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.
__________________
basking in the benign indifference of the universe
|