Our messed up legal system

[makattak]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-life-sentence-ninth-dwi/story?id=11395058

Man was convicted of his NINTH DWI. (As well as multiple other previous convictions.)

Judge has had enough and sentences him to life in prison.

The whole article is arguing about whether this is too harsh and whatnot.

Here's the line that absolutely infuriated me, though:

Stovall would be eligible for parole in five years

After this LONG article about how this might be too harsh, this is the next to last sentence.

How can we call something a LIFE SENTENCE when someone is eligible for parole in five years!

How about a "Truth in Sentencing" law?

[taurusowner]

I agree with a "Truth in Sentencing" law.  We already have possible terms of "20-life" or "5-7 years" and so forth that give a judge the ability to allow someone out before the maximum is served.  But at least those are handed out right from the start.  If someone gets 20 years, with no "___ to ___" time frame, than 20 years should mean 20 years, and life should mean the person leaves prison in a casket.

[MillCreek]

Nine DUIs! It is only by the grace of God that he has not killed or maimed someone.

[Ryan in Maine]

I think a life sentence would be too harsh if he hasn't actually hurt someone. An honest 9 years sounds about right to me. 

[roo_ster]

I'd feel better about throwing the book at him if our DUI limits were reasonable.

[Ryan in Maine]

He should've had an ankle bracelet on a long time ago, in any case.

[BridgeRunner]

I'd feel better about throwing the book at him if our DUI limits were reasonable.

Yep. 

He's only "under the influence" because the statute says he is.  I'm reserving judgment on the case at hand for that reason.

But generally speaking "5 to life" does seem a little unreasonable.  Juries and judges should be in primary control of determining the level of culpability, which should be proportional to the punishment.  This seems to place most decision-making power in the hands of parole boards.

[Kingcreek]

They should incarcerate him and give him all the grain alcohol he wants, everyday, unlimited. He's a chronic abuser and that's what he wants and before long he is no longer a burden on taxpayors or a danger to society. In the rare event he decides to conquer his addiction, THEN they can talk about parole.

[Firethorn]

I'd feel better about throwing the book at him if our DUI limits were reasonable.

He was busted with a BAC of .34.  I don't think the limit of .08 is particularly reasonable because the old .1 limit was set via scientific standards for a significant increase in accidents.

I don't remember EVER hearing about a fatal accident where the drunk driver wasn't at least double the legal limit.

As for the life sentence - at 54 and habitual drunk there's a good chance prison will increase his lifespan.

The judge could probably give a life sentence due to some sort of repeat offender statute.  Can anybody familiar with Texas law clarify?

EDIT:  Listen to the video clip he's also got half a dozen NON-DUI convictions as well.

I think a life sentence would be too harsh if he hasn't actually hurt someone. An honest 9 years sounds about right to me. 

Hmm... First DUI - year in jail
Second - 2 years in prison.  So on and so forth.

I'm willing to bet we'd have a lot less DUIs.  Though I'd only do it for 'extreme DUI' where a person's BAC is at least .16

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

.34 is a pretty god buzz even for a drunk.  and the life thing means he never loses his tail  he will always be under some kinda supervision.  and thats a good thing

[Harrison Bergeron]

If he had not hurt anyone, I'd say the sentence was harsh.  If he could be a boozer while driving 9 times and not hurt anyone, I'd say a good 5+ years would suffice (as long as he's not eligible for parole anytime soon)

Considering he was boozed up and hurt someone, and also has a sizable rap sheet for other crimes, I say lock him away.  If there was some way to rehabilitate him, I'd say go for it.  After 9 DUI's and all his other crimes, I say screw it.  I'd be done.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

el salvador he would be cured by now

[longeyes]

One thing is sure, punishment aside, he shouldn't be driving.  How to make sure he can't is the question.

[MechAg94]

He was busted with a BAC of .34.  I don't think the limit of .08 is particularly reasonable because the old .1 limit was set via scientific standards for a significant increase in accidents.

I don't remember EVER hearing about a fatal accident where the drunk driver wasn't at least double the legal limit.

As for the life sentence - at 54 and habitual drunk there's a good chance prison will increase his lifespan.

The judge could probably give a life sentence due to some sort of repeat offender statute.  Can anybody familiar with Texas law clarify?

EDIT:  Listen to the video clip he's also got half a dozen NON-DUI convictions as well.

Hmm... First DUI - year in jail
Second - 2 years in prison.  So on and so forth.

I'm willing to bet we'd have a lot less DUIs.  Though I'd only do it for 'extreme DUI' where a person's BAC is at least .16

0.34 is pretty far up there I agree.  I think 0.08 is just silly myself.  I am almost to point that if you are not driving dangerously or out of control, they shoudn't be able to get you for DUI anyway.  If they must, I rather some sort of minor citation at the low level with the "throw you jail overnight" level at 0.15 or higher.  I am sort of at the point that if they didn't hurt anyone, don't get so harsh.  If they did, throw the book at them.  I am just really tired of some of the blood lust some have for going after drunk drivers. 

I agree that if this guy didn't hurt anyone, a life sentence far too harsh.  I was on a jury who convicted a guy for murder and he didn't get life (he got 40 years, 20 w/o parole).  The parole part just makes the life part irrelevant.  He should have just sentenced him to parole for life. 

[MechAg94]

At what point do you just put a neck collar on some of these guys and make it illegal to sell alcohol to them?   

[Firethorn]

0.34 is pretty far up there I agree.  I think 0.08 is just silly myself.  I am almost to point that if you are not driving dangerously or out of control, they shoudn't be able to get you for DUI anyway. 

They got the guy because he crashed.  I'd call that 'out of control' at the least.  I don't know exactly, but it's quite probably that many of his other DUIs were from crashes.

If they must, I rather some sort of minor citation at the low level with the "throw you jail overnight" level at 0.15 or higher.  I am sort of at the point that if they didn't hurt anyone, don't get so harsh.  If they did, throw the book at them.  I am just really tired of some of the blood lust some have for going after drunk drivers. 

The problem here is that the guy has 9 convictions; the lower penalties aren't working.  Add in the other convictions for non-DUI stuff, and you have a career criminal, basically.

.1 is the level I'd be tossing people into jail for a day to sober them out and hopefully get them to stop driving after drinking.  .15 is around where I'd start hitting them with the severe penalties because that's when the deaths start.  Call it negligent driving.  Would you want to fly on a plane with the pilot at .15?  I wouldn't.

.08 - accident rate is negligably affected
.10 - accident rate increased a scientifically significant amount
.16 - fatal accidents start showing up in scientifically significant amounts
.24 - most fatal accidents are above here, chance of death starting to show up just from alcohol poisoning.

I agree that if this guy didn't hurt anyone, a life sentence far too harsh.  I was on a jury who convicted a guy for murder and he didn't get life (he got 40 years, 20 w/o parole).  The parole part just makes the life part irrelevant.  He should have just sentenced him to parole for life. 

What would you have done if it was his 3rd murder?  His 9th?

[MechAg94]

1.  The first paragraph of my comments was meant in general.  You don't have to feel the need to nitpick.    
2.  I have no idea how many crashes he has had.  If he has 9 convictions for DUI only, I bet he has plenty of sober driving incidents as well in his life.
3.  At 0.1, if it takes you overnight to sober up, you have health problems.  That really isn't all that much, but I would agree that it probably represents threshold where driving ability starts falling off.  At the very least, the ability to stay awake late at night starts falling off.  
4.  Regarding pilots, I would not want to ride in a bus with a driver who has been drinking.  Those are commercial services and I can't really choose who the driver/pilot is so there better be standards above simply the ability to climb into the seat.  
5.  I didn't choose the murderer's sentence.  The judge determined that based on his history as a pimp and drug dealer.  It wasn't a death penalty case anyway.  If he had a clean record, I think the lesser murder conviction would have netted a lesser sentence.  That still has nothing to do with whether or not a LIFE sentence is appropriate for any DUI conviction.  In Texas, a DUI is or can be low level felony so that is likely where it comes from.  

On the other hand, I have also heard of people with multiple DUI convictions that get away with it with far less than this.  There ought to at least be some consistency.  
 

[MechAg94]

Please don't misunderstand me as defending this guy or anything.  I just tend to react negatively when it comes to DUI's.  The emotional stuff from MADD and some of the court decisions and enforcement issues make it a strange issue that isn't straightforward at all. 

[Firethorn]

Mech -

1.  Looking at his specific case; a lot of DUIs are from when they DO screw up.
2.  Given his criminal record, I don't know if he's spent any major part of his life voluntarily sober; but he does have quite the record
3.  Wasn't looking at keeping them for a day just to 'sober up', a drunk isn't as likely to mind being in jail than a sober guy who's gotta stay there for 20 more hours.  Punishment part.
4.  Understandable; but we DO have standards for anybody choosing to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.
5.  This judge chose his sentence on the basis of at least a half dozen non-dui convictions and 8-9 other dui convictions.

On the other hand, I have also heard of people with multiple DUI convictions that get away with it with far less than this.  There ought to at least be some consistency.  

True; But I doubt that many people will argue with throwing the book at somebody getting their 9th.

[Hawkmoon]

I'd feel better about throwing the book at him if our DUI limits were reasonable.

How are they not reasonable?

[taurusowner]

How are they not reasonable?

Well they apparently still let people interact with the public after 9 DUIs. I'd say that's pretty unreasonable.

[MechAg94]

How are they not reasonable?

My answer would be that the same penalty is there for someone who breaths 0.08 versus someone who tests at 0.25.  I have never had a DUI so I don't know if the judges or prosecutors treat those two differently.  I don't mind harsh penalties in general as long they are reserved for people that are actually driving impaired rather than just might be maybe starting to be impaired if they were to drink any more alcohol.  

[HankB]

0.34 is pretty far up there I agree.  I think 0.08 is just silly myself. 

Usiing a couple of on-line BAC calculators and determining how much I'd have to drink in 2 hours to get my BAC up to 0.34, I expect I'd be unconscious . . . or else so drunk that I wouldn't even be able to find my car, much less attempt to drive it.

A repeat offender who takes his car on a public road with that level of inebriation ought to have the book thrown at him.

[roo_ster]

How are they not reasonable?

The standard fed.gov has shoved down the states' throats is 0.08BAC, which is too low for most anyone to be a danger (unless they are already a danger behind the wheel).  The level of impairment found at 0.08 is less than that caused by many other distractions that the MADD prohibitionists would squawk about were they outlawed while driving.

I recall that me & my buddies did the math (and the experiment) and determined that we could make ourselves above the legal limit in our state by consuming a loaf or so of white bread in one sitting (due to the action of yeast eating carbos and expelling CO2 & ethyl alcohol, there is alcohol in bread).

So, there are a lot of arrests & convictions of folks who were no more a threat on the road than are you after drinking Diet Coke and less a threat than I (or anyone) am with two toddlers in the back seat. 

Hard to respect a law that unreasonable.

[BridgeRunner]

Yep.  Further, while the article linked to states that his BAC for this arrest was substantially higher, we don't know what it was at his other arrests.  Doesn't Texas have a checkpoint system?  (I don't know much about those, as they are disallowed in Michigan.  I seem to recall some constitutional cases.  Dunno if they are still doing them.)