WI Drunk Driving Sentencing:Rant Ahead

[DisneyBamaFan]

Even if this is the first time he ever drove drunk, prison is justified.

Agreed...

BTW, roll Tide! (from a Georgia grad)

Thanks!

 

[FireDancer]

Even if this is the first time he ever drove drunk, prison is justified.

I am pretty sure that no one is saying prison for causing a death while drunk driving isn't a justified outcome in this case. While running a stop sign probably contributed to the crash, and in a court would probably be contributory negligence, it would be hard to convince a jury the cause wasn't driving drunk.

There are people who think it was too little but the punishment has to be applied logically and not emotionally. It is terrible but a far cry from something that deserves the death penalty or even life in prison, at least under these circumstances. There has to be intent to cause harm as opposed to neglegence to warrant those kinds of sentences and while drinking and driving is terrible and should be punished, it is negligence and not pre-meditation. Intent is still important in mitigating punishment in this country.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Her testimony goes against the testimony of every other person. Either everyone else is lying, or she is...

If he didn't take the stand, he wouldn't be able to claim she was lying.

Not all drunk drivers have accidents and get busted. It is unfortunate that they don't get caught.

But it doesn't mean that it was their first time behind the wheel intoxicated.

Out of curiosity--who is "everyone else" when you make this statement? B/c unless he had people wiht him 24/7 that could swear that he didn't drink and drive...I'd take the word of the wife over them.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

If he didn't take the stand, he wouldn't be able to claim she was lying.

Not all drunk drivers have accidents and get busted. It is unfortunate that they don't get caught.

But it doesn't mean that it was their first time behind the wheel intoxicated.

Out of curiosity--who is "everyone else" when you make this statement? B/c unless he had people wiht him 24/7 that could swear that he didn't drink and drive...I'd take the word of the wife over them.

There were many people who testified in his defense, including his previous wife and his current girlfriend. He recently left the wife who said all of the bad things. If the other two women disagree, along with every other person in his life, one has to assume that the wife has an axe to grind. In fact, one article mentions a letter from his first wife to the judge, telling him to be careful of what she might say as she has several "axes to grind" against the defendant, though the article was not specific about the issues between the two of them.

All of that considered, I would completely disregard the testimony of the wife. The judge didn't, but I would have...

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

There were many people who testified in his defense, including his previous wife and his current girlfriend. He recently left the wife who said all of the bad things. If the other two women disagree, along with every other person in his life, one has to assume that the wife has an axe to grind. In fact, one article mentions a letter from his first wife to the judge, telling him to be careful of what she might say as she has several "axes to grind" against the defendant, though the article was not specific about the issues between the two of them.

All of that considered, I would completely disregard the testimony of the wife. The judge didn't, but I would have...

Fair enough. But sometimes ex-es are ex-es for a reason. But very valid points.



Just had a story in Orlando--a young colllege graduate got nailed by a drunk driver. They are emphasizing his....wealth. The driver that nailed him into a canal--is a multi-millionaire driving a bentley who did blow through a stop sign.

 

[freckles and boo]

There are people who think it was too little but the punishment has to be applied logically and not emotionally. It is terrible but a far cry from something that deserves the death penalty or even life in prison, at least under these circumstances. There has to be intent to cause harm as opposed to neglegence to warrant those kinds of sentences and while drinking and driving is terrible and should be punished, it is negligence and not pre-meditation. Intent is still important in mitigating punishment in this country.

I have a huge problem with this logic. It suggests that driving while intoxicated is always a horrible, tragic mistake instead of wanton disregard for the safety of others. It is nearly impossible to assume that a robber PLANS to murder a clerk in the commission of a robbery, but if it happens it is still murder. It can be reasonable assumed that someone who is intoxicated is incapable of making good driving decisions and may injure or kill someone. This isn't obscure information. We KNOW it to be true. It isn't negligence, it is a crime.

 

[FireDancer]

I have a huge problem with this logic. It suggests that driving while intoxicated is always a horrible, tragic mistake instead of wanton disregard for the safety of others. It is nearly impossible to assume that a robber PLANS to murder a clerk in the commission of a robbery, but if it happens it is still murder. It can be reasonable assumed that someone who is intoxicated is incapable of making good driving decisions and may injure or kill someone. This isn't obscure information. We KNOW it to be true. It isn't negligence, it is a crime.

No, I am saying that killing someone while drunk driving, unless of course you planned ahead of time to do so, is a horrible tragic mistake that happened while committing the crime of driving while intoxicated. I didn't say it wasn't a crime, but there was no malice of forethought, there was only negligence. If I am interpreting your logic correctly negligence and committing a crime are mutually exclusive but in reality they can coexist in the same act.

Lets look at another scenario. Lets say I want to go in my back yard and discharge a firearm. In my city that is against the law. I shoot at a tree, miss, and kill my neighbor. I would not be charged with premeditated murder, I would most likely be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter. I knowingly fired the weapon just like the man in the article knowing drove intoxicated. I accidentally killed a person I had no intention of killing or even wounding just like the man in the article unintentionally killed a person he had no intention of killing or even wounding. In our legal system both of us would be charged with a crime (as we should) but would not be punished to the extent we would if I went in the backyard with the intent of killing my neighbor or he got in his car with the intent of killing a carload of people.

 

[Poppinsme]

No, I am saying that killing someone while drunk driving, unless of course you planned ahead of time to do so, is a horrible tragic mistake that happened while committing the crime of driving while intoxicated. I didn't say it wasn't a crime, but there was no malice of forethought, there was only negligence. If I am interpreting your logic correctly negligence and committing a crime are mutually exclusive but in reality they can coexist in the same act.

Lets look at another scenario. Lets say I want to go in my back yard and discharge a firearm. In my city that is against the law. I shoot at a tree, miss, and kill my neighbor. I would not be charged with premeditated murder, I would most likely be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter. I knowingly fired the weapon just like the man in the article knowing drove intoxicated. I accidentally killed a person I had no intention of killing or even wounding just like the man in the article unintentionally killed a person he had no intention of killing or even wounding. In our legal system both of us would be charged with a crime (as we should) but would not be punished to the extent we would if I went in the backyard with the intent of killing my neighbor or he got in his car with the intent of killing a carload of people.

You have a choice when you are drinking to drive or not.
That car you chose to drive in is a loaded weapon when your drunk.
And that is the same as carrying a gun to commit a crime.
Maybe you wont this time kill someone but the chances are so great that you will kill.
YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO DRIVE DRUNK OR NOT. A choice!!!!

I pray that no one ever has to go through what I and my family went through.
And I pray for the family that lost there loved one by the hand of the same drunk who killed my brother. If that drunk had been put away for life or executed one person would still be alive today.
You will get no pity from me ever.
Its NOT a mistake its cold blooded murder.

 

[FireDancer]

You have a choice when you are drinking to drive or not.
That car you chose to drive in is a loaded weapon when your drunk.
And that is the same as carrying a gun to commit a crime.
Maybe you wont this time kill someone but the chances are so great that you will kill.
YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO DRIVE DRUNK OR NOT. A choice!!!!

I pray that no one ever has to go through what I and my family went through.
And I pray for the family that lost there loved one by the hand of the same drunk who killed my brother. If that drunk had been put away for life or executed one person would still be alive today.
You will get no pity from me ever.
Its NOT a mistake its cold blooded murder.

Your argument is flawed legally. The part I bolded above is the important distinction. When you carry a gun to commit a crime you have premeditated to do so. When you carry the gun and later accidentally commit a crime you never intended to the punishment is different.

I think you are under the impression that I believe the man shouldn't be punished. I never said that, he should be punished. I don't want him punished to the same extent as someone who commits a premeditated act. I would not want someone guilty of manslaughter to have the same sentence as someone who is guilty of first degree murder either. There has to be a degree to the sentence just like there is a degree to the crime.

Yes, people have the choice to drink and drive. If they make the wrong choice they should be punished within the law. Premeditating to drink and drive is not the same as premeditating to kill someone while drinking and driving. There is a very big legal distinction.

ETA: In the example a PP posted above of killing someone while committing a robbery, that is also different. An enhanced sentence from killing someone while in the process of committing a felony is statutory (where applicable of course). Drinking and driving, in isolation, is not a felony and falls outside of the statute.

 

[Poppinsme]

True story.
Warning. Could be graphic to some.
Disclaimer: My English usage is far from perfect.

I work in health care. ER, NICU, PICU, CICU. And I have been working with children for 22 years.

A few years ago something happened that will haunt me forever.
Drunk driver went the wrong way on I 10.
She hit a car head on. The car had a father, mother and 2 children in side. Mom and Dad were killed instantly(wearing seat belts&airbags). The 3 year old girl died at the scene.
They airlifted the 6 month old boy to us. He was in a car seat that had been smashed through the front window.
We all thought that he would be brain damaged from impact but no. His injuries were internal, he was crushed.
Nothing wrong with his head. He looked at us and squeezed our fingers.
We tried to stabilize him for surgery. We coded him for an hour. He died.
Grandmother was in the waiting room on her knees praying to God for a miracle.
I will never get out of my head her screams when they told her that her Grandson was dead. Never.
The drunk died in the crash.
She had 6 prior DWI and was driving on a suspended lisence.

Sorry FireDancer it was premeditated murder!!!!!
She knew damn well what she was doing and she killed 4 Innocent people.

Come work with me in ER and then tell ME it was just a tragic mistake or it wasn't intentional.

Now I will get off this thread.

 

[FireDancer]

True story.
Warning. Could be graphic to some.
Disclaimer: My English usage is far from perfect.

I work in health care. ER, NICU, PICU, CICU. And I have been working with children for 22 years.

A few years ago something happened that will haunt me forever.
Drunk driver went the wrong way on I 10.
She hit a car head on. The car had a father, mother and 2 children in side. Mom and Dad were killed instantly(wearing seat belts&airbags). The 3 year old girl died at the scene.
They airlifted the 6 month old boy to us. He was in a car seat that had been smashed through the front window.
We all thought that he would be brain damaged from impact but no. His injuries were internal, he was crushed.
Nothing wrong with his head. He looked at us and squeezed our fingers.
We tried to stabilize him for surgery. We coded him for an hour. He died.
Grandmother was in the waiting room on her knees praying to God for a miracle.
I will never get out of my head her screams when they told her that her Grandson was dead. Never.
The drunk died in the crash.
She had 6 prior DWI and was driving on a suspended lisence.

Sorry FireDancer it was premeditated murder!!!!!
She knew damn well what she was doing and she killed 4 Innocent people.

Come work with me in ER and then tell ME it was just a tragic mistake or it wasn't intentional.

Now I will get off this thread.

A very sad story but it does not fit the legal definition of premeditation to commit murder, sorry. If you look up any legal definition of premeditation you will see that you have to intend the outcome. Only if the person not only intended to drink and drive but also intended before the fact to kill someone by doing so they have not committed premeditated murder. Of course a prosecutor could still charge them with it but it would have to survive appeal.

I think that any premeditation crime has to be intended before the act. If a drunk person purposely and not by accident drives the wrong way on a street with the express purpose of causing a fatal accident I would call it premeditated murder and in that case I would agree with you.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

No, I am saying that killing someone while drunk driving, unless of course you planned ahead of time to do so, is a horrible tragic mistake that happened while committing the crime of driving while intoxicated. I didn't say it wasn't a crime, but there was no malice of forethought, there was only negligence. If I am interpreting your logic correctly negligence and committing a crime are mutually exclusive but in reality they can coexist in the same act.

Lets look at another scenario. Lets say I want to go in my back yard and discharge a firearm. In my city that is against the law. I shoot at a tree, miss, and kill my neighbor. I would not be charged with premeditated murder, I would most likely be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter. I knowingly fired the weapon just like the man in the article knowing drove intoxicated. I accidentally killed a person I had no intention of killing or even wounding just like the man in the article unintentionally killed a person he had no intention of killing or even wounding. In our legal system both of us would be charged with a crime (as we should) but would not be punished to the extent we would if I went in the backyard with the intent of killing my neighbor or he got in his car with the intent of killing a carload of people.

A fair analogy, but one that people who are emotionally invested in this issue will find difficult to accept...

 

[yoopermom]

(OP here)But if I'm a drunk carrying a gun, then I'm knowingly taking a chance, because alcohol impairs judgement. DH owns guns, and has a concealed carry permit, but would NEVER drink and then do any gun related activity because he has enough common sense to know that alcohol and guns don't mix, just like alcohol and driving don't.

While I agree that the offender didn't *deliberately* kill these people, he had to have known (as we've all been taught since childhood) that drinking and driving can cause harm. He probably justified it either "I'm not "that" drunk" or "I've driven plenty of times after drinking and I'll be fine". This time, his (and their) luck ran out.

I'm sorry for the people who have personal experience with it. While the debaters are logical, it's hard not to be emotional when lives are involved.

Terri

 

[FireDancer]

A fair analogy, but one that people who are emotionally invested in this issue will find difficult to accept...

Which is why court cases and case law should not be decided emotionally but logically and rationally.

 

[Poohbug]

Since I pay taxes to the state of WI, I know that they are pretty hefty. However, I don't know if more jail time is the answer. There should be more consequences even after jail time. I don't think they should ever have the privilege of driving again among other things.

I would think that legislators would be able to brainstorm and think of effective ways to reduce drunk driving. Of course since many lawmakers of WI are drunk drivers themselves-I won't be holding my breath of that one.

Just a sad story that could have been prevented.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Since I pay taxes to the state of WI, I know that they are pretty hefty. However, I don't know if more jail time is the answer. There should be more consequences even after jail time. I don't think they should ever have the privilege of driving again among other things.

I would think that legislators would be able to brainstorm and think of effective ways to reduce drunk driving. Of course since many lawmakers of WI are drunk drivers themselves-I won't be holding my breath of that one.

Just a sad story that could have been prevented.

Long Island greatly reduced drunk driving by confiscating the cars of the drunk drivers - EVERY TIME - EVEN IF THE CAR WAS NOT OWNED BY THE DRIVER. It helped greatly reduce the number of DWIs. There are better ways to combat this...

 

[N.Bailey]

No, I am saying that killing someone while drunk driving, unless of course you planned ahead of time to do so, is a horrible tragic mistake that happened while committing the crime of driving while intoxicated. I didn't say it wasn't a crime, but there was no malice of forethought, there was only negligence. If I am interpreting your logic correctly negligence and committing a crime are mutually exclusive but in reality they can coexist in the same act.

Lets look at another scenario. Lets say I want to go in my back yard and discharge a firearm. In my city that is against the law. I shoot at a tree, miss, and kill my neighbor. I would not be charged with premeditated murder, I would most likely be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter. I knowingly fired the weapon just like the man in the article knowing drove intoxicated. I accidentally killed a person I had no intention of killing or even wounding just like the man in the article unintentionally killed a person he had no intention of killing or even wounding. In our legal system both of us would be charged with a crime (as we should) but would not be punished to the extent we would if I went in the backyard with the intent of killing my neighbor or he got in his car with the intent of killing a carload of people.

I don't disagree with the overall point of view in your post. I have stated much of the same rational myself in this very thread.

Having said that, your example used here could very well be charged as 2nd degree murder in some states in this country. Aforethought isn't the standard in all states where 2nd degree murder is concerned (though it is in some). Shooting a loaded firearm could raise the intent to a total and conscious disregard for human life, making it murder rather than manslaughter, etc.... This would especially be true if your neighbor was a well liked celebrity.

In states where it would fit the legal definition for murder, it could be reduced if a plea deal could be reached, and that would be more the norm than the exception. That does not negate that it could fit the legal definition of murder though.

 

[N.Bailey]

Since I pay taxes to the state of WI, I know that they are pretty hefty. However, I don't know if more jail time is the answer. There should be more consequences even after jail time. I don't think they should ever have the privilege of driving again among other things.

I would think that legislators would be able to brainstorm and think of effective ways to reduce drunk driving. Of course since many lawmakers of WI are drunk drivers themselves-I won't be holding my breath of that one.

Just a sad story that could have been prevented.

I like the way you think!!

 

[FireDancer]

I don't disagree with the overall point of view in your post. I have stated much of the same rational myself in this very thread.

Having said that, your example used here could very well be charged as 2nd degree murder in some states in this country. Aforethought isn't the standard in all states where 2nd degree murder is concerned (though it is in some). Shooting a loaded firearm could raise the intent to a total and conscious disregard for human life, making it murder rather than manslaughter, etc.... This would especially be true if your neighbor was a well liked celebrity.

In states where it would fit the legal definition for murder, it could be reduced if a plea deal could be reached, and that would be more the norm than the exception. That does not negate that it could fit the legal definition of murder though.

I agree with all of that. I wasn't so much against a DUI killing being charged as murder if the totality of circumstances warrant it as I am against it being called premeditated murder. I agree that under certain circumstances accidental killing can be murder, that is why some murders are charged as depraved indifference. I don't see how it can be premeditated murder and baring that malice of forethought I don't see how the death penalty can be a logical punishment as proposed by a PP.

I would think under most circumstances it is manslaughter, when there are mitigating circumstances murder, but baring the intent of actually killing someone it is never premeditated.

 

[tinatark]

This is hard. There was responsibility on both parts - the family who was killed did not wear seat belts (and did that car even legally hold 5 people?) and ran the red light. The other guy was drunk, and speeding. He was obviously most at fault. Because the case was decided subjectively, it appears that the judge, while he didn't say the dead family had any fault, did take their actions into consideration.

There was a case in Florida, it was heartbreaking, 7 children from one family killed when a semi truck ran into their car, stopped behind a school bus. As heartbreaking as it was, the driver was 15 with a permit, no adult in the car, and the car only legally held 5 people. The car shouldn't have been on the road or driven by her. The truck driver was sentenced to 7 years in prison and a substantial amount of restitution - he was driving while sleep deprived.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/6491335/detail.html