Why Are Sentences So Light for DUIs That Kill Others?

[Anonymous]

A second DUI should be life imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of parole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this only about DUIs? How about if a distracted driver is texting on their phone? Exactly the same disregard and negligence as an inebriated driver. Should people who choose to use devices while driving also be sentenced to much much longer sentences?

Straw man and not applicable to the topic at all.

I would argue it is exactly the same. How is it different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this only about DUIs? How about if a distracted driver is texting on their phone? Exactly the same disregard and negligence as an inebriated driver. Should people who choose to use devices while driving also be sentenced to much much longer sentences?

Straw man and not applicable to the topic at all.

I would argue it is exactly the same. How is it different?

You don’t see a difference between someone choosing to drink for hour (or hours) knowing they had to drive, then making a choice to get in their car when there are other options than responding to a momentary distraction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this only about DUIs? How about if a distracted driver is texting on their phone? Exactly the same disregard and negligence as an inebriated driver. Should people who choose to use devices while driving also be sentenced to much much longer sentences?

Exactly. And there is a huge difference between .08 and someone whose BAC is .4.

[Anonymous]

This poor family has basically suffered my worst nightmare. Honestly I would support breathalyzer to start ignition standard in all cars. But since that likely won’t happen, I would say 1 DUI should require breathalyzer ignition forever for the person. 2 DUIs, permanently remove their license.

[Anonymous]

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?

Because one family raised an entitled shit that killed the other families loved ones.

Why is this hard?

Zero emapathy[/quote

Do you know any alcoholics? For many people, alcohol can become a disease like diabetes - they don’t process alcohol normally. And for teens, their full frontal lobe is still developing. So punish, but let them be rehabilitated. It isn’t always entitlement that causes this - can be that for some even 2 drinks impairs.

[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?

Because one family raised an entitled shit that killed the other families loved ones.

Why is this hard?

Zero emapathy[/quote

Do you know any alcoholics? For many people, alcohol can become a disease like diabetes - they don’t process alcohol normally. And for teens, their full frontal lobe is still developing. So punish, but let them be rehabilitated. It isn’t always entitlement that causes this - can be that for some even 2 drinks impairs.

Alcohol the disease should be kept separate from driving with alcohol.

[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?

Because one family raised an entitled shit that killed the other families loved ones.

Why is this hard?

Zero emapathy

Do you know any alcoholics? For many people, alcohol can become a disease like diabetes - they don’t process alcohol normally. And for teens, their full frontal lobe is still developing. So punish, but let them be rehabilitated. It isn’t always entitlement that causes this - can be that for some even 2 drinks impairs.

Teens shouldn't be drinking at all let alone drinking and driving. Do you think an organic poison is a good choice for a developing frontal lobe?

[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.

I would be fine with this is people SERVED 10-20 years, but the time gets reduced and they walk out much sooner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A second DUI should be life imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of parole.

+1

[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.

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.

[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.

Driving under the influence is unintentional? Wut?

You choose to drink and drive, you consent to using your car as a deadly weapon. Period.

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree, like:

- Pedophiles- lock up for life

- People who violently, brutally attack strangers

- Gun violence folks

Just throw away the key.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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?