Of people to be killed?
Why exactly is one person’s life and liberty so much more valuable than the lives of, 14 people?
I don’t believe a sentence should be “sending a message.” This woman’s life is not a means to some other end, such as “sending a message.” But a sentence should be an act of justice. And as justice, 24 years is entirely justifiable for taking the lives of two innocent people . . . especially following her message that she was “2drunk2care.” It’s now like she didn’t know she was drunk; she just didn’t care. The judge’s sentence is appropriate.
And I don’t blame the victims’ families for not forgiving her.
Why not?
Why shouldn’t we make examples out of the worst cases, make sure they get a deterrent sentence and a lot of publicity to scare the ever loving shit out of people -
there’s a wonderful Chinese proverb
“Kill the chicken to scare the monkey,”
I absolutely don’t mind that a stupid chicken gets a harsh punishment* if it scares a whole troop of monkeys.
- I don’t accept that her punishment was overly harsh, 12 years for depraved indifference to human life seems fairly appropriate to me.
Really? Do you mean that??? Of course killing makes it worse. One who drives drunk is guilty of DUI, and there are penalties for that. One who drives drunk and gets in an accident is guilty of DUI plus any traffic offences committed. There are separate penaties for each. One who drives drunk, gets in an accident and kills someone is guilty of DUI, any traffic offenses AND the death of those killed. Again, there are penalties for each of those offenses.
As stated above, penalties for DUI are separate and different from murder/manslaughter. This red herring has no bearing on this discussion.
And how do we feel about strawmen?
I’m not arguing for or against the sentence, but understand that legally she was (or could have been) charged with and found guilty of DUI, any number of traffic offenses and 2 counts of murder/manslaughter. On their own any of the above, if egregious enough, could result in jail time (according to Florida statues).
Should the penalty for closing your eyes and discharging a firearm in a random direction depend on whether somebody gets killed? I suspect most people would answer yes, and I don’t see why driving drunk should be regarded any differently.
Along similar lines, the penalties for murder and attempted murder are different, despite the fact that the intent was the same. Bottom line, outcome and intent both matter.
I wonder what her sentence would have been if it were not the “2drunk2care” message. That message incites anger.
I’d be fine if there were a sliding scale based on level of intoxication. If you are .0001 over the limit it should not be punished the same as if you are .1 over the limit. That being said, in this case life without parole would be fine with me. Same penalty if you injure someone or not. If the consequences of DUI were life without parole, my guess is that DUI would decrease dramatically.
We need more prisons.
So what is the point of the limit when there is a fudge factor for the limit?
If you want a sliding scale, here’s mine: Zero tolerance, combined with a defined medical definition for BAC of 0.08 as the legal definition for being DUI. Any BAC between 0.00 and 0.79 is subject to the actual circumstances at hand because let’s face it, it’s possible to be more than 0.00 due to ordinary body metabolism.
Unlikely to reoffend? If you give her two years, or even five where she actually serves three, I bet she is doing it again. license or no license.
How many times do you suppose she did it before without killing anyone?
My point was, on paper she will appear ‘unlikely to reoffend’, meaning NOT a career criminal with a long history. She’ll be an easy pick compared to most other inmates, in my opinion, for right or for wrong.
It’s not a fudge factor - it’s a recognition that there are differences between different levels of intoxication. It’s arbitrary - so is any limit. Why .08 and not .07 or .09?
All states in the USA have a BAC of 0.08 for DUI. As to why it was selected and not 0.07 or 0.09 may be just a political line in the sand. Other countries and lower and higher limits to legally identify DUI.
What? I admit that I have consumed alcohol and then gotten behind the wheel and driven. Just like millions of other people all around the country every single day and night that frequent bars and clubs. What is my “vested interest” in having the opinion that draconian laws for accidental deaths in such cases are not right?
That’s what we have here -
0.08 is automatically “DUI / DIC” but you can also be charged and convicted with less than this if, in the opinion of the officer, “you are not in sufficient control”
As a side note - I understand that New Zealand recently reduced their level from 0.08 and in Australia it is significantly less than this?
I think the message says a lot about her state of mind -
Instead of being somebody stupid who didn’t realise how drunk she was it turns her into somebody that knew what she was doing was foolish, dangerous and stupid, but did it anyway.
I grew up and got my license in New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state. The blood alcohol limit in NSW was always (and still is) 0.05. I believe that most (probably all) other Aussie states have a similar limit.
Don’t play coy, you know exactly what he is referring to.
I know that each incident like this needs to be considered on its own merits, but my willingness to give the drivers in these cases the benefit of the doubt, and to give them relatively lenient sentences, plummets considerably when i see two almost-identical cases like this on our local freeways in a matter of a couple of weeks.
On Saturday, May 2, a drunk driver drove the wrong way down a local freeway and slammed head-on into oncoming traffic. The drunk driver survived, but two people in the other car were killed. Link
Just two nights ago, on May 16, a drunk driver drove the wrong way down a local freeway and slammed head-on into oncoming traffic. The drunk driver survived, but two people in the other car were killed. Link
Fuck both of those assholes. I hope they spend a long time in prison.
Well if he is referring to the car accident that led to the surgery that ultimately paralyzed me, I fail to see how this leads me to have a vested interest in finding a 24 year sentence for a death resulting from drunk driving too stiff for the offense.
Yes, I have been involved in an impaired-driving accident (0.06 bac at 20 years of age, zero tolerance alcohol laws for those under 21). However, I have never hurt another person. So I fail to see how I have a vested interest in this conversation. I’m not playing coy whatsoever. Please elaborate the opinion of how I have a vested interest. Please.
Ambivalid, you must know by now that the Normal People allow no variance from what they assume you and all others like you must think about whatever issue.