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?

Anonymous wrote:I dont think jail is the right answer but driving is a privilege and taking your license away permanently because of your bad decision is warranted.

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?

I mean, they will suffer as well knowing what they did. People who hit people with their cars don't skip happily off into the sunset after knowing they killed someone. This is obviously just a punitive measure, it doesn't serve anyone. Would it actually make you feel better to run them over with a car? Hint: it wouldn't.

Do you feel the same about all violent crimes?

There is a difference between intentional violence and accidental violence. Our sentencing reflects that.

What violence is an accident? Drinking and driving?
Not an accident.

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.

By driving under the influence, it wasn't an accident.

I suspect it's because you aren't capable of making safe decisions while drunk.

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?

I mean, they will suffer as well knowing what they did. People who hit people with their cars don't skip happily off into the sunset after knowing they killed someone. This is obviously just a punitive measure, it doesn't serve anyone. Would it actually make you feel better to run them over with a car? Hint: it wouldn't.

Do you feel the same about all violent crimes?

There is a difference between intentional violence and accidental violence. Our sentencing reflects that.

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.

Good. Some people shouldn't be reintegrated into society.

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?

I mean, they will suffer as well knowing what they did. People who hit people with their cars don't skip happily off into the sunset after knowing they killed someone. This is obviously just a punitive measure, it doesn't serve anyone. Would it actually make you feel better to run them over with a car? Hint: it wouldn't.

Do you feel the same about all violent crimes?

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?

I mean, they will suffer as well knowing what they did. People who hit people with their cars don't skip happily off into the sunset after knowing they killed someone. This is obviously just a punitive measure, it doesn't serve anyone. Would it actually make you feel better to run them over with a car? Hint: it wouldn't.

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?

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.

Long sentences keep dangerous people away from the rest of us. If all it does is keep selfish idiots off the road and away from innocent people I’m cool with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so hypocritical. We have people being robbed, car jacked and shot at, and they don't even get arrested. I'd argue that when you steal someone's car (particularly when they're still in it), you're threatening their life. But I'm sure that kid didn't mean to run him over.

OP here, I’m all for harsher sentences for these crimes as well. I believe in offering the ability to reform to non-violent criminals. But once you use a car, gun, or whatever to put other people’s lives in immediate danger, you have proven you don’t deserve to be a part of our society. You should get a long time out for carjacking and robbery.

OP, what's the goal here with longer, harsher prison sentences? Is it deterrence? Reform? Restitution for the victim? Punishment?

Because we have decades of data showing that longer, harsher prison sentences do not deter future crimes, they have a significant negative effect on reform, and they don't bring victims any restitution.

Punishment, sure. But if it's satisfying our lust for punishment while actively working against deterrence, reform, or restitution, then who are these sentences for?

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?

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?