Rookie District Attorney Cracks Down on Drunk Drivers

[DrPizza]

I don't know why they do plea bargains in the first place, except out of laziness in prosecuting cases. No work in accepting a plea bargain... a lot more work to present the evidence. Let the judge decide the relative penalties to people, i.e. lesser penalty for first timers or whatever, not a DA.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I don't know why they do plea bargains in the first place, except out of laziness in prosecuting cases. No work in accepting a plea bargain... a lot more work to present the evidence. Let the judge decide the relative penalties to people, i.e. lesser penalty for first timers or whatever, not a DA.

If you think plea bargains exist because of "laziness" you haven't thought about it very hard at all.

 

[LanceM]

Originally posted by: NFS4
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.

Sums up my thoughts quite well.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: LanceM

Originally posted by: NFS4
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.

Sums up my thoughts quite well.

How else are they supposed to get their cars to their houses?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: LanceM

Originally posted by: NFS4
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.

Sums up my thoughts quite well.

How else are they supposed to get their cars to their houses?

Better yet how the hell am I supposed to get my kids to school?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: LanceM

Originally posted by: NFS4
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.

Sums up my thoughts quite well.

How else are they supposed to get their cars to their houses?

Take a cab or have their friend drive them out?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: LanceM

Originally posted by: NFS4
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.

Sums up my thoughts quite well.

How else are they supposed to get their cars to their houses?

DD

 

[Baked]

It's about time somebody has the balls to crack down on DUI jackasses. Oh wait...

 

[oboeguy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: LanceM

Originally posted by: NFS4
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.

Sums up my thoughts quite well.

How else are they supposed to get their cars to their houses?

Are you serious? :disgust:

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: oboeguy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: LanceM

Originally posted by: NFS4
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers.

Sums up my thoughts quite well.

How else are they supposed to get their cars to their houses?

Are you serious? :disgust:

It's a Sam Kinison routine.

Damn drunk driving laws. People piss me off. If you outlaw drunk driving, the how the hell am I supposed to get home?

 

[killface]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
This is ATOT, land of the holy. I forsee a thread of people wishing sh'e stick a stake through their hearts instead of wasting time on a trial.

eh. I'm not really that type of person, but I can't think of very many legitimate excuses to drive drunk.

"Those kids have to get to school" - Dave Attell

Anyway, for that matter there aren't many legit excuses to do anyhing *fun* when you're driving like talk on cell phones, dick with the radio, eat, put on makeup.

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: So
The woman is out of control. The punishment for drunk driving is already pretty severe (understandably) -- if there is a rash of repeat offenders, upping the punishment is just stupid -- she needs to get them help for their problem. Punishing them excessively will only put more people in jail unnecessarily.

No it is not. Most get a little slap on the wrist, pay a fine, and pick some trash up for a couple hours. And thats about the worst of it. If you have a lawyer then pay a fine and drive away from the court house. There are people with 2 or a LOT more DWI's and still have a driver license.

As SophalotJack was saying. The Def. laywers are mad as they can;t make more money off the drunks.
And as AlienCraft said. "What good are laws if they aren't enforced, or worse, diluted?" is very true. DWI has been more of a way to raise money, not really punish drunks.

In CA i think the DWI laws are pretty harsh as is.
the 'fine' you mention according to the CA DMV can push upwards of 10k. your liscense is suspended for 6 months, you -might- be allowed to drive to work and to your DUI program but you might not.

then you deal with this -

On the first conviction the court will suspend your driving privilege for six months and require you to complete a DUI program before you can be reinstated. The length of the program may vary. If your BAC was .15% or higher and you already had a record of violations for other reasons or you refused to submit to a chemical test, the court may order you to complete a nine-month or longer program. You could also be required to install an ignition interlock device (IID) on your vehicle. An IID prevents you from starting your vehicle if you have any alcohol on your breath. If anyone was injured as a result of your driving, the suspension period is one year.

In cases involving serious injury or death, you may be punished under California?s Three Strikes Law. You also could face a civil lawsuit. All DUI convictions will remain on DMV?s records for ten years and the courts and the DMV may impose more stringent penalties for subsequent violations during that period.

Am i defending Drunks, not really, but what i'm saying is (at least in CA) a first time DWI offense can seriously destroy your life. Having known people who have gotten DWI's and seeing how much their life has changed because of what punishment comes down I don't think we're in need to ramp it up. these are for people who haven't gotten in accidents (thank God).
DWI is a terrible thing, but you can't punish people infinitely for it.

 

[CptObvious]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: MrPickins
While I agree with the DA's sentiments, she's gonna have a hard time trying these cases as murders. Doesn't that term imply intent?

First degree yes, otherwise no.

I thought first degree implied premeditation. Second degree was 'heat of the moment' but still clearly intentional, and it became manslaughter when it wasn't intentional.

While you're correct, a person can also be tried for second-degree murder, under the common law definition, for acts constituting 'reckless and wanton disregard for human life'. This is in addition to the 'heat of passion' killing.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

She has the right to make a deal or not. The defense lawyers really have nothing to whine about.

But as a DA you should always leave yourself open to the option of pleading down on a charge. If you're hell-bent on nailing a guy on a murder charge for killing someone in a DUI accident, what happens if you lose on the premeditated part? The guy walks?

Why risk an acquittal when you have a guilty plea for manslaughter sitting on the table? I applaud her efforts but she needs to be a little more flexible.

Edit... just read CptObvious... didn't think of that when I made my example.

 

[acemcmac]

When I drive to the bar and drink, I leave my car there and walk home....

Not a hard concept.

Usually, I'll leave work, drop my car off at home and then walk to the bar -OR- leave my car at work, catch a ride to the bar, walk home and walk to work in the morning.

Not difficult!

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: killface

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
This is ATOT, land of the holy. I forsee a thread of people wishing sh'e stick a stake through their hearts instead of wasting time on a trial.

eh. I'm not really that type of person, but I can't think of very many legitimate excuses to drive drunk.

"Those kids have to get to school" - Dave Attell

Anyway, for that matter there aren't many legit excuses to do anyhing *fun* when you're driving like talk on cell phones, dick with the radio, eat, put on makeup.

That's my thought on the subject. I've never driven drunk in my life, but I have made calls, looked up directions, sent an email on my Blackberry, etc, just as pretty much every other driver on earth has done

 

[dawza]

Aside from the OP and a few other posters, myself included, does anyone else feel even somewhat uncomfortable at the blatent use of emotions to justify the action here?

I do not disagree that DWI/DD is bad, or that offenders should not be duly punished, but for a DA to make it very obvious that her emotions are driving her motives (or are at least a factor) is unprofessional at best. Yes, her emotion-driven actions may gain support because of the issue she chose this time, but what if this were some other issue over which people did not agree overwhelmingly?

 

[91TTZ]

All you guys who give thumbs up to prosecutors charging suspects with really steep crimes are overlooking reality- if you try someone on a charge that you'd can't prove, they get off.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Harsh or not, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I hope I'm never stupid enough to drive while having too much alcohol in my system (most I've driven with is one drink & a full dinner, 6' 4" 250lbs), but if I do I will have to pay the penalty. These people will have to do the same.

Maybe give a first time offender a plea, but repeat offenders no fvcking way

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
When I drive to the bar and drink, I leave my car there and walk home....

Not a hard concept.

Usually, I'll leave work, drop my car off at home and then walk to the bar -OR- leave my car at work, catch a ride to the bar, walk home and walk to work in the morning.

Not difficult!

Most of us don't live within walking distance of a bar and/or work. You're fortunate.

I just don't drink at bars usually.

When I do we have a designated driver.

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
All you guys who give thumbs up to prosecutors charging suspects with really steep crimes are overlooking reality- if you try someone on a charge that you'd can't prove, they get off.

Depends on whether the DA offers a lower charge as well. They could charge the guy with murder AND manslaughter, but then it's probably even less likely that they'd get the murder conviction.

I don't know if that happened in this case, I don't think the article said.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: So
The woman is out of control. The punishment for drunk driving is already pretty severe (understandably) -- if there is a rash of repeat offenders, upping the punishment is just stupid -- she needs to get them help for their problem. Punishing them excessively will only put more people in jail unnecessarily.

No it is not. Most get a little slap on the wrist, pay a fine, and pick some trash up for a couple hours. And thats about the worst of it. If you have a lawyer then pay a fine and drive away from the court house. There are people with 2 or a LOT more DWI's and still have a driver license.

As SophalotJack was saying. The Def. laywers are mad as they can;t make more money off the drunks.
And as AlienCraft said. "What good are laws if they aren't enforced, or worse, diluted?" is very true. DWI has been more of a way to raise money, not really punish drunks.

Look up the average cost of a DUI. It completely destroys people. And quite often, good people with families too.

Someone who drinks and drives with all the warnings of this day and age are NOT good people.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: So
The woman is out of control. The punishment for drunk driving is already pretty severe (understandably) -- if there is a rash of repeat offenders, upping the punishment is just stupid -- she needs to get them help for their problem. Punishing them excessively will only put more people in jail unnecessarily.

No it is not. Most get a little slap on the wrist, pay a fine, and pick some trash up for a couple hours. And thats about the worst of it. If you have a lawyer then pay a fine and drive away from the court house. There are people with 2 or a LOT more DWI's and still have a driver license.

As SophalotJack was saying. The Def. laywers are mad as they can;t make more money off the drunks.
And as AlienCraft said. "What good are laws if they aren't enforced, or worse, diluted?" is very true. DWI has been more of a way to raise money, not really punish drunks.

Look up the average cost of a DUI. It completely destroys people. And quite often, good people with families too.

Good people don't drive drunk.

ZV

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see how anyone is served by these overzealous prosecutions except that prosecutor's political interests. OK he drove drunk and had a fatal crash, he should serve time for manslaughter. But Murder? No intent and no motive.

No intent? If you intentionally drink and then intentionally drive... that is plenty motive... They should make drunk driving a felony.. that way they could just felony-murder the losers...

 

[CRXican]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I could think of worse things that she could do. There really is zero excuse for DWI.

what do you consider DWI?

can you equate three times the legal limit with 3 beers?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is an complete waste of judicial resources. It's essentially just grandstanding, and it will cost the taxpayers of Nassau County, and the entire state, while likely having little effect on DUI rates.