Drunk drivers of the worst order - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

DEI37 · 07-16-2006, 08:04 AM

Link: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13320570/

Story:

Quote:

Every night they are out there, somewhere, prowling the nations roadways, out of control and pushing more than a ton of steel.

Many never get caught so they do it again — and again and again. Until one day, they ruin lives.

They are drunk drivers. And as bad as it is to drive drunk, and as dangerous as drunk drivers are to all of us on the roads, this story is about the worst kind of drunk driver: the repeat offender.

There are millions of them out there putting you in danger everytime you drive down the street.

Arrests, fines, convictions—nothing seems enough to stop these serial drunk drivers. We learned of one man from Iowa who's had 11 DWI convictions. Another, in New Mexico, has had 14. And in Ohio, there were 18 DWIs for one chronic drunk driver—even though he hasn’t had a license in 20 years.

One man says many of these drunk drivers are not just a nuisance or a tragic annoyance with a weakness for alcohol. He has one word to describe a repeat drunk driver who slammed into his world: murderer.

George Gubernikoff: We were striving to be the all-American family. And here was someone who had no respect.

By all accounts, George and Judith Gubernikoff had a charmed life. They lived in a suburban New York neighborhood, had a close knit family and great plans for the future. George is a successful cardiologist and until 2004, Judith had stayed home to raise their three young sons.

Hoda Kotb, Dateline correspondent: It’s what people dream about when they think of a perfect family, right?

Gubernikoff: We were blessed.

37-year-old Judith had just started helping her father with his business at Manhattan’s famed Fulton Fishmarket. It meant getting up in the middle of the night and making a 25 mile predawn drive into Manhattan.

Kotb: Were you ever concerned, given the pre-dawn hour, for her to be out on the road?

Gubernikoff: There is always a concern.

And he had reason to be worried: Most fatal car accidents happen between midnight and 3 a.m., which is precisely when Judith and her father were on the road.

At that same time, Neville Wells, a 41-year-old party promoter, drank at a Manhattan night club before stumbling out into the night and driving off in his minivan.

Witnesses say Wells sped down the street in an alcohol fueled frenzy, hitting a parked car, flying through red lights— seemingly oblivious to everything around him.

For Judith and her father, there was no warning.

Gubernikoff: Somewhere about 4:30 a.m., the phone rang. We heard that there had been a terrible accident.

The car that carried Judith and her dad had been struck with such extreme force it was sent airborne, before coming to rest on top of an iron fence. The minivan driver wasn’t hurt and according to witnesses, tried to flee the scene. Judith and her father had to be cut out of the vehicle.

Gubernikoff: When the emergency room doctor walked in and before anything was said, I knew this was going to be worse than I could have ever imagined.

Doctors were able to save Judith’s father. But the impact was so powerful Judith’s heart literally burst.

Kotb: What did you lose on that day?

Gubernikoff: My best friend, my confidante, my support.

One of the hardest things was telling his children.

Gubernikoff: They said “Mommy is okay, right?” They knew something was wrong. And you know all I could say was “No, mommy passed away. There was nothing to say. There aren’t any words. You hold them.”

The sorrow George felt was immeasurable.

But what he was about to learn, would turn that sorrow into outrage...

Gubernikoff: The next day it was in the newspapers. I became irate.

As George learned, Neville Wells, the man who killed his wife, was a repeat drunk driver. The newspaper reports were just the beginning of what he would find out.

Gubernkoff: We got anonymous letters, e-mails, phone calls that this was an accident waiting to happen— that he was always drunk and that he was always getting behind the wheel.

The more George looked, the more he learned. Wells’ first DWI was in 1997. He paid a fine.

His second DWI was in 2000. As a repeat offender, he lost his license for a year and was ordered to take a drunk driving course, which he attended just 11 months before he killed Judith Gubernikoff.

Gubernikoff: Our system wasn’t working. It didn’t protect us.

On the night of the deadly accident, Wells' blood alcohol level was .22-- nearly three times the legal limit. That’s about 15 alcoholic drinks.

Add that to his speeding, running red lights, and previous DWIs and the Manhattan district attorney decided to do something that’s very uncommon: Instead of the usual charge of vehicular manslaughter, Neville Wells was charged with a more serious offense: murder in the second degree.

Kotb: The second degree murder charges: what was the first thing you thought when you heard that?

Roger Stavis, defense attorney: I thought they were outrageous.

Roger Stavis, Wells’ defense attorney, says while his client is criminally responsible for Judith Gubernikoff’s death, he never should have been charged with second degree murder. He argues Neville Wells suffers from alcoholism. And on the night of the deadly accident, he was not in control of his car and did not intentionally kill Gubernikoff.

Stavis: As tragic as this was, this was not tantamount to an intentional murder of someone.

&

Kotb: What do you think about people who say what he did was awful and he should be punished for it. But murder?

Gubernikoff: What do I say to those people? I say it is murder. When you go behind the wheel of a car with that kind of blood alcohol level, you are a projectile. You are a terrorist. You are an accident waiting to happen.

At trial, the judge would not accept Wells’ defense that he is an alcoholic. In a rare verdict, something that’s happened only a handful of times in New York state, Wells was convicted of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to 17 years to life in prison.

Stavis: I felt that it was an illegal verdict. It was not following the law. It was not following the facts.

Not following the facts? The fact is, that he got just plastered, DELIBERATELY got in his vehicle, and the proceeded to NOT care about anyone else, and killed them.

Kotb: What did your client think?

Stavis: At the table, he basically broke down. He is overwhelmed at what he has done.

Neville Wells' punishment is rare. Most repeat drunk drivers who kill get less prison time.

And while across the country, there are thousands of laws intended to stop drunk driving, they vary from state to state. Some are strongly enforced, some not. The fact remains that 70 percent of repeat offenders will drive even without a license. Experts say little will stop a repeat offender from getting in the car and starting the ignition.

There is one man who thinks he might have a solution.

Sen. Phil Griego, New Mexico senator and admitted former drunk driver: I felt that I was always in control, even though I was out of control.

Sen. Phil Griego man says he knows about drunk-driving first hand. The New Mexico state senator is an admitted drunk driver.

Sen. Griego: I was drunk when I was on the city council, I was drunk when I was vice mayor of the city of Santa Fe, and I was always driving. I just never got caught.

That is, until 2000 and again in 2001 when a second DWI sent him to jail for three days. In order to keep his license, the senator was told he had to apply for an “ignition interlock,” a breathalyzer attached to the car’s ignition. Any trace of alcohol and the car won’t start.

Griego credits the ignition interlock with forcing him to deal with his drinking.

Sen. Griego: It became a very very dear friend of mind. So much so that when the time came to take it out, I kept it in an extra 37 days.

And now, with Senator Griego’s help, New Mexico has become one of the nation’s toughest enforcers of the ignition interlock, making it mandatory for every person convicted of drunk driving—even first time offenders.

Sen. Griego: The interlock is not going to stop people from drinking, the interlock is going to stop people from drinking and driving.

Safety experts say, for those using it, the ignition interlock reduces drunk driving by up to 75 percent. Griego says its time for all states to enforce it and tighten up their laws.

Sen. Griego: I think other states need to take a look at what New Mexico has done. The statistical data we have shows the rate of DWIs are dropping.

Back in New York, George Gubernikoff is pushing for more intervention, like the ignition interlock, and for those who don’t comply— much tougher penalties. He knows change takes time, but it’s a start.

Gubernikoff: I am hoping we see more murder convictions. We need to let people know that if they do something like this, they’re going to go away for a long time.

Neville Wells, the man convicted of second degree murder in the death of that young mother, is appealing his conviction.

Please discuss.

Anybody that knows me, knows that I absolutely despise those that drink and drive. I have no problem with this guys' verdict, and I hope he loses that appeal. What he did was as close to being deliberate as it can be.

His lawyers' case is so weak, it's not funny. Oh...he's an alchoholic. Slap him with another small fine, and let him be. Fuck that shit. This is one of those cases where the death penatly just rocks. Fry his ass the SAME day! No court room, no judge, no jury, straight from the cop car to the chair. It's where he belongs. This is an exception to the "innocent until proven guilty" clause.

Yeah, I realize that they probably emotionalized the story a little bit, but for that family, the emotion in the news story can't hold a candle to the real life emotion.

Those that are caught drinking and driving should have their licenses pulled...permanently. There is NO excuse. You'll never find a legit one. NEVER!!!

feelgood · 07-16-2006, 09:19 AM

I actually know someone that was convicted of drinking and driving and wound up having an ignition interlock installed in his truck. Did it help stop him drinking? No. Did it help stop him drinking and driving? For sure.

pornclerk · 07-16-2006, 10:27 AM

It really saddens me to hear stories of how people are killed in drunk driving accidents. I think what happened to this man is fair. He could have prevented that death but he still chose to drink and drive. If you know that you are endangering your life and the lives of other people, then really it is murder. I think drinking and driving is one of the most selfish acts that people can commit.
There was this boy that I taught last year. He has a lot of issues with his behaviour and controlling his emotions. I went and talked to the principal about it to see what the underlying issue was. It turns out that about 5 years ago he watched his twin brother get killed by a drunk driver. I was so upset to hear this. I can't believe that a child that young died from something so preventable, and his brother had to see the whole thing. That is why this kid is so messed up.
I wish that people who drink and drive could understand how it impacts other peoples' lives.

level five · 07-16-2006, 10:31 AM

drunk drivers are near the bottom of the barrel as the worst scum of the earth!!!! and nothing seems to help the situation. half the time it is the occassional drinker that doesn't know what they are doing. we need breathalyzers on ignition switches!!!!!!!!!!

DEI37 · 07-16-2006, 10:32 AM

Exactly. You may get away with it 10,000 times, and nobody is really affected in that case. However, the FIRST time you don't, it will, or at least had better, affect you for life.

The_Jazz · 07-16-2006, 12:17 PM

I'm going to be the bad guy here and agree with the defendant's lawyer. What the guy did i reprehesible to the nth degree, but that doesn't make it second degree murder. The guy needed to go away for the maximum amount of time allowable by law, but this sound more like trial by mob than anything else. I'd be absolutely happy with 17 years for vehicular manslaughter, but I don't think that this meets the merits of second degree murder. They're misusing the statute, and I hope that it doesn't backfire and get overturned on appeal.

Psycho Dad · 07-16-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

They're misusing the statute, and I hope that it doesn't backfire and get overturned on appeal.

Agreed. Punish the guy to the fullest extent of the law, but don't abuse the system. There are more than enough problems with the legal system as it is, but if we abuse powers like this, not only do we lose sight of where to draw the line, we leave loopholes for everyone to keep shit tied up in appeals from now until doomsday.

DEI37 · 07-16-2006, 06:21 PM

The solution to that is simple. Set a precedent. Close up the loopholes. From here on out...you drink & drive, and it results in a fataility other than your own, it's 2nd degree murder. What the problem is? I still say, cop car to electric chair. They get no court date. It's cut and dried, not even the best lawyers should be able to win one like that.

Psycho Dad · 07-16-2006, 06:38 PM

If the law provides for a 2nd degree murder charge fine. But even a drunk driver should be afforded due process.

Gilda · 07-16-2006, 09:22 PM

If I were in charge of things, first time offenders would lose their licenses permanently nationwide and spend a month in jail, second timers would spend a year. Drunk drivers who kill someone would spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Gilda

The_Jazz · 07-17-2006, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEI37

The solution to that is simple. Set a precedent. Close up the loopholes. From here on out...you drink & drive, and it results in a fataility other than your own, it's 2nd degree murder. What the problem is? I still say, cop car to electric chair. They get no court date. It's cut and dried, not even the best lawyers should be able to win one like that.

Nice thought, but it's a gross violation of the basic principles that the judicial system is based upon. Everyone deserves due process, and no police officer should be judge, jury and executioner. I'll file this one under "frustration".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

If I were in charge of things, first time offenders would lose their licenses permanently nationwide and spend a month in jail, second timers would spend a year. Drunk drivers who kill someone would spend the rest of their lives in prison.

I don't agree with such a harsh punishment for the first offense since mistakes are sometimes made. A permanent ban is fine for the second offense, but how about a loss of license nationwide for a year for the first offense with a permanent ban if you're caught behind the wheel during that year?

flstf · 07-17-2006, 08:07 AM

Drunk drivers certainly cause a great deal of carnage on our roads and should be dealt with severely when they cause an accident. Since the latest studies show that driving while using a cell phone is just as dangerous I guess those advocating harsher penalties would want similar punishments to apply.

Gilda · 07-17-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I don't agree with such a harsh punishment for the first offense since mistakes are sometimes made. A permanent ban is fine for the second offense, but how about a loss of license nationwide for a year for the first offense with a permanent ban if you're caught behind the wheel during that year?

Sure mistakes are made. That's why I was saying only a month in jail for the first time offense and not a year. Give them a second chance, but protect the rest of us from these people who obviously care little about the welfare of others.

Gilda

krwlz · 07-17-2006, 04:12 PM

Being just almost 21, its going to hurt my pride to say this... But I wonder what the comparison between all the people driving drunk, and having it be fatal (to them or other) and teen driving, and having it be fatal.

Just a curiosity really, but I'll bet, if not fatal, the crash ratios are stupidly close. Should we throw teens in jail for life for this too?

I'm not saying drunk driving is a good thing, and I advocate for harsher punishments. But 2nd degree murder? Nope, doesnt fly here.

Gilda · 07-17-2006, 04:38 PM

Skill level is going to be low when someone first begins doing something. I personally think we should have a graduated system, with an extensive period during which you're restricted to daylight hours and only with a liscensed adult, with gradually fewer restrictions coming with age.

However, even in the current system, young drivers are poorer as a group not because they choose to impair themselves, but because they are in the initial learning stage, and will grow out of it.

Drunk driving is a deliberate choice to drive while impaired, risking the lives of every other person on the road. Any person who chooses to drive after deliberatly impairing their ability to do so should no longer be permitted to drive.

I've got no problem with second degree murder. I think the sentence was too light.

Gilda

krwlz · 07-17-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Skill level is going to be low when someone first begins doing something. I personally think we should have a graduated system, with an extensive period during which you're restricted to daylight hours and only with a liscensed adult, with gradually fewer restrictions coming with age.

However, even in the current system, young drivers are poorer as a group not because they choose to impair themselves, but because they are in the initial learning stage, and will grow out of it.

Drunk driving is a deliberate choice to drive while impaired, risking the lives of every other person on the road. Any person who chooses to drive after deliberatly impairing their ability to do so should no longer be permitted to drive.

I've got no problem with second degree murder. I think the sentence was too light.

Gilda

I can't argue with your reasoning... becasue, well, in a sense you are right. As far as young drivers, i was just throwing the idea out there, that it is probably comprable number wise. That doesn't make drunk driving right.

And repeat offenders, yes they should get nailed, though I think 2nd degree murder is the wrong offense. If there was a comprable punishment for Manslaughter while driving impaired, than I would agree to it whole heartedly.

But I still don't think one DWI should mean a permanent revokation of a license, IF no one is injured. The Interlock, fine, harsher fines and punishment, go for it. Revocation of something that is all but essential in our current society... I think they should have the chance to prove themselves, and earn it back.

Gilda · 07-17-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krwlz

And repeat offenders, yes they should get nailed, though I think 2nd degree murder is the wrong offense. If there was a comprable punishment for Manslaughter while driving impaired, than I would agree to it whole heartedly.

Quote:

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Definition 2 fits quite nicely with a drunk driver who kills. It's a killing, dangerous conduct, and displays an obvious lack of concern for human life.

Quote:

But I still don't think one DWI should mean a permanent revokation of a license, IF no one is injured. The Interlock, fine, harsher fines and punishment, go for it. Revocation of something that is all but essential in our current society... I think they should have the chance to prove themselves, and earn it back.

I disagree, however, I wouldn't object to a one year suspension for a first offense, along with a month in jail, and a permanent revocation for a second offense (with a year in jail) or if caught driving during that one year.

Driving drunk is a choice, one that often kills. Peopl who choose to engage in behavior that endangers the lives of others should be held responsible for that behavior.

Gilda

DEI37 · 07-17-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

But I still don't think one DWI should mean a permanent revokation of a license, IF no one is injured.

I can not agree with this. I'll explain. Even if it is a first offense, that doesn't mean that the second won't kill one, two, five, or eight people. I'd almost go so far as to say that NOT revoking the license PERMANENTLY on a first offense is being an accessory/accomplice. I know that is probably overkill, but in my opinion, not by much. At that point, the officer/judge/whoever has allowed them to go has opened up the opportunity for another offense, quite possibly with fatal consequeces. Next time around, people aren't so lucky, and the blood of the victims would fall partially on the first arresting officers' hands.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. People need to understand that. I have to agree 100% with Gilda on the point of mistakes, or not mistakes. Yeah, people make mistakes every day. In the car, and out of it. We're human...it's gonna happen. However, driving drunk is NOT a mistake. It's a choice, and a selfish one. You might think you're OK, but the family who's lives you take...they know better.

LLL2 · 07-18-2006, 03:09 PM

Quick question, If i remember right, it takes one hour to a beer to go through your system, So if you drink 5 beers, or 5 shots , it should be out of your system in 5 hours ?

You know they should compare driving falling a sleep and drinking & driving. That would be a good study. I never drove drunk(never so drunk that i couldn't drive), But i been soo damn i tired it was almost like i was drunk.

krwlz · 07-18-2006, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEI37

I can not agree with this. I'll explain. Even if it is a first offense, that doesn't mean that the second won't kill one, two, five, or eight people. I'd almost go so far as to say that NOT revoking the license PERMANENTLY on a first offense is being an accessory/accomplice. I know that is probably overkill, but in my opinion, not by much. At that point, the officer/judge/whoever has allowed them to go has opened up the opportunity for another offense, quite possibly with fatal consequeces. Next time around, people aren't so lucky, and the blood of the victims would fall partially on the first arresting officers' hands.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. People need to understand that. I have to agree 100% with Gilda on the point of mistakes, or not mistakes. Yeah, people make mistakes every day. In the car, and out of it. We're human...it's gonna happen. However, driving drunk is NOT a mistake. It's a choice, and a selfish one. You might think you're OK, but the family who's lives you take...they know better.

I can't totally disgree with you, but nor can I totally agree. In the sense that driving is a privledge, you are absolutely right, and most people don't view it like that. However, laws are created with a graduated punishment system, based on number of offenses for a reason...

I mean, are you trying to tell me that you never made a CHOICE, and then later decided it was a mistake? There really isn't any reason someone shouldn't know that driving drunk is a mistake, but none the less.

I think I would liken your idea of absolute extent of the law on first offense to throwing a petty crime shoplifter in jail for grand larceny.

I mean by that rule of thinking, we ought to start locking up people suspected of maybe, possibly, commiting a murder in the next ten years, regardless of wether or not they actualy would or did. Haha, hate to referance a bad movie here, but Minority Report. Punish them before them commit the crime.

Now I know that's an extreme comparison, but it's going to illustrate my point, not draw a realistic parallell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LLL2

Quick question, If i remember right, it takes one hour to a beer to go through your system, So if you drink 5 beers, or 5 shots , it should be out of your system in 5 hours ?

I never drove drunk(never so drunk that i couldn't drive)

Well, two things... First, yea, if you have five drinks it takes 5 hours for it all to completely exit your system. Keep in mind, this is an average. It varies by person. Also, depending on body mass, and your system, the amount of alcohol needed to raise your BAC over the limit may also vary. Similar in how long it takes you to get your BAC below limit again after those 5 beers.

And your BAC doesn't necesarily tell you how impaired you are. Anyone who has drank while very tired knows a few beers and they're ready to pass out.

Lastly... Never so drunk you couldn't drive. Sorry bud, but thats the alcohol-induced confidence talking. "Never so drunk I couldn't drive" means: "I was drunk, and I was driving"

analog · 07-19-2006, 11:19 AM

First offense punishment should be harsh- anything past offense 1, exponentially so.

I don't like hearing this "if no one got hurt" bullshit. That just means we were lucky. One drunk driver can kill many people at any time- including the first time.

People die all the time at the hands of these careless assholes. I don't know why some people are so flippant about it, or give them so much leverage.

If you do it once and learn from it and never do it again, good for you- but there are many people who do it time and time again, and those people are scumbags. I have no sympathy for a person with such reckless disregard for the lives of other people.

Ample · 07-19-2006, 11:26 AM

Two years ago I took a business Law class. My professor was a JP court judge. In my state I think it is the second offence you have to spend a week in jail. My professor told me that most of the time, they don't even get sent to jail. They go to a detention center, and out of the seven days, they really only serve two or three, with the remaining days on house arrest.

frogza · 07-19-2006, 12:14 PM

I have no problem with the verdict. The man made a choice to keep his keys with him when got drunk. By doing so he essentailly said "Everyone elses right to live isn't as important as my right to drink" Then he killed another human being. Granted he didn't stalk this poor woman down with the intent to kill her, that just makes him a little less of a waste of air.

If a person were to start a car, put a brick on the gas and set it loose in a city square and it killed someone, wouldn't we all say a homicide verdict would fit the crime? Despite whatever delusions people may have about their ability to drive when drunk, drunk driving and the above example are the same. They just endangered the lives of everyone else, just for kicks. After such blatant disregard for human life, they don't have room to complain that their life hasn't been valued high enough.

onthedge · 07-26-2006, 12:23 AM

what i know is that "drink in and sense out!" and also "either you drink or you drive and not both" and i totally agree with both statements! there is no apology or justification for a drunk driver who ends up ruining lives, including his own!

07-16-2006, 09:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	I actually know someone that was convicted of drinking and driving and wound up having an ignition interlock installed in his truck. Did it help stop him drinking? No. Did it help stop him drinking and driving? For sure. __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

07-16-2006, 10:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
pornclerk Insane Location: Ontario, Canada	It really saddens me to hear stories of how people are killed in drunk driving accidents. I think what happened to this man is fair. He could have prevented that death but he still chose to drink and drive. If you know that you are endangering your life and the lives of other people, then really it is murder. I think drinking and driving is one of the most selfish acts that people can commit. There was this boy that I taught last year. He has a lot of issues with his behaviour and controlling his emotions. I went and talked to the principal about it to see what the underlying issue was. It turns out that about 5 years ago he watched his twin brother get killed by a drunk driver. I was so upset to hear this. I can't believe that a child that young died from something so preventable, and his brother had to see the whole thing. That is why this kid is so messed up. I wish that people who drink and drive could understand how it impacts other peoples' lives. __________________ Who wants a twig when you can have the whole tree?

07-16-2006, 10:32 AM	#5 (permalink)
DEI37 Go faster! Location: Wisconsin	Exactly. You may get away with it 10,000 times, and nobody is really affected in that case. However, the FIRST time you don't, it will, or at least had better, affect you for life. __________________ Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

07-16-2006, 12:17 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'm going to be the bad guy here and agree with the defendant's lawyer. What the guy did i reprehesible to the nth degree, but that doesn't make it second degree murder. The guy needed to go away for the maximum amount of time allowable by law, but this sound more like trial by mob than anything else. I'd be absolutely happy with 17 years for vehicular manslaughter, but I don't think that this meets the merits of second degree murder. They're misusing the statute, and I hope that it doesn't backfire and get overturned on appeal. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

07-16-2006, 06:21 PM	#8 (permalink)
DEI37 Go faster! Location: Wisconsin	The solution to that is simple. Set a precedent. Close up the loopholes. From here on out...you drink & drive, and it results in a fataility other than your own, it's 2nd degree murder. What the problem is? I still say, cop car to electric chair. They get no court date. It's cut and dried, not even the best lawyers should be able to win one like that. __________________ Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

07-16-2006, 10:31 AM	#4 (permalink)
level five Banned	drunk drivers are near the bottom of the barrel as the worst scum of the earth!!!! and nothing seems to help the situation. half the time it is the occassional drinker that doesn't know what they are doing. we need breathalyzers on ignition switches!!!!!!!!!!

07-16-2006, 06:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	If the law provides for a 2nd degree murder charge fine. But even a drunk driver should be afforded due process. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

07-16-2006, 09:22 PM	#10 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	If I were in charge of things, first time offenders would lose their licenses permanently nationwide and spend a month in jail, second timers would spend a year. Drunk drivers who kill someone would spend the rest of their lives in prison. Gilda

07-17-2006, 08:07 AM	#12 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Drunk drivers certainly cause a great deal of carnage on our roads and should be dealt with severely when they cause an accident. Since the latest studies show that driving while using a cell phone is just as dangerous I guess those advocating harsher penalties would want similar punishments to apply.

07-17-2006, 04:12 PM	#14 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	Being just almost 21, its going to hurt my pride to say this... But I wonder what the comparison between all the people driving drunk, and having it be fatal (to them or other) and teen driving, and having it be fatal. Just a curiosity really, but I'll bet, if not fatal, the crash ratios are stupidly close. Should we throw teens in jail for life for this too? I'm not saying drunk driving is a good thing, and I advocate for harsher punishments. But 2nd degree murder? Nope, doesnt fly here.

07-17-2006, 04:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	Skill level is going to be low when someone first begins doing something. I personally think we should have a graduated system, with an extensive period during which you're restricted to daylight hours and only with a liscensed adult, with gradually fewer restrictions coming with age. However, even in the current system, young drivers are poorer as a group not because they choose to impair themselves, but because they are in the initial learning stage, and will grow out of it. Drunk driving is a deliberate choice to drive while impaired, risking the lives of every other person on the road. Any person who chooses to drive after deliberatly impairing their ability to do so should no longer be permitted to drive. I've got no problem with second degree murder. I think the sentence was too light. Gilda

07-18-2006, 03:09 PM	#19 (permalink)
LLL2 Crazy	Quick question, If i remember right, it takes one hour to a beer to go through your system, So if you drink 5 beers, or 5 shots , it should be out of your system in 5 hours ? You know they should compare driving falling a sleep and drinking & driving. That would be a good study. I never drove drunk(never so drunk that i couldn't drive), But i been soo damn i tired it was almost like i was drunk.

07-19-2006, 11:19 AM	#21 (permalink)
analog Banned	First offense punishment should be harsh- anything past offense 1, exponentially so. I don't like hearing this "if no one got hurt" bullshit. That just means we were lucky. One drunk driver can kill many people at any time- including the first time. People die all the time at the hands of these careless assholes. I don't know why some people are so flippant about it, or give them so much leverage. If you do it once and learn from it and never do it again, good for you- but there are many people who do it time and time again, and those people are scumbags. I have no sympathy for a person with such reckless disregard for the lives of other people.

07-19-2006, 11:26 AM	#22 (permalink)
Ample Psycho Location: In your closet	Two years ago I took a business Law class. My professor was a JP court judge. In my state I think it is the second offence you have to spend a week in jail. My professor told me that most of the time, they don't even get sent to jail. They go to a detention center, and out of the seven days, they really only serve two or three, with the remaining days on house arrest. __________________ Her juju beads are so nice She kissed my third cousin twice Im the king of pomona

07-19-2006, 12:14 PM	#23 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	I have no problem with the verdict. The man made a choice to keep his keys with him when got drunk. By doing so he essentailly said "Everyone elses right to live isn't as important as my right to drink" Then he killed another human being. Granted he didn't stalk this poor woman down with the intent to kill her, that just makes him a little less of a waste of air. If a person were to start a car, put a brick on the gas and set it loose in a city square and it killed someone, wouldn't we all say a homicide verdict would fit the crime? Despite whatever delusions people may have about their ability to drive when drunk, drunk driving and the above example are the same. They just endangered the lives of everyone else, just for kicks. After such blatant disregard for human life, they don't have room to complain that their life hasn't been valued high enough.

07-26-2006, 12:23 AM	#24 (permalink)
onthedge Banned	what i know is that "drink in and sense out!" and also "either you drink or you drive and not both" and i totally agree with both statements! there is no apology or justification for a drunk driver who ends up ruining lives, including his own!