Why it remains an epidemic - kill a guy while DUI and get only 30 days

[GoCougs]

MIAMI ?  Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte' Stallworth took full responsibility for killing a pedestrian while driving drunk in Florida and began serving a 30-day jail sentence Tuesday after he pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter.

It makes it all the more disgraceful in that it was a high profile case, further reinforcing the lack of consequences for DUI.

[bing_oh]

We're really backwards when it comes to DUI penalties in this country. Other nations have extremely harsh penalties for DUI...and, subsequently, have little problem with DUI, even in nations with much lower drinking ages and such.

There's a case that's being appealed in my county right now where a guy ran a stop sign and killed four 18 year old kids. He was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol. He accepted a plea bargain for (I believe) 28 years in prison for it...that's 7 years per dead 18 year old kid. He's now changed lawyers, claimed ineffective council, said that he didn't run the stop sign, and wants the case thrown out. The biggest thing isn't even the time he was sentenced to (even though I think that's pitiful) but that he can't take responsibility for his actions. His parents have even started a letter-writing campaign to the editorial page of the local newspaper calling it an "accident," how their kid doesn't deserve to serve prison time for it, and how the local Sheriff's Office screwed up the investigation (they didn't...I know the two deputies who did the crash reconstruction personally).

[TBR]

We're really backwards when it comes to DUI penalties in this country. Other nations have extremely harsh penalties for DUI...and, subsequently, have little problem with DUI, even in nations with much lower drinking ages and such.

There's a case that's being appealed in my county right now where a guy ran a stop sign and killed four 18 year old kids. He was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol. He accepted a plea bargain for (I believe) 28 years in prison for it...that's 7 years per dead 18 year old kid. He's now changed lawyers, claimed ineffective council, said that he didn't run the stop sign, and wants the case thrown out. The biggest thing isn't even the time he was sentenced to (even though I think that's pitiful) but that he can't take responsibility for his actions. His parents have even started a letter-writing campaign to the editorial page of the local newspaper calling it an "accident," how their kid doesn't deserve to serve prison time for it, and how the local Sheriff's Office screwed up the investigation (they didn't...I know the two deputies who did the crash reconstruction personally).

Obviously I don't know the exact situation, but it seems damn far fetched that the drunk + high guy wasn't at fault for the collision.

Furthermore, I don't know that I would take issue with it being called an accident, the kid didn't do it on purpose. But, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held responsible for it since his poor decisions are what led to it.

[MaxPower]

We're really backwards when it comes to DUI penalties in this country. Other nations have extremely harsh penalties for DUI...and, subsequently, have little problem with DUI, even in nations with much lower drinking ages and such.

There's a case that's being appealed in my county right now where a guy ran a stop sign and killed four 18 year old kids. He was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol. He accepted a plea bargain for (I believe) 28 years in prison for it...that's 7 years per dead 18 year old kid. He's now changed lawyers, claimed ineffective council, said that he didn't run the stop sign, and wants the case thrown out. The biggest thing isn't even the time he was sentenced to (even though I think that's pitiful) but that he can't take responsibility for his actions. His parents have even started a letter-writing campaign to the editorial page of the local newspaper calling it an "accident," how their kid doesn't deserve to serve prison time for it, and how the local Sheriff's Office screwed up the investigation (they didn't...I know the two deputies who did the crash reconstruction personally).

It's not easy to have your counsel deemed ineffective--not only do you have to find ineffectiveness but you also have to show that the ineffectiveness prejudiced the result.

28 years sounds like a pretty good sentence, considering the current state of affairs with DUI penalties.  I'm assuming this is his first DUI offense, too--which is usually only a fine & license suspension where I work.  I don't know how it is there, but here drug OUIs are harder to prove and there is a lot more room for defense counsel to muck things up.  Consequently, lower sentences sometimes get pitched just to get the defendant locked up.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Stallworth got 2 years of house arrest also, but he can still play football.

[Raza]

This is disgraceful. 

[280Z Turbo]

That's not so bad.

Some drunk drivers become senators.

[bing_oh]

Obviously I don't know the exact situation, but it seems damn far fetched that the drunk + high guy wasn't at fault for the collision.

Even the new defense counsel is, essentially, stating that he was at fault in the crash. Preliminary reconstruction of the crash put him at somewhere around 80 mph when he blew the stop sign...the vehicle carrying the four 18 year olds was thrown through the air and slammed into a pole, almost tearing it in half. The new counsel is claiming that the suspect's car was travelling at 12 mph and that the Sheriff's Office screwed up the reconstruction and should have called in the Highway Patrol to do it. Of course, whether he was travelling at 12 mph or 112 mph, he still ran the stop sign and caused the crash. And, how do I know all of this? Because the new defense counsel is publishing it in the paper, even before the appeal has been heard. And then they bitch because they can't get a "fair trial" because of the media attention.

Furthermore, I don't know that I would take issue with it being called an accident, the kid didn't do it on purpose. But, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held responsible for it since his poor decisions are what led to it.

An "accident" implies no fault. If a tree branch falls during a windstorm and caves in the roof of your car, it's an "accident." What happened was a "crash." There was a person at fault. He was drunk, high, and ran a stop sign...all of which he did of his own volition. He may not have gotten into the car and planned on ramming another car and killing four kids, but his intentional actions still directly caused their deaths. That's why he was facing prison and not a needle...intent.

[TBR]

It's not easy to have your counsel deemed ineffective--not only do you have to find ineffectiveness but you also have to show that the ineffectiveness prejudiced the result.

28 years sounds like a pretty good sentence, considering the current state of affairs with DUI penalties.  I'm assuming this is his first DUI offense, too--which is usually only a fine & license suspension where I work.  I don't know how it is there, but here drug OUIs are harder to prove and there is a lot more room for defense counsel to muck things up.  Consequently, lower sentences sometimes get pitched just to get the defendant locked up.

It isn't a DUI, it's manslaughter. 

[hounddog]

This is disgraceful.  

Thats plea bargaining.  Imagine how the officers feel when we nab a rapist who gets four years state probation, treatment and is required to only be listed on the SOR. 

Your disgust at the disproportionately soft sentencing should be aimed at the prosecutor, not the drunk driver.  These back-room dealings have been going on for years.   It was one of the reasons I was happy to retire, I became so disgusted by it that I could no longer hold my tongue.

And, the judges on the bench are as much to blame because they keep accepting this baloney.  The poor status of the justice system is because of lawyers, all of them.

[TBR]

Even the new defense counsel is, essentially, stating that he was at fault in the crash. Preliminary reconstruction of the crash put him at somewhere around 80 mph when he blew the stop sign...the vehicle carrying the four 18 year olds was thrown through the air and slammed into a pole, almost tearing it in half. The new counsel is claiming that the suspect's car was travelling at 12 mph and that the Sheriff's Office screwed up the reconstruction and should have called in the Highway Patrol to do it. Of course, whether he was travelling at 12 mph or 112 mph, he still ran the stop sign and caused the crash. And, how do I know all of this? Because the new defense counsel is publishing it in the paper, even before the appeal has been heard. And then they bitch because they can't get a "fair trial" because of the media attention.

So they are trying to get it thrown out on the grounds of a police screw up?

An "accident" implies no fault. If a tree branch falls during a windstorm and caves in the roof of your car, it's an "accident." What happened was a "crash." There was a person at fault. He was drunk, high, and ran a stop sign...all of which he did of his own volition. He may not have gotten into the car and planned on ramming another car and killing four kids, but his intentional actions still directly caused their deaths. That's why he was facing prison and not a needle...intent.

I guess the legal definition of accident is different than the one I am accustomed to.

[bing_oh]

It isn't a DUI, it's manslaughter. 

Exactly. His actions ended in the deaths of four high school kids.

[TBR]

No, that is plea bargaining.

Your disgust at the disproportionately soft sentencing should be aimed at the prosecutor, not the drunk driver.  These back-room dealings have been going on for years.   It was one of the reasons I was happy to retire, I became so disgusted by it that I could no longer hold my tongue.

And, the judges on the bench are as much to blame because they keep accepting this baloney.  The poor status of the justice system is because of lawyers, all of them.

You are being too critical. If I went to school for seven hellish years and ended up making $50k/year I can't say that I wouldn't take the easy way out on occasion either.

[hounddog]

Manslaughter is also not the proper charge, DUI Causing Death or Negligent Homicide should have been charged.

[bing_oh]

Thats plea bargaining.  Imagine how the officers feel when we nab a rapist who gets four years state probation, treatment and is required to only be listed on the SOR. 

Your disgust at the disproportionately soft sentencing should be aimed at the prosecutor, not the drunk driver.  These back-room dealings have been going on for years.   It was one of the reasons I was happy to retire, I became so disgusted by it that I could no longer hold my tongue.

And, the judges on the bench are as much to blame because they keep accepting this baloney.  The poor status of the justice system is because of lawyers, all of them.

I personally wasn't happy with the plea bargain, but it's not my case. I was absolutely disgusted with the appeal after he accepted the plea bargain, though.

[hounddog]

You are being too critical. If I went to school for seven hellish years and ended up making $50k/year I can't say that I wouldn't take the easy way out on occasion either.

In this particular debate, I will say I am not being overly critical.  You would be stunned, absolutely stunned, at some of the plea bargains I have witnessed.

Most of the time it left me in absolute shock. 

[bing_oh]

So they are trying to get it thrown out on the grounds of a police screw up?
I guess the legal definition of accident is different than the one I am accustomed to.

They're appealing for multiple reasons. Ineffective counsel, errors in the investigation that fail to prove that he was at fault in the crash, and cruel and unusual punishment were the big ones.

[hounddog]

I personally wasn't happy with the plea bargain, but it's not my case. I was absolutely disgusted with the appeal after he accepted the plea bargain, though.

Yeah, I cannot not imagine how any appelate court could find their way clear to hear such Tomfoolery as this. 

But, some dumbass feelgood judge will hear it. 

[bing_oh]

Manslaughter is also not the proper charge, DUI Causing Death or Negligent Homicide should have been charged.

It's probably best charged under aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular homicide, or vehicular manslaughter in Ohio, depending on the circumstances.

[hounddog]

You are being too critical. If I went to school for seven hellish years and ended up making $50k/year I can't say that I wouldn't take the easy way out on occasion either.

Another point, prosecutors are SUPPOSED to seek justice.  They are the champion of the People and of Justice, not of getting cases cleared quickly.

[TBR]

They're appealing for multiple reasons. Ineffective counsel, errors in the investigation that fail to prove that he was at fault in the crash, and cruel and unusual punishment were the big ones.

Cruel and unusual punishment? He killed 4 people! What a waste of time.

I must admit that I am beginning to understand hound's dislike of lawyers.

[TBR]

Another point, prosecutors are SUPPOSED to seek justice.  They are the champion of the People and of Justice, not of getting cases cleared quickly.

I am sure there are some of them who feel that way, but for the rest it is just a job, a poorly paid job at that.

Edit- I fully realize I am talking out of both sides of my mouth here, but I can help have at least a little sympathy with people who did spend 7 years in school and don't have much to show for it.

[bing_oh]

Cruel and unusual punishment? He killed 4 people! What a waste of time.

I must admit that I am beginning to understand hound's dislike of lawyers.

Exactly. 7 years per death was supposedly "cruel and unusual." Somehow, I don't think the families of those four high school kids would consider that cruel and unusual. More like a travesty of justice.

[Minpin]

Even the new defense counsel is, essentially, stating that he was at fault in the crash. Preliminary reconstruction of the crash put him at somewhere around 80 mph when he blew the stop sign...the vehicle carrying the four 18 year olds was thrown through the air and slammed into a pole, almost tearing it in half. The new counsel is claiming that the suspect's car was travelling at 12 mph and that the Sheriff's Office screwed up the reconstruction and should have called in the Highway Patrol to do it. Of course, whether he was travelling at 12 mph or 112 mph, he still ran the stop sign and caused the crash. And, how do I know all of this? Because the new defense counsel is publishing it in the paper, even before the appeal has been heard. And then they bitch because they can't get a "fair trial" because of the media attention.

An "accident" implies no fault. If a tree branch falls during a windstorm and caves in the roof of your car, it's an "accident." What happened was a "crash." There was a person at fault. He was drunk, high, and ran a stop sign...all of which he did of his own volition. He may not have gotten into the car and planned on ramming another car and killing four kids, but his intentional actions still directly caused their deaths. That's why he was facing prison and not a needle...intent.

It's not so much as they want a fair trial, I am sure the "bad guys" would love a jury to be unfair, on the contingent that they are unfair on their side only. As soon as they are unfair against them is when it's a problem. Of course, it should be a problem on both sides, but the justice system is.......................................................well it's the justice system.

[bing_oh]

I am sure there are some of them who feel that way, but for the rest it is just a job, a poorly paid job at that.

Edit- I fully realize I am talking out of both sides of my mouth here, but I can help have at least a little sympathy with people who did spend 7 years in school and don't have much to show for it.

Prosecutors are not poorly paid. They can easily make $75k+ in my area, and I work in a small, agricultural county.

[hounddog]

Cruel and unusual punishment? He killed 4 people! What a waste of time.

I must admit that I am beginning to understand hound's dislike of lawyers.

Trial lawyers, or as they like to call themselves, Officers of the Courts.  Which, basically means; scumsuckingbottomfeeder.

I have no particular anymosity towards lawyers who specialize in other areas. 

What do you call 12 lawyers floating in the river?















A good day.

[hounddog]

I am sure there are some of them who feel that way, but for the rest it is just a job, a poorly paid job at that.

Edit- I fully realize I am talking out of both sides of my mouth here, but I can help have at least a little sympathy with people who did spend 7 years in school and don't have much to show for it.

You know what the standard joke about prosecutors is amongst police officers?

Only the bottom 10% from law classes get to become prosecutors.

-also-

Prosecutors; criminal defense lawyers in training.

[TBR]

Prosecutors are not poorly paid. They can easily make $75k+ in my area, and I work in a small, agricultural county.

Okay, I withdraw that argument then.

[hounddog]

Okay, I withdraw that argument then.

Well, no, because they make far less (I suppose) than their opponents would.

[hounddog]

It's not so much as they want a fair trial, I am sure the "bad guys" would love a jury to be unfair, on the contingent that they are unfair on their side only. As soon as they are unfair against them is when it's a problem. Of course, it should be a problem on both sides, but the justice system is.......................................................well it's the justice system.

What we are saying, however, is that is really does not have to be as bad as it is.  Often times prosecutors will take a ridiculous plea agreement just to stay out of the court room for the lamest reasons.

I actually know a prosecutor (now the Assistant Chief Prosecutor in his county) who once admitted in front of five or six police officers at a party that he was afraid of public speaking, and thusly tried his best to stay out of the court room.