I think the interesting thing is that the text sent everyone over the edge. But really, when you think about it, isn’t that what every single drunk driver is thinking? Or, more accurately, why they’re NOT thinking?
I’m going to weigh in too (as a loveable Canadian, eh?).
I was involved in a car accident at 19 that killed a good friend, and left me recovering for about three years. The driver was not caught at the scene, so he could not be charged with drinking and driving (even though he had been at a bar and was believed to be drag-racing at the time).
He was given three years house arrest. For vehicular manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and leaving the scene of an accident (in the car, his passenger told him to pull over, his response was "Are you crazy, I just hit somebody!). My friend, Janelle, was shattered and although we did CPR at the scene, there was no hope of recovery.
I think 24 years is a little long, but it depends on what the goal is…is it rehabilitation, punishment or deterrant (for her and others)?
If it’s rehab - it’s too long. Ten years would serve just as well.
It it’s deterrant for her and others - Ten years would serve well.
If it’s punishment - Then there is no time long enough for two lives taken.
FTR - I have never driven under the influence. Ever.
You drove drunk.
Got into an accident that caused serious injury
And you say that you don’t have a dog in this fight?
Others that have been harmed by drunk driving are upfront enough to disclose it. As the perpetrator of drunk driving causing serious injury (to yourself) you are being more than just a bit coy
When I was a young teenager, a friend was killed by a drunk driver. Her whole family was heading out on a trip. She took her seatbelt off for a moment to get something at her feet, and some drunk fucker drifted across the lane at that exact moment and hit her car. The rest of her family, all wearing seatbelts, walked away with scratches. She died instantly. (The drunk fucker, as is often the case, was not seriously injured.) This was a defining event for me in my childhood - she was the first young person I knew to die, and the details of the crash made me ponder the exigencies of life and the “what ifs” for years.
It also bred in me a lifelong contempt for drunk drivers. They can all die in a fire as far as I’m concerned. Fuck you for your selfishness and stupidity, drunk drivers. 24 years in jail for this woman is fine with me. 48 years is fine, too. I could not care less if this seems “too harsh” for some people.
Absolutely. That’s why i said upthread that i hope it’s not the text message that was the main reason behind the stiff sentence.
I understand that we all have different opinions on the punishment that drunk drivers should receive when they kill people, but i don’t think that sending a stupid text message should be the main, or even a significant, criterion in determining a drunk driver’s punishment.
I don’t think it makes sense to justify long sentences based on how they make the victim or victim’s family or society at large feel better, because such feelings are themselves shaped by the typical length of sentences. I suspect if this had happened in a jurisdiction where this woman would have been sentenced to 5 years, and that was the standard sentence in a case like this, the victim’s family would feel exactly the same sense of retribution as here. (But I’d be curious to know if anyone has studied that.)
So the other factor in a case like this is deterrence. The jury is out (so to speak) on how length of sentence affects deterrence, though there does seem to be some real correlation there. But there are pretty clear diminishing returns. I doubt a 10-year sentence for DUI manslaughter is different from a 20-year one in terms of deterrence. And the other thing about deterrence is that it’s a utility calculation. You’re trying to reduce the incidence of crime. So, if instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to lock someone up for a decade, you could stop more DUIs by spending that money on education or enforcement, then the latter is a no-brainer.
I say, chop off her arm. What does that not achieve that a 24-year sentence does? Do that, and use the extra money to build the school.
No, I have no dog in the fight over whether a death caused by drunken driving should be punished by 24 years in jail. How does me injuring myself in an alcohol-influenced accident make my opinion on the sentence biased somehow? I did not injure/kill another person. And I WAS upfront about my situation, I disclosed it as soon as someone else brought it up in a back-handed fashion. I didn’t bring it up prior because I saw no reason to (and I still don’t see any relevance to my opinion here).
Please be specific.
I understand what you’re saying but posting “2drunk2care” appears to be one step further into stupidity. She knew she was drunk and still drove home, whereas a lot of DUIs don’t appear to realize how drunk they are.
Ultimately, and without comment about the right or wrong of it, it seems a lot of people weigh their judgement of drunk drivers (or any criminals for that matter) based on their contriteness. A thoroughly apologetic individual is granted a bit more leeway than a clueless or arrogant one. Probably because rehabilitation requires the perpetrator to admit fault, accept consequences, learn lessons and modify future behavior.
The text 2drunk2care goes directly against this preference, and is therefore condemned roundly. Somewhat lost in the debate is the thought that the text was sent prior to the accident and does not indicate remorse (or lack thereof) after the crash, but it is real and nevertheless affects public perception.
I have the spine to admit it. I’ve driven drunk probably 3 or 4 times in my life. That was more then 20 years ago.
One time, there was a duck walking into the road. I didn’t see it in time, but I slammed on my brakes as soon as I did (if I hadn’t been drinking I would have easily stopped in time). I hit the duck. It limped away toward the nearby bank of a canal. I got out and watched it. It was just kind of sitting there with it’s head up, not making any noise. But I could tell it wasn’t going to live.
All I could think about was if that had been a person I would have hit them, too. Killed them? Crippled them? Don’t know. It was all hypothetical. But I couldn’t get it out of my head. It was very disturbing.
Never drove even close to over the legal limit since then.
ETA: I don’t know all of the particulars of this case and I’m not a judge. But I think that the 24 years sounds really harsh. Maybe about 6 or 7 years with a long probation at the end?
She should be required to surrender some proportion of the product of her work to the families and to an organization (or a government body) that works to prevent drunk driving.
She should be disallowed access to vehicles for some period, so as to prevent future incidents of the same type.
Prison serves no function here. Restitution can meaningfully be made in other ways. The very act of restitution also functions as retributive. And it doesn’t require 24 years of prison to make sure she doesn’t do this again.
(after edit time window closed)
I want to add, FWIW, that when I “drove drunk” it wasn’t like I was completely blotto and decided, “Who gives a fuck? I’m 2drunk2care! Somebody gets in my way that’s their tough luck.”
Instead, these were situations where I knew I was going to be driving home so I tried to be conscious of how much I was drinking. Problem was, as I drank more my judgement was impaired so I wasn’t as aware of when to stop as I needed to be. While I did drink a lot less than I would have if I was taking a bus or cab home, I ended up drinking more than I should have (and was, I’m pretty sure, legally drunk) and drove anyway.
Makes no difference legally, of course, and probably not ethically either. But I hadn’t drank to the point where I thought to myself, “Holy shit! There is no way in HELL I should be driving!”
Was I more capable of operating a car than someone who had had 2 or 3 or 6 more drinks than I had? Undoubtedly. But I still had no business driving.
I don’t think that statement shows that she is not remorseful or won’t fully admit she caused their deaths. I interpreted it as just a manner of speaking.
Say, for example, I went up to a farmyard and killed three chickens because I was hungry. The pissed-off farmer says to me:
“Hey WTF? You killed three of my chickens!!”
To which I respond:
**
“I may have killed three of your chickens, but I am starving. I haven’t eaten in four days. I am very sorry and I will try to make it up to you somehow.”**
In this case I’m not saying that maybe I killed his chickens and maybe I didn’t. I’m fully owning up to the fact that I did the deed. It’s just a way people put things sometimes. I think the key is the “I may have… but” formation of the phrase.
Admittedly, Ms. Mendoza might have found a better way to phrase it, but I don’t think she intended to imply that she was in any way not responsible for the crash.
In a similar incident in England the driver got a six year sentence:
This has now been contested as too lenient, which in my opinion it is. It will be interesting to see if the appeal is heard and sustained.