Three years in prison for intoxicated manslaughter

[Darwin333]

Negative.

But I do feel 3 years was a little short.

Texas has something like 15 or 17 years,,, as the maximum sentence for manslaughter. If having cocaine in your system does not justify close to the maximum, then what does?

I don't know, are there any studies that show how impaired cocaine makes you? Its a stimulant so I wouldn't think that it would have a serious impact on reaction time.

 

[brycejones]

Most rational people do not take drugs and drive.

Agreed. 3 years is a little light, 15 - 17 years to much. I guess somewhere between 5-7 years would be appropriate.

Unfortunately in this country we've focused way to much on punishment in the criminal justice system and not nearly enough on actually reducing recidivism and rehabilitation. We love to lock people up but we don't care to try and address the problems that got them there in the first place.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No particular reason, no. I felt that intent was the important part.

He intended on taking a drug. Damm the consequences :thumbsdown: Threat the consequences of being under a drug ad deliberate.

 

[woolfe9998]

Our justice system is horribly corrupt and being run by bleeding heart liberals. According to them it's never the criminals fault.

This guy killed two people and he should never have got 3 years for this. A bare minimum of 25 years or life with no chance of parole would be much more appropriate.

This incident occurred in the State of Texas. So please explain how in the deep red state of Texas you're somehow blaming "bleeding heart liberals" for what you consider to be an overly light sentence.

 

[woolfe9998]

It definitely isn't, at least not by the standard definition of murder. You must have intent to commit the direct action that leads to the person's death and do so with malice. Merely getting into a car while drunk generally does not fit that description as presumably you aren't getting into the car with the intent of running someone over.

There are lots of other homicide laws that can cover this, but premeditated murder isn't it.

Not familiar with Texas law here, but I'll say that killing someone after driving while intoxicated is generally penalized more severely than killing someone because of ordinary negligence (i.e. taking your eyes off the road.) In the law there is a mental state between negligence and intent sometimes called gross negligence or recklessness which means basically a conscious disregard for a known risk. It isn't murder, but it may be penalized more severely than a typical negligent homicide.

 

[fskimospy]

Not familiar with Texas law here, but I'll say that killing someone after driving while intoxicated is generally penalized more severely than killing someone because of ordinary negligence (i.e. taking your eyes off the road.) In the law there is a mental state between negligence and intent sometimes called gross negligence or recklessness which means basically a conscious disregard for a known risk. It isn't murder, but it may be penalized more severely than a typical negligent homicide.

Yes, most certainly. I just meant it wasn't murder.

 

[jman19]

Did Ted Kennedy do any time?

Thanks for your troll post.

 

[jman19]

Our justice system is horribly corrupt and being run by bleeding heart liberals. According to them it's never the criminals fault.

This guy killed two people and he should never have got 3 years for this. A bare minimum of 25 years or life with no chance of parole would be much more appropriate.

Obviously you didn't even click the link before trolling this thread - this happened in a red state, dumb ass.

 

[xj0hnx]

Most rational people do not take drugs and drive.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with the wreck, chances are it didn't, but people like to say shit like that so they can keep the boogeyman alive.

 

[DrPizza]

The vast vast majority of car accidents involve some degree of negligence. Any accident involving two cars is a case of negligence on someone's part. Do you think that every time there's an accident, someone should go to jail for 20 years? Driving too fast - jail for 20 years? Driving too fast for road conditions - jail for 20 years? Failure to maintain vehicle (faulty breaks, tie rod breaking, tire blowing out, etc.) - 20 years? Was the drug use 100% the reason for the accident - is it that impairing?

 

[Texashiker]

The vast vast majority of car accidents involve some degree of negligence.

As with a lot of people in this thread you are neglecting to recognize the difference between negligence and gross negligence.

Not replacing the tires on your car/truck when it is needed, a lot of people do that.

How many people have cocaine in my system while driving? not very many people I know do that.

The standard of judgement is what a reasonable and logical person would do.

 

[waggy]

getting behind a wheel of a vehicle when drunk, stoned or whatever is fucking insane. the fact this pile of dung killed while doing it and only got 3 years is sickening.

IF you are such a selfish inconsiderate asshole that you have to drive drunk or high you should NEVER have a license again. IF you kill anyone you should be in jail far far longer then 3 years.

The person made a decision to get behind the wheel high on cocaine and drive. fuck him.

 

[BoberFett]

The vast vast majority of car accidents involve some degree of negligence. Any accident involving two cars is a case of negligence on someone's part. Do you think that every time there's an accident, someone should go to jail for 20 years? Driving too fast - jail for 20 years? Driving too fast for road conditions - jail for 20 years? Failure to maintain vehicle (faulty breaks, tie rod breaking, tire blowing out, etc.) - 20 years? Was the drug use 100% the reason for the accident - is it that impairing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FizXGoPkVs

 

[hal2kilo]

Maybe, but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with the wreck, chances are it didn't, but people like to say shit like that so they can keep the boogeyman alive.

I bet more people are getting killed these days by people texting, and playing with the GPS navigator.

 

[Wreckem]

Related to the thread about universal health care - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2316789

Man who turned in front of a car, which resulted in the death of an 11 year old girl, served 3 years in prison for intoxicated manslaughter from 2006 - 2009.

http://www.ktre.com/story/22123090/zavalla-family

Rather than being drunk, he was on cocaine during the first crash.

How does society deal with someone who has contributed to the death of two young ladies?

How does someone high on cocaine get in a wreck, someone is killed, and only serves 3 years in prison?

If true justice had been served the first time the guy would still be in prison. Rather then keeping people like him in prison, the system turns them back out on the streets.

In Texas intoxication manslaughter is 2-20 years. Technically its also possible to get probation if it is your first offense. Avg sentence is usually around 10 years and very few people get off with probation or get sentenced to the max.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The vast vast majority of car accidents involve some degree of negligence. Any accident involving two cars is a case of negligence on someone's part. Do you think that every time there's an accident, someone should go to jail for 20 years? Driving too fast - jail for 20 years? Driving too fast for road conditions - jail for 20 years? Failure to maintain vehicle (faulty breaks, tie rod breaking, tire blowing out, etc.) - 20 years? Was the drug use 100% the reason for the accident - is it that impairing?

Do your first three hypothetical accidents end in another's death? If so, yes. But cell phone usage and intoxication should be treated no differently. If anything, being that alcoholism is an addiction and texting not one, DUI should be more lightly punished than the sober guy that ran over a motorcyclist because he was speeding or felt like not checking his mirrors.

 

[xj0hnx]

As with a lot of people in this thread you are neglecting to recognize the difference between negligence and gross negligence.

Not replacing the tires on your car/truck when it is needed, a lot of people do that.

How many people have cocaine in my system while driving? not very many people I know do that.

The standard of judgement is what a reasonable and logical person would do.

No idea how many people have cocaine in your system, but was the guy actually high on coke? Or did he do it the day before? Fact is that even if he was high on coke during the accident, he'd have a much better chance of having the accident being because he was trying to snort it off his hand than because he was high on it.

I bet more people are getting killed these days by people texting, and playing with the GPS navigator.

No doubt about that, but god forbid we install scramblers in vehicles, or apply the same laws to texting as we do drunk driving.

 

[werepossum]

I don't understand why people put such value on intent. Prison exists (in theory/optimism) to reduce crime by punishing criminal behavior and keeping those that can't be rehabilitated away from the general populace. When a murderer kills a family member or blackmailer in cold-blooded hate, the chances of him repeating his actions are nowhere near as high as a person that regularly drives DUI and kills people out of neglegence indiscriminately. Rational intent can be argued with. A sheer lack of caring is far more dangerous. Life in prison sounds perfectly acceptable to me.

Very well said. I was going to post something different, but your post changed my mind. You are absolutely correct that a sheer lack of caring is far more dangerous than passion.

I'd say a minimum twenty year sentence with a minimum of fifteen actual years served for DUI/DWI manslaughter, consecutively for each victim, would be about right. Instead we have a system that is a joke. In my hometown a lawyer I know was pleading his client to something like his tenth "first offense DUI". (Been a long time and I forget the actual number, but it was outrageous.) Instead of severely escallating punishment, each offense amounted to $10K - $20K in lawyer and court fees, a month or two entirely without a license, and a few more months with a limited license.

 

[werepossum]

This incident occurred in the State of Texas. So please explain how in the deep red state of Texas you're somehow blaming "bleeding heart liberals" for what you consider to be an overly light sentence.

Tennessee is probably second or third most conservative state and DUI laws are a joke here as well. It's not necessarily a liberal thing as there is very little liberal influence to be found in our laws.

 

[Attic]

It definitely isn't, at least not by the standard definition of murder. You must have intent to commit the direct action that leads to the person's death and do so with malice. Merely getting into a car while drunk generally does not fit that description as presumably you aren't getting into the car with the intent of running someone over.

There are lots of other homicide laws that can cover this, but premeditated murder isn't it.

Pretty much this. Difficult topic given people are killed, though as abhorrent as the result is, I don't buy that driving under the influence is intent to kill. If it were then DUI laws are way too lax.

 

[Franz316]

The world from the point of view of Incorruptible:

No research or critical thought necessary when you view things that way.

 

[woolfe9998]

Tennessee is probably second or third most conservative state and DUI laws are a joke here as well. It's not necessarily a liberal thing as there is very little liberal influence to be found in our laws.

In CA the DUI laws are very tough.

I generally associate more lax DUI laws with more conservative states, actually. I certainly associate it with the lingering influence of the older generation. My wife's dad is an arch conservative (his appearance and views are 100% Archie Bunker), and he drives drunk all the time because he doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. "These kids today, they just can't hold their liquor!"

A second area I would associate lighter sentencing with conservatives is domestic violence laws. I've heard they're lax in Texas compared to CA but I don't have data on other states.

In most other areas, I would tend to associate the left with lighter sentencing.

 

[werepossum]

In CA the DUI laws are very tough.

I generally associate more lax DUI laws with more conservative states, actually. I certainly associate it with the lingering influence of the older generation. My wife's dad is an arch conservative (his appearance and views are 100% Archie Bunker), and he drives drunk all the time because he doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. "These kids today, they just can't hold their liquor!"

A second area I would associate lighter sentencing with conservatives is domestic violence laws. I've heard they're lax in Texas compared to CA but I don't have data on other states.

In most other areas, I would tend to associate the left with lighter sentencing.

Sounds reasonable. I have a friend who served on a DUI jury with an otherwise very conservative local politician who repeatedly said "I don't see anything wrong with having a few drinks and driving home, not like he hurt anybody." He did eventually vote guilty, but because in his own words "I have to get home and feed my dogs." Although to be fair he was known in my home town to be a habitual drunk driver, so perhaps it has nothing to do with being conservative. Still, overall if I had to guess I'd guess that average sentences for DUI are lighter in conservative states because of the lack of intent.

Personally I find HamburgerBoy's point that sheer lack of caring is much more dangerous than heat-of-the-moment passion to be more persuasive than arguments about intent. Very few people hate everybody, but if one is driving intoxicated one has an equal lack of caring about everybody.

 

[mect]

There's an easier solution than locking someone away for a huge part of their life. Why not just take away their drivers licence for life, or for 20 years, or something like that. While I agree, driving while under a drug's influence is pretty stupid, lets try to ruin as few lives as possible. In this case, yes, another life was ruined. But if we start throwing people in jail for long periods of time while driving, I imagine we will ruin more lives than we will save.

 

[hal2kilo]

There's an easier solution than locking someone away for a huge part of their life. Why not just take away their drivers licence for life, or for 20 years, or something like that. While I agree, driving while under a drug's influence is pretty stupid, lets try to ruin as few lives as possible. In this case, yes, another life was ruined. But if we start throwing people in jail for long periods of time while driving, I imagine we will ruin more lives than we will save.

How does taking away a drivers license stop someone from driving a car.

The habituals are usually already driving on a suspended license.