Not enough time

#3
#3
Sorry. The gist is that this asshat got drunk and caused the death of 4 innocent people. He pleaded guilty and got 33 years in prison. I don't think it's enough.
 
#5
#5
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.
 
#6
#6
BearCat204 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#7
#7
BearCat204 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being drunk decreases chance of injury in car wrecks.
 
#8
#8
from what I have read 20 years is usually the max sentence. while I doubt there is ever "enough" punishment for killing someone, seems they went beyond the normal punishment.
 
#10
#10
VolsSportsFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

uhm link? the only case I found where it was more than 33 years was when the guy was a grower, seller, didn't abide by parole rules, was caught with guns and other illegal substances, and had violent priors.
 
#11
#11
apevol said:
How many of the 33 years will he serve?
Click to expand...

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.
 
#12
#12
IBlvNTmWrk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#13
#13
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand, but I disagree. The "crime committed" was exactly the same in both cases... driving while drunk.

So let's look at this this way:

scenario 1 - driver is twice the legal limit for DUI, is speeding at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, clips another vehicle causing them to lose control which unfortunately results in the car veering off the hwy into a nearby pond. The car contained a mother and her baby, and since the baby couldn't swim it died. 33 years in prison

scenario 2 - driver is three times the legal limit for DUI, also has a prior DUI, is driving over 100 mph in a 65 mph zone, crosses over a median and starts heading into oncoming traffic causing a multi-car pile up that results in only injuries. 3 years in prison

So driver 1 receives a 1600 percent increase in penalty because there happened to be a pond nearby where he caused an accident, and unfortunately there was a baby in the car that couldn't swim. On the other hand, driver 2 is a repeat offender, was actually driving at a higher speed, completely swerved into oncoming traffic instead of just clipping a car, but had the good fortune not to kill anyone.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
IBlvNTmWrk said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#15
#15
SpaceCoastVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those synapses fire about as well on someone intoxicated as 50 year old spark plugs in a car leaking oil.
 
#16
#16
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Those synapses fire about as well on someone intoxicated as 50 year old spark plugs in a car leaking oil.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
SpaceCoastVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#18
#18
IBlvNTmWrk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#19
#19
SpaceCoastVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

No worries. Seems like we agree on more than we disagree. You are spot on in your final thoughts. I recall Trut taking the position that if there were no damges, injuries, etc. then there should not be a crime or penalty. I guess I'm more more a believer that people will continue to do stupid things if they are not held accountable for their actions (even if those actions do not result in any major harm)... and as such there are more people doing more stupid things which ultimately results in the greater likelihood of one of those stupid things resulting in innocent deaths.
 
#20
#20
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?
 
#21
#21
Thunder Good-Oil said:
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?
Click to expand...

I thought Bubba shot a juke box that made him cry. Went to his truck and got a 45.
 
#22
#22
Thunder Good-Oil said:
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?
Click to expand...

Was his neighbor in the vicinity of the flamingo in scenario 1?

Either way, the answer is no, but if the neighbor is close (subject to lawyer definitions of course :ermm:) he might be in prison for a few months to think about it. Harsh? Probably, but wreckless endangerment is taken too lightly in this country.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top