Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's totally applicable. Studies show that texting and driving is as dangerous as drunk driving. But because YOU do it, it's okay, amirite, Mom?

NP. I’m assuming you are a drunkard worried about conviction or married to one who is your meal ticket.

But from my point of view, if it can be conclusively proven that driver distraction killed someone, and there is as much evidence on re-offense rates for driver distraction as there is for DUIs, I would support long sentences for driver distraction too.

Okay, sweetie, here you go: https://www.conradattorneys.com/blog/is-distracted-driving-more-hazardous-than-drink-driving/#:~:text=The%20National%20Highway%20Traffic%20Safety,road%20for%20about%20five%20seconds.

A study by Car and Driver magazine showed that texting and driving is significantly more hazardous than driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The study analyzed and compared the length of time it took drivers to react when sober, legally intoxicated (0.08 BAC), sending a text, and reading an email.

The results showed that texting affected the driver’s reaction time the most. As opposed to driving while sober and undistracted, when intoxicated the driver traveled four additional feet before braking, 36 additional feet while reading an email, and 70 more feet when texting.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that driving while texting is six times more dangerous than driving drunk. Reading or sending a text takes your eyes off the road for about five seconds. Although it might not seem like a lot, at 55 mph, it’s the same as driving the length of an entire football field with your eyes closed.

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.

It's totally applicable. Studies show that texting and driving is as dangerous as drunk driving. But because YOU do it, it's okay, amirite, Mom?

NP. I’m assuming you are a drunkard worried about conviction or married to one who is your meal ticket.

But from my point of view, if it can be conclusively proven that driver distraction killed someone, and there is as much evidence on re-offense rates for driver distraction as there is for DUIs, I would support long sentences for driver distraction too.

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.

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.

NP. But they will stop the driver from killing another person the same way.

Do you have data on how often someone reoffends?

It’s available — a large percentage of DUIs go on to reoffend. Go look it up yourself.

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.

NP. But they will stop the driver from killing another person the same way.

Do you have data on how often someone reoffends?

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.

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.

Welp, you're paying for it. It's insanely costly to keep people in prison. It isn't as if someone who drove drunk can't be a responsible member of society. They're not some malicious psychopath serial killer, thirsting for blood.

I think DUI murderers are psychopaths and they will happily murder again if given the chance. I support very long sentences for DUIs, so they don’t kill again.

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.

It's totally applicable. Studies show that texting and driving is as dangerous as drunk driving. But because YOU do it, it's okay, amirite, Mom?

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.

NP. But they will stop the driver from killing another person the same way.

Sentences should have to do with one thing but only: the threat that a person poses by remaining in society.

Having to live with the guilt of having killed someone is usually a big enough deterrent to doing it again.

For those who lack remorse, self control, or have other issues making them a continued danger to society, they need to be locked up for many years. Maybe forever.

I feel the same way about bail. There should be no such thing as getting bailed out of jail. They are either safe to release, or not. No amount of bail matters, and it’s also not equitable.

I only drove drunk a few times when young. The near accidents I has was when people cut me off or leaned into me.

To be honest I feared getting hit more than hitting one some in college as cops would blame me

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.

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?

Criminal negligence generally requires a standard of gross recklessness, not intent. Failing to keep your building up to fire code is pretty callous. If you can cash the rent check, you can care enough to keep your tenants safe with at least the minimum legally required smoke detectors, egresses, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with breathalyzers and interlocks in cars. I bet a bunch of the people posting have either driven past .08 at some point in their life, or benefit from someone else who has and didn’t get caught.

We also need to invest in more public transportation and pedestrian/bike friendly routes. Maybe not in DC or NYC, but for the millions of people who don’t have access to affordable public transportation.

Do you know how much we just spent (supposedly) on “infrastructure”?

I agree with breathalyzers and interlocks in cars. I bet a bunch of the people posting have either driven past .08 at some point in their life, or benefit from someone else who has and didn’t get caught.

We also need to invest in more public transportation and pedestrian/bike friendly routes. Maybe not in DC or NYC, but for the millions of people who don’t have access to affordable public transportation.

Interlocks for first offenders.
Push for similar technology in all new vehicles. The infrastructure act called on NHTSA to implement this technology.
These will make a much bigger difference than changing sentencing lengths.