SpaceCoastVol
Jacked up on moonshine and testosterone
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 47,096
- Likes
- 55,850
One of my close friend's 19 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver recently. With what he is being charged with, he wont get near the time that he should IMO. Something that has always bothered me, how drunk drivers seem to come out of accidents without a scratch and the innocent are normally the ones who get killed.
One of my close friend's 19 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver recently. With what he is being charged with, he wont get near the time that he should IMO. Something that has always bothered me, how drunk drivers seem to come out of accidents without a scratch and the innocent are normally the ones who get killed.
They also seem to never get that severely dealt with.
It amazes me that someone caught with weed can get in more trouble than a person who freakin' kills people driving drunk.
How many of the 33 years will he serve?
Try this link... PressReader - Connecting People Through News. It should work and answer your questions.
While searching for this I saw another recent ruling of someone in FL also getting 33 years for killing one person while driving drunk, so it seems to be consistent. At the same time, there are other drunk drivers getting as little as 3 years for causing accidents that result in injury, but not death.
Which to me brings up the bigger question... both are guilty of the same act. Neither had intent to harm or kill. One just had "worse luck" (clearly not the best term) because the accident resulted in death(s) instead of only injuries.
So why is one worth 33 years in prison and the other only 3 years in prison when they are both the same "act of crime"? And yes... I realize deaths/manslaughter allows for different charges but the reality is that both drivers are guilty of the same thing... it's just that one had the "good fortune" of only injuring and not killing someone.
Personally, I'm more comfortable with the 33 year sentence than the 3 year sentence.
severity of the crime. same with non-drunk driving and accidents. you have to punish the actual results otherwise you are getting into a world of slippery slopes.
I don't think it is a deterrent anymore than the death penalty. I just think people need to be held accountable for their actions. Anybody with 2 firing synapses knows that drunk driving is dangerous and that it drastically increases your chances of injuring/killing someone. If you can drink, you are an adult and should be treated accordingly if you make a conscious choice to do something stupid and kill someone in the process.In cases like this I think the "act" needs to also be weighed heavily and not just the result of the act. If drunk drivers had a stiffer penalty for causing accidents perhaps there would be fewer of those accidents that result in deaths.
I don't think it is a deterrent anymore than the death penalty. I just think people need to be held accountable for their actions. Anybody with 2 firing synapses knows that drunk driving is dangerous and that it drastically increases your chances of injuring/killing someone. If you can drink, you are an adult and should be treated accordingly if you make a conscious choice to do something stupid and kill someone in the process.
Those synapses fire about as well on someone intoxicated as 50 year old spark plugs in a car leaking oil.
OK then, what is the solution? Forgive and forget? Slap them on the wrist and send them to jail for a couple of months? What is just punishment for making a conscious choice to get drunk out of your mind, and then get behind the wheel and destroy someone's life? It's a difficult problem, but the way it usually pans out is that before someone dies, the killer has had multiple chances to fix the problem, and they (obviously) don't. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.
I'm not sure where your bolded comments are coming from relative to my previous posts. I've actually said that I think the punishment for drunk driving should be more severe (with perhaps a better threshold of what constitutes drunk driving... and yes I'm aware that's a slippery slope).
My primary comment/question was why does one drunk driver get a 1600% longer sentence than another based on committing the exact same act? Some were questioning whether 33 years was long enough for a DUI that lead to a death. I think it's reasonable. However, I think 3 years may be too short for other DUI's that do not result in a death. They are the exact same act with the exact same inherent risks.
I guess I was reacting to your comment about a drunk brain working about as well as bad spark plugs. We are probably talking past each other to a degree. It's a good thing I am not a judge. Our prisons would look like the enlisted barracks on an aircraft carrier.
I was really hoping that some of our resident anarchists would chime in on this one. They seem to believe that drunk driving should not be a crime, but drunk crashing should be. Here's a prime example as to WHY drunk driving should be a crime and should be more vigorously prosecuted.
Bubba has been drinking moonshine on his front porch and decides it's a good idea to take some target practice.
Scenario 1, Bubba shoots a hole in his neighbor's pink flamingo yard ornament.
Scenario 2, Bubba shoots at the pink flamingo, misses and the bullet instead kills his neighbor.
Should Bubba serve the same sentence in either case?
Bubba has been drinking moonshine on his front porch and decides it's a good idea to take some target practice.
Scenario 1, Bubba shoots a hole in his neighbor's pink flamingo yard ornament.
Scenario 2, Bubba shoots at the pink flamingo, misses and the bullet instead kills his neighbor.
Should Bubba serve the same sentence in either case?