Accident in Gilford?

[Major]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Yes, someone died, but the drunk who killed the person didn't intend to kill, he was simply ... drunk.

What would you prefer: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?"

We're a civilized society.

I'm sure the judge will follow the appropriate sentencing guidelines.

What if it were your son or daughter? I know if it was one of my boys, I would want an eye for an eye. There are two components to our criminal justice system. The first is to punish and rehabilitate criminals for the crimes they commit. The second is to provide justice to victims of criminal behavior. We focus too often on the first and not on the second.

[ishoot308]

DWI resulting in negligent homicide would be the proper charge in my opinion.... Probably get sentenced 10 years, out in 5-6 on good behavior if I had to guess. Fair??...maybe, but if it was my wife, son or daughter nothing would bring me justice...

Dan

[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.

[jbolty]

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.

[jeffk]

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.

I don't think being drunk should enter into the sentencing at all. I think it is a grave mistake to allow choosing to be drunk to be any type of excuse for bad actions.

Did you hit your wife?
Yes, but I was drunk.
Oh, OK we feel sorry for you so you get a lesser sentence.
NOT good.

When someone kills somebody there is always a question of intent. Was it intentional/premeditated? Was it an accident? Was it negligence?

Since it is illegal to drive under the influence, I would think that would show negligence, negligent homicide. There are sentencing guidelines for that crime. Maybe this is a first serious offence so a lesser time is justified. Maybe the weather was bad and a contributing factor so that should be considered.

The only point to deal with being drunk is as an addendum to the sentence. While incarcerated you will be required to attend alcohol addiction counseling.

[ApS]

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.

1) The judge at the trial of Ted Bundy sentenced him to death. He then went on to say:

"Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself. It is an utter tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity, I think, as I’ve experienced in this courtroom.

"You’re a bright young man. You’d have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. I don’t feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Take care of yourself."
— Judge Edward Cowart[1]

2) One of the lake's infamous deadly drunkards was sentenced to one year in prison, spending nights (only) in a prison bed.

3) Too often, I see sentences for drunk New Hampshire drivers with the wording "His/Her fourth conviction".

4) Too often, deadly drunks have their license revoked—so they leave the courtroom—and drive themselves home.