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

[TBR]

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

Now who's arguing from both sides of their mouth?

While that is generally true, they are, as you suggested, generally they are the worst lawyers out there. Mind you, I think that it does take more effort to become a bad lawyer than it does to become, say, an average accountant.

[hounddog]

Now who's arguing from both sides of their mouth?

Well, that was not quite my intent.   
I was just siding with you that prosecutors generally make quite a bit less than would a criminal defense lawyer, I would suppose. 

While that is generally true, they are, as you suggested, generally they are the worst lawyers out there. Mind you, I think that it does take more effort to become a bad lawyer than it does to become, say, an average accountant.

Completely agree.

[Minpin]

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.

I know what you are saying, I'm not retarded. And my point had nothing to do with plea agreements....You seem dead set in turning this thread into a judge/prosecutor bashing one, anyways....

Now who's arguing from both sides of their mouth?

While that is generally true, they are, as you suggested, generally they are the worst lawyers out there. Mind you, I think that it does take more effort to become a bad lawyer than it does to become, say, an average accountant.

Except an average accountant can go to jail for being average. 

[hounddog]

I know what you are saying, I'm not retarded. And my point had nothing to do with plea agreements....You seem dead set in turning this thread into a judge/prosecutor bashing one, anyways....

Jesus Christ.   

[Minpin]

Jesus Christ.   

What? I'm not ragging on you, jesus christ! I can't even state what seems to be apparent?? You have had only bad experiences with judges and prosecutors, and this is a good time to voice that. I never said you were wrong, just saying my post had nothing to do with your response to mine. Don't think every post I make towards you is an attack or something.

[hounddog]

I give up, Minpin.  

From now on lets just ignore each other.

[Minpin]

I give up, Minpin.  

From now on lets just ignore each other.

I don't understand what the problem is. I didn't even disagree with you this time. You have seen the under the table shiznit that we haven't. All I said was how a criminal only has a problem with a trial that is unfair against him. I just don't see how that related to the prosecutors, and I get a facepalm.

[S204STi]

Hounddog, I think there was just a misunderstanding.  Minpin wasn't trying to pick a fight.

[Minpin]

Hounddog, just saw your PM, I typed out my response but it seems you blocked me. As Ringe suggested I wasn't attacking you. 

[GoCougs]

I've only taken a couple of law classes but I do know a number of attorneys fairly well and ask them these types of questions. According to them lots of things can compel a plea bargain that aren't widely known/public; screw-ups by the court or LE, sympathetic jury pool or simply a weak case. Here it's hard to fathom what the heck was going on beyond a star stuck court. It's simply unbelievable no matter the cause.

Though I've been spared, I know a lot of people who have gotten DUI. Though anecdotal every single one got it bargained down to a non-criminal traffic offense (like negligent driving) save for a guy who ran on foot from the cops when they pulled him over (got 2 days for that). I think the lax penalties and the reticence to even impose that comes down to the simple fact that many/most people simply don't think it's that big of a deal for different reasons; the courts are plugged up with violent felons and voters simply want to be able to do it.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I almost hit a pedestrians all the time. Pedestrians are stupid.

[MaxPower]

Cops, across the board, are pretty distrustful of prosecutors, from what I've observed.  Prosecutors have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt while cops only need probable cause.  There's a difference in level of proof there that results in in some things being dropped.

Cougs hit it on the head regarding the plea.  There are a ton of details in OUI cases and it is not easy to write an infallible case.  A good defense attorney can get enough mud flying to distract juries and prosecutors.

[bing_oh]

Cops, across the board, are pretty distrustful of prosecutors, from what I've observed.  Prosecutors have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt while cops only need probable cause.  There's a difference in level of proof there that results in in some things being dropped.

We only need probable cause for an arrest. That doesn't mean that, as soon as we get probable cause, we stop the investigation. LEO's know the standards to get a conviction and we get all the evidence we can to help the prosecutors to that end. I've had many a case where my evidence was well beyond the probable cause standard but the prosecutor still wouldn't take the case or pled it down to a lesser offense. I've worked with alot of lazy prosecutors or those who let "political considerations" dictate what gets prosecuted, to the detriment of the victim and the community.

Cougs hit it on the head regarding the plea.  There are a ton of details in OUI cases and it is not easy to write an infallible case.  A good defense attorney can get enough mud flying to distract juries and prosecutors.

DUI cases are actually great, IMHO. There are rarely any civilian victims to testify, meaning the you don't have to rely upon untrained witnesses on the stand. Most times, it's just the defendant and the officer. Any officer worth his salt is comfortable on the stand testifying and his word should be beyond reproach with the court. As long as the officer is properly trained and articulate on the subject, he should be able to run circles around the average defense attorney. And, realistically, most DUI trials will not in in front of a jury...they're usually trials in front of a judge only.

[MaxPower]

We only need probable cause for an arrest. That doesn't mean that, as soon as we get probable cause, we stop the investigation. LEO's know the standards to get a conviction and we get all the evidence we can to help the prosecutors to that end. I've had many a case where my evidence was well beyond the probable cause standard but the prosecutor still wouldn't take the case or pled it down to a lesser offense. I've worked with alot of lazy prosecutors or those who let "political considerations" dictate what gets prosecuted, to the detriment of the victim and the community.

You're right. 

DUI cases are actually great, IMHO. There are rarely any civilian victims to testify, meaning the you don't have to rely upon untrained witnesses on the stand. Most times, it's just the defendant and the officer. Any officer worth his salt is comfortable on the stand testifying and his word should be beyond reproach with the court. As long as the officer is properly trained and articulate on the subject, he should be able to run circles around the average defense attorney. And, realistically, most DUI trials will not in in front of a jury...they're usually trials in front of a judge only.

It all hinges on how good the officer is.

[bing_oh]

It all hinges on how good the officer is.

Absolutely, the skill of the officer has a great deal to do with the potential outcome of a case. However, I'd personally take a case where it's solely the observations of the officer vs the defendant (like a DUI) as opposed to a case where it hinges on the word of the victim or someone with other potential alterior motives. At the very least, rookie officers have training in courtroom testomony. A civilian on the stand...especially one who might have a personal stake in the outcome of the case...is unpredictable in their testomony. I've seen plenty of defense lawyers word their questions in such a way as to provoke an emotional response from your average witness. They rarely do so with an officer, since most officers won't take the bait.

[James Young]

Isn?t the ulterior motive of the LEO to get the defendant convicted at any cost a more egregious ethical violation than the testimony of an untrained witness? 

Back in the late 60s, Buck McLean, an attorney acquaintance of mine elicited the testimony of an APD officer who had arrested a UT student for public intoxication (I don?t believe it was a DUI).  The officer rattled off the SOP canned testimony including the observations of certain symptoms, one of which was ?flushed skin.?  Buck let him finish but had the reporter read back the testimony.  When she repeated that point, he stopped her and asked the LEO exactly how he could determine that the defendant?s skin was flushed.  The court observers, the jury and the judge all laughed at the poor cop because the defendant was a foreign student from Nigeria or Uganda whose skin was so black it was shiny.  Is that the kind of ?observation? that you had in mind?

[hounddog]

Hounddog, just saw your PM, I typed out my response but it seems you blocked me. As Ringe suggested I wasn't attacking you. 

Unblocked. 

[dazzleman]

I didn't know it was possible to block somebody.

[Raza]

I didn't know it was possible to block somebody.

Neither did I.   

[hounddog]

I didn't know it was possible to block somebody.

It is, and it just so happens to be very easily done. 

For instance, I have now blocked you. 

Bastard. 

[dazzleman]

I don't send a lot of PMs anyway, so I probably wouldn't even notice.

[Tave]

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.

I think it says a lot more about what money and fame can do for you in a court room.

Though I've been spared, I know a lot of people who have gotten DUI. Though anecdotal every single one got it bargained down to a non-criminal traffic offense (like negligent driving) save for a guy who ran on foot from the cops when they pulled him over (got 2 days for that).

+1, But I've never heard of a DUI homicide where the guy got a slap on the wrist.

[James Young]

Many of the posters here are assuming that punishment ? fines, incarceration, loss of license, etc ? is a deterrent to DUI.  Closer research is revealing that it is not effective in preventing drunk driving because consequences are ignored by a large segment of the population, at least within the population of alcoholics, those most likely to be involved in fatal alcohol-related* crashes. 

Preliminary data in New Mexico indicate that focusing on preventing driving after drinking is far more effective that preventing the drinking in the first place.  Preliminary data in New York do not indicate that same effectiveness. 

Given all this, what do all of the usual experts on here have to offer as a viable and effective public policy to prevent alcohol-related crashes, injuries and fatalities?  Formulate your own public policy and tell us why it would be effective and viable.

*By ?alcohol-related? I mean those crashes where alcohol caused impairment to the point that judgment or control suffered enough to cause a crash.  This is different from the dishonest NHTSA definition where even a passenger with positive BAC is called ?alcohol-related.?

[Tave]

All well and good, but that isn't justice. We also punish people because they screw up and deserve it, not only because it might stop themselves or others from acting the same in the future.

[James Young]

I?m not particularly interested in justice, which is too often just revenge, but in preventing the damage in the first place.  Justice cannot unring the bell but prevention can silence the bell in the first place.

[Tave]

You're talking about prevention. I'm talking about what we do after prevention fails, which it will.

Are some policies better at preventing a given behavior than others? Yes. Should we pursue those that work the best? Of course.


Will any policy ever be 100% effective at preventing that behavior? Not even in your dreams.

[dazzleman]

You're talking about prevention. I'm talking about what we do after prevention fails, which it will.

Are some policies better at preventing a given behavior than others? Yes. Should we pursue those that work the best? Of course.


Will any policy ever be 100% effective at preventing that behavior? Not even in your dreams.

Prevention will never be 100% effective because people make stupid decisions.  We're not rational beings, especially if you add in a little chemical dependency.  We should do our best at prevention, but we shouldn't be under any illusion that it will always work.  I'd also say, revenge after the fact from the legal system is part of prevention.  Wanting to avoid that might convince some people not to do stupid things.  All punishment is a form of revenge, as it should be.

[Tave]

Part of justice may well be revenge, but better it come through laws and a "fair" court system than from a .45 in the hands of the victim's brother.

[dazzleman]

Part of justice may well be revenge, but better it come through laws and a "fair" court system than from a .45 in the hands of the victim's brother.

I agree, but if the justice system is indefensibly lenient, it increases the chances that revenge will come the other way.

[GoCougs]

Many of the posters here are assuming that punishment ? fines, incarceration, loss of license, etc ? is a deterrent to DUI.  Closer research is revealing that it is not effective in preventing drunk driving because consequences are ignored by a large segment of the population, at least within the population of alcoholics, those most likely to be involved in fatal alcohol-related* crashes. 

Preliminary data in New Mexico indicate that focusing on preventing driving after drinking is far more effective that preventing the drinking in the first place.  Preliminary data in New York do not indicate that same effectiveness. 

Given all this, what do all of the usual experts on here have to offer as a viable and effective public policy to prevent alcohol-related crashes, injuries and fatalities?  Formulate your own public policy and tell us why it would be effective and viable.

*By ?alcohol-related? I mean those crashes where alcohol caused impairment to the point that judgment or control suffered enough to cause a crash.  This is different from the dishonest NHTSA definition where even a passenger with positive BAC is called ?alcohol-related.?

Yes, punishment is most certainly a deterrent. How can you say otherwise? Accountability's not perfect, but it works.

Appealing to the morality du-jour that is proactive state intervention is problematic on all sorts of levels.