wow.

[Holden]

pregant now...wasn't pregnant then.   vehicle manslaghter in 2007.   giving birth in jail in 2009.

ahh. my bad.

sorry/thanks.

[ducatiz]

What is the typical sentence for a 2nd time offender killing someone while driving?

what state?

[CowboyBeebop]

They justify and successfully apply it by saying that you go chose to go to the bar/restaurant/fridge and consume an intoxicating beverage and willingly got in the car and drove.  As of yet, they've not been challenged as to the constitutionality ~

JM

That's very surprising, because that in no way constitutes premeditation to kill.  In order to do properly apply that sentence, you'd need an additional piece of intention to the chain of behavior you listed, which would be they did those things with the expressed purpose of killing someone, not simply to get drunk.

[Statler]

probably not worth much time...and not pertinent to the thread story...but after a quick perusal of the NC statutes they don't attribute intent at all...just charge different alcohol driving deaths as different levels of felony under their own separate title in the code.   Nothing changes an alcohol driving death into a first degree murder charge.

I can see the confusion though as I'm sure they were passed as 'making it the same thing.'

[cyrus buelton]

what state?

Probably for the state involved.

I know in IL you get about 2 years for this and will spend about a 1/4 of that in jail.........


From reading responses, it almost seems people think the punishment should be stiffer because the victim was a motorcycle rider and not someone in a cage.

Human life is a life.

Just a sad thing, especially Wade's personal experience.

[Chchadder]

I just sent off an email to the writer of the story at jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com :

Mr. Dooley,

It shocks and appalls me that on a second DUI conviction, this time with a death involved, Sarah Whitford has received what amounts to a slap on the wrist.  I and many others do not understand how Judge Perkins could levy such a despicable sentence, except that he seems to have a history of light sentencing (e.g. Tiffani Limahai, Joelson Ea and Marc Bantolina), and now outright acquittals (Tim Chapman).  Seven thousand seven hundred seventy-seven dollars and forty-eight cents?  Is that the sum total value of a father, a husband, a pastor, and a man who answered his country's call of duty when it came?  As a fellow rider and war veteran I am outraged at this atrocity of justice.  I hope the family of Mr. Fuaiva knows that there are many people all over the country who are disgusted with such a light sentence, and that we all send our sympathies.

[CowboyBeebop]

From reading responses, it almost seems people think the punishment should be stiffer because the victim was a motorcycle rider and not someone in a cage.

Human life is a life.

Just a sad thing, especially Wade's personal experience.

Not me.  If you kill someone with your car (pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, fellow motorist - whatever) and you are negligent (speeding, tailgating, aggressive lane changes - whatever), you should do more than couple of years in jail.  If you kill someone with your car and you're drunk, you should do more than a nickel.  Those sentences should double if you don't have insurance. 

[ducpainter]

<snip>  Those sentences should double if you don't have insurance. 

Because the insurance money will make the grief stricken feel better?

[ducatiz]

Because the insurance money will make the grief stricken feel better?

i think there should be a higher penalty as well if there is no insurance.  and yes, if i lost a relative in that manner, i'd want the killer to suffer MORE since they drove not only negligently by being drunk but also negligently by not being covered financially. 

[CowboyBeebop]

Because the insurance money will make the grief stricken feel better?

It may or may not make them feel better, but in a civilized society, the role of restitution is important and necessary to the promotion of and adherence to the rule of law.  If one is so antisocial (or psycho/sociopathic) that they can't respect one of the fundamental mechanisms necessary to a functioning state, then they need to be punished for it above and beyond those who simply drink and drive.  Further, the lose of a primary provider for a family can leave his or her survivors destitute and without means to support themselves.  In order to ensure that they may continue to live their lives in a manner they are accustom to, the guarantees of insurance are necessary.  There's a reason insurance is required by law in most States (all?), and its a real and tangible one.  

[Buckethead]

Because the insurance money will make the grief stricken feel better?

Nothing will make them feel better, but having to figure out where your next mortgage payment is going to come from while trying to hold a grieving family together is an unnecessarily added insult.

[ducpainter]

Nothing will make them feel better, but having to figure out where your next mortgage payment is going to come from while trying to hold a grieving family together is an unnecessarily added insult.

That makes sense...if you are not the grief stricken...

however by the time the insurance company lawyers drag things out the house will be long gone.

So the point would be?

Keep in mind...

there is nothing in the world that can make it easier.

The loss of the house is insignificant from their perspective.

[cyrus buelton]

Not me.  If you kill someone with your car (pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, fellow motorist - whatever) and you are negligent (speeding, tailgating, aggressive lane changes - whatever), you should do more than couple of years in jail.  If you kill someone with your car and you're drunk, you should do more than a nickel.  Those sentences should double if you don't have insurance. 

I wasn't saying anything about the jail sentence. I agree that sentences are short.

You kill someone drunk driving and get a few years.

You have a kilo of cocaine in your trunk and you get 15 years.

[River]

I don't even know what to say.

That sentence is ridiculous.

And I agree--drug laws in this country are ridiculous too.

[CowboyBeebop]

That makes sense...if you are not the grief stricken...

however by the time the insurance company lawyers drag things out the house will be long gone.

So the point would be?

Keep in mind...

there is nothing in the world that can make it easier.

The loss of the house is insignificant from their perspective.

No one is arguing it makes it easier, they are saying it helps alleviate any ADDITIONAL hardship that was caused.  As to whether or not insurance companies pay out quickly, that's a matter for a discussion on insurance reform, not whether or not the act of driving uninsured should go unpunished.  

Further, while anyone could make a inebriated decision that they wouldn't otherwise make sober, choosing to drive without insurance does suggest some premeditated disregard for the law.  As such, it should warrant further punishment.