Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V
Sentencing is always a thorny issue: the family of the victims rarely believe that enough punishment has been administered, whereas the defendant's family usually feel the sentence is too harsh.
In developing sentencing guidelines the powers that be have given us a system which is designed to be fair, to take all factors into consideration and yield a result which is likely to yield the greatest benefit to society.
I've no desire to coddle drunks, but the law draws a distinction between the culpability of someone who drives drunk and kills someone vs. a sober, premeditated murderer who kills intentionally.
The thinking probably goes something like this: "A drunk can become sober and become a good, law-abiding citizen, whereas a cold-blooded murderer will likely never become a positive asset to society."
Were my child a victim of a drunk driver I'd be devastated and howl for retribution: that would only be natural.
It is up to the judges to balance things out and make the hard calls.
|
The problem with that is the repeat offenders who plead guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutors let them do it time and again because it's easier to take a deal on reckless driving than go to trial for the dui. Of course this hold true for all offenses, not just drunk driving. How many times do you see a case where some drunk wipes out a family and it turns out they have 15 prior arrests and should have been locked up for good.