of a stretch then either, would you?
I never drive while under the influence of anything. Never, ever. It is a non-debatable, non-negotiable issue for me. Perhaps it was how I was raised. Maybe it was because of driver’s ed training. It could be because of several friends whom I visited in the hospital who were the victims of drunk drivers. It could be because I was once an EMT working Friday night shifts with my share of drunk driver call outs. Maybe a combination of all of the above.
I have zero tolerance for anyone who drives under the influence. Zero. No exception. Not even one mistake where no one else is involved. But kill someone while under the influence? In the clink and toss away the key.
You can shove your accusation.
I have never once driven drunk. And when i say that, i don’t simply mean that i have never driven when i was really drunk; i mean that i have never once been behind the wheel with anything approaching an illegal level of blood alcohol. If i’m driving, i don’t drink, and if i’m drinking, i don’t drive.
And that’s how everyone should deal with this issue, in my opinion.
My attitude probably stems partly from growing up in a place where drunk driving is taken very seriously. Australian drunk-driving laws are among the toughest in the world, and there have been concerted campaigns since the 1980s to reduce alcohol-related fatalities in Australia. Those campaigns had a lot of success, and i’m part of a generation that grew up in an atmosphere where drunk driving was generally considered socially unacceptable.
Is the sentence on par with other killing while driving drunk cases?
24 years seems too high to me. I don’t see what the sentence achieves that couldn’t be achieved by a 5 or 10 year sentence. Apart from the restitution argument, that is.
I also don’t see the relevance of the fact that 2 people were killed in the accident, not just 1. If the car she crashed had 4 passengers instead of 2, will her sentence be longer? Should it be longer? Her decisions and her actions were all made independent of the number of passengers in the other car, so it seems odd that the blame we put on her should depend on that I dunno.
Don’t mistake me, she certainly deserves the blame for the accident. I’m not excusing her behavior based on the alcohol. She had a number of options to avoid drunk driving – get a designated driver, call your friend to pick you up (she was conscious enough to text), hire a cab.
Well good for you and i mean that. In no way did i try to say everybody had driven drunk. I said that there are a lot more here who almost certainly have than would ever admit it.
What are really the chances that she won’t get out early, due to prison overcrowding? Because should releases for that reason come around, I’m gonna believe she’ll be at the top of that list. Having not used a gun, unlikely to reoffend, etc.
So, the state gets to make an example of someone who’s brash messaging and complete disregard for the law and safety of the public caused horrific loss of life. Her actions drew the media attention, her stupidity. The state gets to step up its ‘education’ program making a high profile example of her case. Probably cheaper and more effective than large public education attempts. (With the added bonus of being seen as ‘tough on crime’, kinda important when judges are elected, very likely.)
And, in a few more years, when it will no longer draw headlines, and prisons are overcrowded, funding is being slashed, she’ll be quietly released. While the victims family’s may publicly remark, the level of anger will have largely subsided, for good or for bad.
Two life sentences for killing two people seems perfectly acceptable to me. Frankly i see zero reason why this person needs to remain alive in the first place.
This is almost exactly what I think about the issue myself. Driving drunk is an activity which has been clearly shown to be so much more hazardous than normal driving that I would consider the very action of driving drunk as an intent to harm someone.
Stiffer penalties may affect peoples’ judgement before they get drunk. They might take more effective steps to ensure they cannot drive drunk afterward, such as not driving themselves to the bar/party in the first place and taking a cab or getting a ride there. While the alcohol may prevent them from making good decisions or properly considering the consequences after they’re drunk, they know they are going to get drunk, and should plan accordingly, minimizing the potential bad decisions which can be made.
I don’t quite understand the mindset or planning of people who drive themselves to a place where they’re going to be drinking. There are some situations where that makes sense - for example, meeting someone there who is not going to be drinking, that didn’t arrive in their own car, and thus can drive you home in your car. But those are probably rare, and in general it definitely seems to me like people do this without ever considering ‘how am I going to get home?’ That’s the point where stiffer penalties may affect their thinking, before they’re too intoxicated; they may realize it would be better if they take a cab to get there, so that they are incapable of driving back and must take a cab to return. Or get a ride from a friend for the same reason, and so on.
Also, as far as I’m aware most people don’t get sufficiently drunk to lose all judgement without having expected to do so; it’s pretty rare (I think; I have no data on this) for someone to simply go out to a restaurant without intending to do any drinking, and wind up getting so drunk that they reach a .15 BAC like this woman had. It therefore suggests to me that she knew she was going to get drunk, went out intending to get drunk, without a plan on how to get home other than driving herself back.
I wouldn’t even support 24 years in prison for all cases of premeditated murder, personally.
Five years is a long time. Think about what you’d like to do in the next five years. I’d say five years is about right for this crime, and one year for a second DUI even without an accident.
24 years is just based on anger and some misguided attempt for “justice.”
The thing is, though, the punishment for involuntary manslaughter in Florida, which is killing while acting with “a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior.” is up to 15 years. So she could very much get a sentence of 24 years for two charges of involuntary manslaughter.
Agreed.
The only reason I’m even vaguely sympathetic to the “24 years is too much” contingent is that the girls who were killed were in the car with her, so shared her negligence and utter disregard for the safety of others. If you voluntarily get in the car with someone that drunk, then you’re not only acting suicidally, but are probably complicit if anyone gets harmed.
24 years sucks, but Darwin was even harsher on the other two girls.
This isn’t completely serious, but scanning through part of this thread, I do wonder if it’s sensible to revoke drinking privileges for people like this. :mad:
She didn’t have drinking privileges.
No, they were in another car that she hit head on. Did you read the story? 
Christ.
Getting back to my original question: in real life, how long will she be in jail/prison? What does “24 years” actually mean in her particular case and state?