Why Are Sentences So Light for DUIs That Kill Others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of yall are acting like a drunk driver who kills someone is not intending to kill them? They are using a deadly weapon (a car) in a very dangerous manner so while they most likely didn't start driving thinking "I want to kill someone right now", they are absolutely intentionally doing that. Their judgment is impaired by alcohol, yes, but they are still making that choice. If someone is drunk and starts a fire in a crowded building or gets drunk and shoots a gun into a crowd or gets drunk and does any other homicidal action, they are acting with intent to kill because any of those actions are actions you only do if you accept the risk that it will likely severely injure someone. Whether you're drunk or not. I don't think keeping people in prison for lengthy terms is the answer but if they kill someone yes they do need to be imprisoned for awhile. They need to be punished for their crime and then rehab can be focused on from there. In addition to prison time, revoke their license permanently, require the interlock and breathalyzers on all vehicles they may have access to, force them into rehab, have officers drop in on them at random for tox screens, put a billboard up with their face on it and info about their drunk driving record. I'm only 1/2 joking about those last 2 things. I know nothing is fool proof, but it seems that would work better to stop them re-offending than other measures.

I don’t think you understand what intentionally means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

DUIs aren’t accidental death. They are murders.

The law disagrees with you.

Yes, and that should be and hopefully will be changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because what’s the point in putting someone in jail for more years. 3.5 years is prison. Not jail. Huge difference. Why ruin two families lives?

So if a drunk driver mows down a car with your spouse and kids inside, and kills your entire family leaving you a widower with no children, you will feel okay with the driver spending 3.5 years in prison and then going on with their life? While you suffer the rest of yours?

NP, and of course not. But that's why we don't allow grieving survivors to determine the punishment for homicides. Incarcerating someone for decades has to be a logical, reasoned decision that takes into account many factors. The pain of a victim's loved ones is only one of them, and frankly not the most important one.

But preventing further harm to new victims is typically part of a logical and reasoned decision, and locking these people up for a long time achieves that goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

DUIs aren’t accidental death. They are murders.

The law disagrees with you.

Yes, and that should be and hopefully will be changed.

Doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

DUIs aren’t accidental death. They are murders.

The law disagrees with you.

Yes, and that should be and hopefully will be changed.

Doubt it.

I think things are changing. Millennials and younger have a much dimmer view of DUIs. Boomers were tolerant, but the younger generations aren’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think the following crimes should all require long sentences, to prevent re-offending and creating more victims, because I don’t think these perpetrators can be rehabilitated:

- Rape
- Child molestation
- All murders including DUIs and reckless driving murders

So all mommies driving their three kiddos to soccer practice, if they hit and kill someone while texting, will also go to prison for 10-20 years?

Sure. There are not a lot of them causing death — they are far outweighed by DUIs — but distracted drivers who kill someone driving should also be locked away for a long time.

I think anyone who kills with a car should get ten year minimums. Others will live because those people are locked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s right and fair. Sentences in the US are far too long. For someone lacking the intent to take a life, we should have short sentences. We should also have more 10-20 year sentences for intentional murders.

What about negligence? There's no intent. For instance, the building owner that doesn't keep his building up to code and residents die in a fire. There was no intent to harm the residents even though a working fire alarm system could reasonably be expected to save lives.

Sure. That sounds like criminal negligence. If you’re a slum lord with no regard for human life, I think a decade in prison isn’t unreasonable.

Where was the intent?

[headdesk]

Negligence is, definitionally, the absence of intent.

There are so many people talking out of there asses here.

OK, so negligence lacks intent. Therefore, any crimes which involve negligence lack intent and should be punished accordingly since DCUM has decided that only intent matters. Failure to maintain your rental property is just a fine. If someone dies in a fire related to that lack of maintenance, it's just a fine. I can't see how this would be abused.

No one is saying that, I'm just correcting the rampant misstating of rudimentary legal concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because what’s the point in putting someone in jail for more years. 3.5 years is prison. Not jail. Huge difference. Why ruin two families lives?

So if a drunk driver mows down a car with your spouse and kids inside, and kills your entire family leaving you a widower with no children, you will feel okay with the driver spending 3.5 years in prison and then going on with their life? While you suffer the rest of yours?

NP, and of course not. But that's why we don't allow grieving survivors to determine the punishment for homicides. Incarcerating someone for decades has to be a logical, reasoned decision that takes into account many factors. The pain of a victim's loved ones is only one of them, and frankly not the most important one.

But preventing further harm to new victims is typically part of a logical and reasoned decision, and locking these people up for a long time achieves that goal.

You are saying that punishing people preemptively, for what they *might* do to someone else in the future, is part of a logical and reasoned sentencing decision? Um, no. There are very few cases in the US criminal justice system where that's appropriate. And when it is, it's a fairly involved procedure in order to satisfy due process requirements.

But generally speaking, "This person's actions warrant a sentence of X years, but there's a chance he might do it again, so let's tack on an extra 5" is not how it works. Nor should it be. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because what’s the point in putting someone in jail for more years. 3.5 years is prison. Not jail. Huge difference. Why ruin two families lives?

So if a drunk driver mows down a car with your spouse and kids inside, and kills your entire family leaving you a widower with no children, you will feel okay with the driver spending 3.5 years in prison and then going on with their life? While you suffer the rest of yours?

NP, and of course not. But that's why we don't allow grieving survivors to determine the punishment for homicides. Incarcerating someone for decades has to be a logical, reasoned decision that takes into account many factors. The pain of a victim's loved ones is only one of them, and frankly not the most important one.

But preventing further harm to new victims is typically part of a logical and reasoned decision, and locking these people up for a long time achieves that goal.

You are saying that punishing people preemptively, for what they *might* do to someone else in the future, is part of a logical and reasoned sentencing decision? Um, no. There are very few cases in the US criminal justice system where that's appropriate. And when it is, it's a fairly involved procedure in order to satisfy due process requirements.

But generally speaking, "This person's actions warrant a sentence of X years, but there's a chance he might do it again, so let's tack on an extra 5" is not how it works. Nor should it be. Good grief.

I suppose you are in favor of light sentences for pedophiles too.

I'm not sure why you would think that, and if that's the best you can muster as an "argument," you should probably just retire the field now. Regardless, pedophiles are among the criminals for which civil commitment proceedings are appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because what’s the point in putting someone in jail for more years. 3.5 years is prison. Not jail. Huge difference. Why ruin two families lives?

So if a drunk driver mows down a car with your spouse and kids inside, and kills your entire family leaving you a widower with no children, you will feel okay with the driver spending 3.5 years in prison and then going on with their life? While you suffer the rest of yours?

NP, and of course not. But that's why we don't allow grieving survivors to determine the punishment for homicides. Incarcerating someone for decades has to be a logical, reasoned decision that takes into account many factors. The pain of a victim's loved ones is only one of them, and frankly not the most important one.

But preventing further harm to new victims is typically part of a logical and reasoned decision, and locking these people up for a long time achieves that goal.

You are saying that punishing people preemptively, for what they *might* do to someone else in the future, is part of a logical and reasoned sentencing decision? Um, no. There are very few cases in the US criminal justice system where that's appropriate. And when it is, it's a fairly involved procedure in order to satisfy due process requirements.

But generally speaking, "This person's actions warrant a sentence of X years, but there's a chance he might do it again, so let's tack on an extra 5" is not how it works. Nor should it be. Good grief.

I suppose you are in favor of light sentences for pedophiles too.

I'm not sure why you would think that, and if that's the best you can muster as an "argument," you should probably just retire the field now. Regardless, pedophiles are among the criminals for which civil commitment proceedings are appropriate.

Yeah, and that doesn’t happen.

So, since you seem to think long sentences aren’t appropriate in nearly all criminal proceedings, are there any crimes where you think a long sentence is appropriate? You don’t think it’s appropriate for pedophilia, DUIs — is there ANY crime where you think long jail time is appropriate? Let’s start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s right and fair. Sentences in the US are far too long. For someone lacking the intent to take a life, we should have short sentences. We should also have more 10-20 year sentences for intentional murders.

Drinking and driving is intentional murder. Drunk drivers who cause accidents where someone died should also be given the death penalty. Other than self defense all intentional murderers should be given death penalty with no right of appeal and sentence to be carried out within 72 hours of sentencing. Harsh? Yes, even draconian. Murderers deserve no mercy.

Police who murder for fun as in Trey Nichols. George Floyd, Breanna deserve no trial and should face a firing squad immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s right and fair. Sentences in the US are far too long. For someone lacking the intent to take a life, we should have short sentences. We should also have more 10-20 year sentences for intentional murders.

Drinking and driving is intentional murder. Drunk drivers who cause accidents where someone died should also be given the death penalty. Other than self defense all intentional murderers should be given death penalty with no right of appeal and sentence to be carried out within 72 hours of sentencing. Harsh? Yes, even draconian. Murderers deserve no mercy.

Police who murder for fun as in Trey Nichols. George Floyd, Breanna deserve no trial and should face a firing squad immediately.

It's reckless or negligent behavior. A reasonable person can expect negative outcomes from such behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

If I am randomly shooting a gun and a bullet hits and kills someone, do you consider this accidental death? I'm not a lawyer but I bet that at the very least, I would be tried for involuntary manslaughter. I know. Or should know, that discharging a gun could kill someone. I also know that if I drive while under the influence that I very likely cause an accident resulting in vehicular homicide.

Neither is accidental death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

DUIs aren’t accidental death. They are murders.

The law disagrees with you.

Yes, and that should be and hopefully will be changed.

Doubt it.

It is not going to change in a near future. Look at the Caroline Biden's sentencing for 3rd DUI in MOCO. It is just a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

DUIs aren’t accidental death. They are murders.

The law disagrees with you.

Yes, and that should be and hopefully will be changed.

Doubt it.

I think things are changing. Millennials and younger have a much dimmer view of DUIs. Boomers were tolerant, but the younger generations aren’t.

Um, millenials and younger are all doped up on weed, etc. They've got no standing to point the finger. Impaired driving is impaired driving.