30 Days In Prison For Drunk-Driving Death

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't care if it's a big deal to them or not. It means they'll have to buy another car if they want to drive again. Which is a hell of a lot more effective in preventing repeat offenders than simply revoking their license and allowing them to get their car back out of impound.

Wow yeah buying a new car is so hard, I mean it’s not like you can buy a car for as little as three hundred dollars… wait you fucking can! You can also rent a car or borrow a car. You also CANNOT get a car out of impound without a license, unless you have it towed away, which would cost as much as buying a Junker anyway, and in some states you cant even do that. Someone with a license must appear to get a car out of a government lot.

Meanwhile no license means no legal driving ever, no rental, no ability to buy a car legally. Yeah that's so much less effective.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wow yeah buying a new car is so hard, I mean it’s not like you can buy a car for as little as three hundred dollars… wait you fucking can! You can also rent a car or borrow a car. You also CANNOT get a car out of impound without a license, unless you have it towed away, which would cost as much as buying a Junker anyway, and in some states you cant even do that. Someone with a license must appear to get a car out of a government lot.

Meanwhile no license means no legal driving ever, no rental, no ability to buy a car legally. Yeah that's so much less effective.

How does your post counter my point that revoking someones d/l and permanently seizing their vehicle makes it harder for them to re-offend instead of just a revoked d/l and a impound?

I'm not sure why you think I was claiming that doing so would be a perfect solution to drunk driving though? Maybe you just like to hear yourself talk or something...

[Havok]

I think he was thinking you implied losing the car and not losing the license, while you are saying do both.

Also, just a minor point, but in CA, at least for Motorcycles, you don't need a license to buy a new one.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Considering that we hear endlessly of people on 4, 5, 6 DUIs, maybe we should seriously have a two strikes, you're out for drunken driving... You can never get another license again, ever, if you're convicted of a DUI twice.

[SCRawl]

In this particular case, losing his license is really a slap on the wrist. He's paid millions of dollars per year to play football. Hiring a limo to go from place to place is chump change.

Even for your ordinary citizen, a license suspension is often ignored; I've heard of many cases where they simply continued to drive without a valid license.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Considering that we hear endlessly of people on 4, 5, 6 DUIs, maybe we should seriously have a two strikes, you're out for drunken driving... You can never get another license again, ever, if you're convicted of a DUI twice.

I think so. In addition I'd make it mandatory that a person buying a vehicle or getting a vehicle registered in their name must have a valid license before the dealer would be legally allowed to do so. I find it amazing that this is not done everywhere...

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think he was thinking you implied losing the car and not losing the license, while you are saying do both.

Also, just a minor point, but in CA, at least for Motorcycles, you don't need a license to buy a new one.

Ahh I see. My bad. No, I just think that suspending a persons license but allowing them to get their vehicle back is retarded.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Mike hit the nail on the head. It's not a statement of value of life, it's a statement on the state of mind of the individual. Ones is reckless, negligent, irresponsible behavior and almost certainly unintentional, while the other is sadistic bloosdsport that shows a lack of empathy in the individual, and is quite intended. Put simply Stallworth's crime shows he's a shitty person who doesn't give a damn about the safety of others, Vick's crime shows he's borderline, if not outright, sociopathic. I say we hit the guy who has the greater potential to turn into a serial killer with the harsher setence. The statement implied they were crimes of a totally different nature, with the only similarity being that something died as a result. Stallworth would have had to have to enslaved people, made them fight to the death, etc. for the crimes to be comparable in nature. I assumed that was evident in my statement, apparently I was wrong.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Considering that we hear endlessly of people on 4, 5, 6 DUIs, maybe we should seriously have a two strikes, you're out for drunken driving... You can never get another license again, ever, if you're convicted of a DUI twice.

I think so. In addition I'd make it mandatory that a person buying a vehicle or getting a vehicle registered in their name must have a valid license before the dealer would be legally allowed to do so. I find it amazing that this is not done everywhere...

Yeah, that's quite agreeable. Also any private seller has an obligation to confirm that the person in question has a driver's license before selling a car to them, and can be held liable if they don't do so. This would involve simply visually inspecting the driver's license--the court would confiscate the license and have it physically destroyed under this scheme once you've gotten convincted for a second DUI. State ID cards would prominently have "Not A Driver's License" on them.


It is not hard to avoid drinking and driving; if you drink, don't drive. Such a tremendously simple concept. The people who get DUIs are mostly stupid enough they'd probably keep getting them, but now, after the second DUI, they'd be correctly removed from the road as not safe drivers. DUIs in general (first offense, in this case) should be felonies with one year of probation, car seizure, some sort of hefty fine, and loss of license for two years as the absolute minimum sentence the judge can impose.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In comparison, this is what happens in a civilized part of the country when you drink and drive and injure someone

Ex-assessor Scott Noble sentenced to eight months in DUI crash
Noble: 'I am so very ashamed'

By LEVI PULKKINEN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Having resigned his office the day before, ex-King County Assessor Scott Noble was sentenced Friday to eight months in jail.

Noble, a Democrat who was first elected in 1992, was drunk at the time of the wrong-way crash on Interstate 5. Two women in an oncoming car were injured in the Jan. 18 wreck, as was Noble.

The former assessor will be allowed to participate in the jail work release program, which allows inmates to leave the jail during work hours. According to court filings, a friend has offered the newly unemployed public official a sales position at a North Seattle massage therapy office.

Friday's hearing before King County Superior Court Judge Michael Fox served as a bookend to months of shame, public and private, Noble has endured since the disastrous crash.

Initially stone-faced, Noble's composure began to break as he stood before the judge. Asked to speak, Noble made a statement of apology before breaking into tears.

"I'm sorry for the injuries to (the women in the other car)," the Vietnam War veteran said. "It won't happen again."

Having pleaded guilty to a single count of vehicular assault last month, Noble requested that he be sentenced to a three-month jail term -- six months fewer than prosecutors argued for -- and be allowed to participate in a work release program. Fox met Noble and prosecutors halfway, ruling that because of Nobel's clean criminal history he should be afforded a measure of leniency.

Due to the publicity Noble's case received, Fox said a lesser sentence would send the wrong message to the community. He also noted that, by his own admission, Noble was aware that his alcohol addiction would likely drive him to drunkenness when he had his first glass of wine.

Responding to the sentence, state Attorney General Rob McKenna said in a statement that Fox's ruling "reflects the seriousness of (Noble's) crime."

"This sentence demonstrates that driving drunk is a serious crime that cannot be tolerated," said McKenna, whose office prosecuted the case. "Mr. Noble could have easily killed himself and the two victims in the other car due to his poor judgment."

In a letter to the court, Noble apologized to the women injured in the crash, his family and friends, and the people of King County. He asserted that has been struggling with alcoholism for 20 years; he claims he was sober for much of that time, though he readily admits to drinking on the night in question.

"I have not had a drink since that day and not a moment goes by when I do no think about how terrible the consequences of my drinking were, and how much worse they could have been," Noble said in his statement to the court. "I am so very ashamed by my actions."

Noble was initially charged with two counts of first-degree vehicular assault, which could have carried a prison term for Noble had he been convicted. By pleading to a single count, Noble ensured that he would avoid a prison term.

Following Noble's resignation Thursday, Noble's deputy, Rich Medved, took interim control of head the office. The King County Council will appoint an interim assessor, and voters will pick a new assessor in the November election.

According to police, Noble rammed an oncoming car while trying to make a U-turn on Interstate 5 in Federal Way. State Patrol blood tests, prosecutors claim, show that Noble's blood alcohol level was 0.22 at the time of the crash, nearly three times the 0.08 legal limit.

In court documents, a State Patrol detective described Noble as showing "signs of impairment" at the site of the crash.

"He had bloodshot watery eyes along with a strong obvious odor of intoxicants," the detective wrote.

Strapped to a backboard, Noble asked about the extent of the injuries suffered by the other driver and her passenger. One of the women suffered injuries to her foot, according to court documents; the other woman's injuries were not specified. Noble later admitted to drinking red wine before the crash.

Noble is scheduled to report to King County Jail on July 22. A restitution hearing has also been scheduled.

This little shithead, a powerful local politician, struck a car with two people in it, seriously injuring them, as a first-time DUI offense. The result was not, like it was for the bigger shithead in this incident about the thread, only 30 days in jail.. And this guy didn't even kill either of his two victims. But he still got 8 months, because we live in a state where DUIs are treated remotely like what they're supposed to be, as well as one year of probation in addition to that. Note that work-release simply means he can leave jail for a job, and come back. He spends all his free time, all his nights, and his weekends in prison and can't do anything while out except go to a job, and if he's fired from it he stays in jail permanently, and he also gets permanently confined if he's found to be leaving the premises of his work during the work release period. So it's not some cushy jail alternative at all. He also gets a breathalyzer interlock on his car... For life.

And this guy is a powerful politician in the county, who was on his first-time offense for DUI. He's gone from that to being a secretary, and I couldn't be more pleased. In comparison, well.. The simple fact is that some states just don't take drunk-driving seriously, especially the ones with lots of good old boys.

[FSTargetDrone]

Stallworth was suspended indefinitely from playing in the NFL, with no pay:

Goodell sending strong message on Stallworth

by Mark Kriegel

Updated: June 19, 2009, 12:51 PM EDT

Donte' Stallworth isn't Pacman Jones or Michael Vick. He is neither a recidivist nor a liar. In fact, his attorneys were able to obtain an impressive stack of letters attesting to his apparent good character.

But he killed a man. His name was Mario Reyes, a crane operator with a 15-year-old daughter. And the manner of his death — Stallworth driving drunk — represents the NFL's biggest single problem. What's more, after Vick did 18 months for dogfighting, Stallworth's incomprehensibly lenient 30-day sentence for manslaughter ensures that he'll become the latest, greatest symbol for all that is wrong with sports in general, and pro football in particular. An otherwise decent guy will go down as a horrible example.

That's not so bad, though, as it has afforded commissioner Roger Goodell a chance, once and for all, to change the way football players think about drinking and driving.

Goodell suspended Stallworth indefinitely without pay on Thursday. Perhaps it would've been more efficacious to give him a lifetime ban with the possibility of clemency. But who am I to argue?

"Roger Goodell stepped up," said Chuck Hurley, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. "That's not spin. He acted quickly, forcefully and clearly."

Hurley's organization was outraged with the 30-day sentence. There may have been a number of ameliorating factors that worked in Stallworth's favor. It's unclear if Reyes was crossing the street legally. The wrong forms may have been used in processing his blood alcohol level. Also, Stallworth — who has no priors — accepted full responsibility, expressed remorse and reached a quick settlement that should provide for his victim's daughter. As per the terms of the plea deal, Stallworth was to pay $2,500 to MADD. But Hurley turned it down.

"By accepting, we'd become party to the settlement," he said, referring to the disposition of the criminal case. "We thought it sent the wrong message. We needed a message of deterrence."

Now he has one, courtesy of the commissioner, with whom he spoke Thursday afternoon. It's worth mentioning that the NFL and MADD have been talking — a conversation, initiated by the league — since 2008, long before the Stallworth case.

"Goodell's leadership needs to be matched by the players association," said Hurley. "... We asked for the same from the union, a clear statement ... "

I don't disagree. So I asked if he or any of his people had spoken with the new players union boss, DeMaurice Smith.

"Shame on me, we have not," he said. "I will try to reach out to them."

Good for him. Good for everybody, you hope. Going back to the 1999 case of Leonard Little — a defensive end whose drunk driving killed a 45-year-old mother — DUIs represent a far greater and more prevalent threat to the NFL than dogfighting. According to a recent report, at least 73 players on NFL rosters last year have been arrested for DUI. The league takes comfort in other statistics suggesting that DUI arrests rates for NFL players are actually lower than for all American men ages 21-35.

Hurley wasn't aware of those numbers, but according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, which keeps a tally of NFL players arrested since 2000, the "arrest rate among NFL players is less than that of the general population." Of 308 cases cited by the paper, however, "the most prevalent charge was driving under the influence, which accounted for almost a third of the arrests."

Whatever you make of the figures, the chance for ballplayers getting into high-profile trouble behind the wheel of a car seems excessive. Last month, I went through the Union-Tribune list and counted 59 incidents going back to May 1, 2008. Of those, 26 were arrests for guys who were driving drunk, or recklessly or in possession of marijuana. A few of the cases were dropped. But others, like Marshawn Lynch — who hit a pedestrian with his Porsche — make no mention of intoxicants. Then again, the case against Lynch, who was arrested again while driving with a loaded firearm, was basically a hit and run.

Players have the money and the resources to be better, a lot better. Get a cab or a limo. Most teams offer something called a "Safe Ride." A player calls a hotline and a guy comes out to drive him and his Bentley home. Why all teams don't offer this is beyond me. Goodell should make it mandatory.

The issue isn't one of relative jurisprudence, comparing the sentences of Vick and Stallworth. It's about changing behavior. Players might think they can beat the legal system. But if they can't beat the NFL, they won't try. Risking a short career is a real deterrent.

Toward that end, Goodell sent out a memo to chief executives, club presidents, general managers and coaches on Thursday:

"Please ensure that your employees are aware of the resources available to them, including Safe Ride and similar programs. Let's make sure that the 2009 season does not bring more tragedy or embarrassment to ourselves and our employees."

In other words, don't be another Donte' Stallworth.

[erik_t]

Trying to make a U-turn on the freeway at three times the legal limit is a trifle bit more sociopathic than hitting a guy stepping into traffic, Marina.

[chitoryu12]

Trying to make a U-turn on the freeway at three times the legal limit is a trifle bit more sociopathic than hitting a guy stepping into traffic, Marina.

How about if the guy stepped into traffic and, instead of braking, the driver saw him coming early enough to flash his lights as a "warning"? There's a difference between just whacking into someone who ran into the road and trying to warn him that he was in danger of being run over, rather than just stopping or turning.

[FSTargetDrone]

How about if the guy stepped into traffic and, instead of braking, the driver saw him coming early enough to flash his lights as a "warning"? There's a difference between just whacking into someone who ran into the road and trying to warn him that he was in danger of being run over, rather than just stopping or turning.

Who is to say that the dead man even saw the lights? Or that Stallworth really did flash his lights? Even if he did, flashing your lights is next to worthless. Leaning on the horn might have been more effective, but the point remains that Stallworth was intoxicated and should not have been driving. He may well have been too drunk to judge the distance, especially at night. If he was close enough to the man that the lights (or horn) would even be noticed, it was probably too close to make a difference.

[Simon_Jester]

So Stallworth gets 30 days for killing a man, and Vick got almost two years for killing some dogs.

Generally speaking, negligence is given less harsh punishment than cruelty. I don't think it's meant to be a statement on the relative value we place on human life and canine life. If he had run over someone's dog while driving drunk, he wouldn't be getting even this much punishment.

Yes, but the ratios are badly off. Negligence should be punished less than cruelty, but it's hard for me to believe that the difference should be an order of magnitude or more.

Mike hit the nail on the head. It's not a statement of value of life, it's a statement on the state of mind of the individual. Ones is reckless, negligent, irresponsible behavior and almost certainly unintentional, while the other is sadistic bloosdsport that shows a lack of empathy in the individual, and is quite intended. Put simply Stallworth's crime shows he's a shitty person who doesn't give a damn about the safety of others, Vick's crime shows he's borderline, if not outright, sociopathic. I say we hit the guy who has the greater potential to turn into a serial killer with the harsher setence. The statement implied they were crimes of a totally different nature, with the only similarity being that something died as a result. Stallworth would have had to have to enslaved people, made them fight to the death, etc. for the crimes to be comparable in nature. I assumed that was evident in my statement, apparently I was wrong.

I would argue that the crimes are fundamentally different but I think I disagree about which is more serious.

We live in a civilization constructed for the benefit of humans, not dogs. Killing a dog, or even many dogs, is not on par with killing people. I do not think that the crime of running a dogfighting ring should be considered more serious than the crime of actually killing a member of our society.
_______

Moreover, I don't think it's possible to construct a criminal justice system that works on the basis of judging people's internal state of mind. It's difficult to prove that someone is 'sociopathic' in any rigorous way based purely on a specific action, and easy to persuade judges and juries that an individual is a monster when they are not, or vice versa.

Being "evil" (or "sociopathic," which is all too often used as a stand-in for "evil") is not a crime and should not be treated as such. For the legal system to provide justice, crimes have to be well defined, specific acts. You have to be able to make it a matter of facts and proof whether the act occured. To a limited degree, we can do this with internal psychological issues using things like the "reasonable person" standard, but there are limits.

Therefore, we should not decide what sentence to give someone on the grounds that they are a "monster" (or, conversely, an upstanding citizen). A sociopathic burglar should not go to jail for longer than an axe murderer, even if the axe murderer is besieged by remorse and the burglar can't understand what he did wrong. The internal state of the criminal is not and cannot be the point, because it's outside the scope of what the legal system can cover.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Yes, killing a dog or many dogs is indeed not on par with killing people. Its the manner that concerns me more. Accidental death of a person or animal is one thing, willfull death for "fun" is another, and death due to extreme neglicence is something else as well. Honestly, Stallworth should have been hit with the book far harder than he was, but for whatever reason he wasn't. Like the individuals in the HoS thread about the cat killing teens, sadistic behavior towards animals, tends to imply severe problems with empathy, which sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my head. If we're lucky it stays at animals, if not, well it gets much worse. As far as the difference in magnitude go, I imagine that can problably be chocked up to the judge, and even what state the crimes occured in. I have no idea how familiar you are with the U.S. legal system, but state laws can vary widly from state to state. For example, legal drinking age in PA is 21, and has been for quite some time (read when my parents were growing up), in Ohio it used to be 16. Guess what the popular activity of driving a few miles to Ohio involved when my parents were growing up. I believe its, 21 nationwide now, though I could be wrong. Heck, maybe Vick simply got dog lovers for judge and jury, I really don't know. If you really want to know why Vick got hammered and Stallworth didn't try asking a judge or laywer who are more familiar with the way the legal system works. I can only offer my relative best guesses as a layman as to why.

Do we have any lawyers on here who could provide insight? I know Thanas is one, though I don't know how much insight he has on the U.S. legal system or whether he knows much about this particular field of law.

With regard to internal state of the criminal. All I can say is that there is apparrently a precedent for judging based on that. Simply see the difference between what gets you manslaughter and murder (or various degrees of murder). I am fairly well out of my field here so I really can't say anything else with regards to proper or improper functioning of the legal system, that I leave to those who know what their talking about.

[dragon]

Considering that we hear endlessly of people on 4, 5, 6 DUIs, maybe we should seriously have a two strikes, you're out for drunken driving... You can never get another license again, ever, if you're convicted of a DUI twice.

That might help some but for some people even that's not a deterrant. My sister boyfriend had his license revoked and car impounded for DUI and guess what happen he got pulled over again for DUI with a car he bought for a few hundred from a used dealer. At least that time besides DUI he got hit with no insurance, no license and a unregestried car. So he got a whooping 1 year in jail.

[erik_t]

How about if the guy stepped into traffic and, instead of braking, the driver saw him coming early enough to flash his lights as a "warning"? There's a difference between just whacking into someone who ran into the road and trying to warn him that he was in danger of being run over, rather than just stopping or turning.

Who is to say that the dead man even saw the lights? Or that Stallworth really did flash his lights? Even if he did, flashing your lights is next to worthless. Leaning on the horn might have been more effective, but the point remains that Stallworth was intoxicated and should not have been driving. He may well have been too drunk to judge the distance, especially at night. If he was close enough to the man that the lights (or horn) would even be noticed, it was probably too close to make a difference.

No shit, sherlock. Saying there's a difference of degrees is not the same as saying that something is perfectly acceptable.

[Zwinmar]

Did he drink then drive? check
Kill or maim someone during that time? Check

Sounds like a piece of shit to me that got off lightly because he's another rich fucker that can evade the justice system.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, killing a dog or many dogs is indeed not on par with killing people. Its the manner that concerns me more. Accidental death of a person or animal is one thing, willfull death for "fun" is another, and death due to extreme neglicence is something else as well. Honestly, Stallworth should have been hit with the book far harder than he was, but for whatever reason he wasn't.

Exactly. My point is that the ratio of punishments for "accidental" and "deliberate" versions of the same crime should be less than one to ten, let alone for a serious accidental crime to a not-so-serious deliberate crime.

Like the individuals in the HoS thread about the cat killing teens, sadistic behavior towards animals, tends to imply severe problems with empathy, which sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my head. If we're lucky it stays at animals, if not, well it gets much worse.

True, but it really isn't just to convict someone and hit them with an inflated sentence because of a mental health breakdown they might have in the future.

As far as the difference in magnitude go, I imagine that can problably be chocked up to the judge, and even what state the crimes occured in. I have no idea how familiar you are with the U.S. legal system...

I live in it, but you weren't to know that.

With regard to internal state of the criminal. All I can say is that there is apparrently a precedent for judging based on that. Simply see the difference between what gets you manslaughter and murder (or various degrees of murder).

I recognize that, but I'm afraid I used a stupidly vague word for my point.

We can realistically hope to evaluate the criminal's state of mind when he commits the crime, based on specific actions. It's much harder to evaluate his state of mind in general. And it's too easy for prosecutors (or defense lawyers) to creatively mislead judges and juries about the good or evil that exists in their client's mind. We already see them doing this; if we explicitly apply harsh punishments to sociopaths and light punishments to people society deems "psychologically sound" or some such, things will get a lot tly worse.