I think when comparing this to the Vick situation, the guys on 1560 made a good point on my way in to work. More people can relate to a DUI and therefore we have a way out of getting big sentences, not all the time, but if you have money. On this case specifically, I didn't know the guy was jaywalking, that makes a difference IMO, obviously I'm not a lawyer though. The real issue in comparing this to Mike Vick is the media coverage. I understand that Mike Vick's a big name. And lastly, what happened with the California Angel pitcher who was killed by a Drunk Driver. What kind of sentence did that person get?
If you drive drunk and kill someone there should be no less than 10 years in jail ... I don't care how much responsibility you take for that action. I am so sick of the apathy in this country towards drunk driving. I know too many people that have gotten picked up on a DUI and it is just an oh well I gotta pay some money. I think everyone that gets picked up on drunk driving should have to spend serious time in jail. I realize that the jails are already crowded so maybe it should just be a ridiculous amount of community service that is required. Has to be something that gets people to quit driving drunk. And if you kill someone while driving drunk, you should go away for a long long time.
Yup, we all know what happened with that high school football player who got 20 years in prison for getting **** from a slut at a party.
Please drop the liberal/PC bullsh_t. Stallworth's light sentence has absolutely nothing to do with some liberal agenda to go easy on drunk drivers and every thing to do with his ability to hire an excellent attorney because he's rich, his ability to make a large financial settlement with the victim's familiy because he's rich, and his commendable actions and acceptance of responsibility immediately after the accident. If you don't like rich people getting off easy for heinous crimes, here's a liberal/radical solution for you- Eliminate the ability for people to hire their own lawyers for criminal cases. Make it so that for criminal cases all lawyers are paid for out of a common tax payer supported fund and then are assigned to cases by lottery. I'm actually serious about this. It grossly distorts the justice system when money becomes such a determining factor in whether people are convicted and/or how they are sentenced.
That was a very different situation. That guy that was driving drunk had a previous DUI, was driving with a suspended liscense, and tried to flee the scene where one guy in the car with that Anglel's pitcher was still alive, but in need of medical attention.
I think the Stallworth sentence is ridiculously light, but I also think the Vick sentence was fair. And yes, I do think the moral implications of what Vick did are far worse than what Stallworth did. I am a crusader against drunk driving (as you will note if you see me in any drunk driving threads) but I don't believe that driving drunk is indicative of a person with personality disorders, moral bankruptcy, etc. I think it is indicative of a person with poor judgment, possibly addiction, and irresponsibility. When people drive drunk, I don't pass judgment on them as a person, but I do expect them to pay for their actions. The continued violent treatment of animals for entertainment purposes is however a sign of personality defects and a severe lack of morality. It shows me a great deal about the character of Michael Vick that he derived pleasure from forcing animals to maim and kill each other for his enjoyment and his profit. Part of the training for these dog fights involves taking non fighter dogs and throwing them into a cage with the fight dogs and watching them get killed and torn apart. This stuff is sick. Now, the comparable to me would be somebody who did the above to humans. That person would be someone who deserved the death penalty vs the 18 months that Vick got.
Here here! This system you propose has potential flaws that would need to be ironed out, but in general I greatly support it. The inherent flaw in our current legal system is that it does in fact favor the rich.
That was absolutely ridiculous. When the average age to lose your virginity for a girl is lower than the consent law, you know that you have a stupid law. jail/prison for people that are high school age having sex with each other is ridiculous.
Some people can hold their booze better than others, I'm not saying he should have been driving... He should be punished strictly for that: but he wasn't really speeding (most people do 50 in a 40), and when the accident happened (Running out in the middle of a street is illegal) he did the correct thing by immediately calling the authorities and cooperating in full. How many times have we heard of an athlete/celebrity trying to flee the scene or resist arrest and such? I think the guy owned up to his actions, a life was lost... but it wasn't entirely his fault.
I agree. More than one person in this freaking thread has said something to the effect of "he was not that drunk". What??? That is bs. It is in no way acceptable to drive drunk because every time you do it, you put other people's lives at risk. That's the bottom line. Driving drunk is driving drunk....not just "a little drunk" or "a lot drunk", but drunk. I don't care if half the mf'ers on this board say they have done it before and nothing happened. I'm sure that's what Donte Stallworth was thinking too. I'm sure that's what every single person that drives drunk and kills someone thinks before they start driving too. Stallworth killed a man, and he will spend a little over 3 weeks in jail. That's messed up.
I don't know who his lawyer was, but they just boosted their reputation in a big way. "I can get you less than a month in prison on DUI manslaughter, even if it's proven that you were over the limit and speeding!" Seriously though, this has everything to do with his financial situation. The family knows it was an accident, drunk or not, so they see the opportunity to take a fat check from Stallworth and maybe set their family for the rest of their life. For the record, I think anywhere from 6 months-2 years would have been appropriate. Teach him a lesson, but spare him a little since the other person was well in the wrong too. 24 days is kind of an embarrassment to our legal system, if you ask me.
I agree drunk driving is a bad thing and shouldn't be excused but there is one possible side affect to your proposal. In a case like the Stallworth case someone who has an accident and has been drinking, even lightly, might be less inclined to cooperate with the authorities, stopping and calling 9/11, and making aprehension more costly. There is a reason why prosecutors cut deals with defendents and also why judges show leniency for people who cooperate because our justice system would bog down otherwise. As I said before. I feel the sentence on Stallworth was too light but given all of the other circumstances around it I am not surprised the judge was lenient.
League Suspends Stallworth indefinitely Cleveland Browns receiver Donte' Stallworth was suspended by the NFL indefinitely without pay following his guilty plea to DUI manslaughter in the death of a pedestrian, the league announced Thursday. Stallworth was sentenced in a Miami court Tuesday to 30 days in jail, a controversial ruling that drew a great deal of criticism. Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote a detailed letter to Stallworth explaining the stiff penalty levied by the league. "The conduct reflected in your guilty plea resulted in the tragic loss of life and was inexcusable," Goodell wrote. "While the criminal justice system has determined the legal consequences of this incident, it is my responsibility as NFL commissioner to determine the appropriate league discipline for your actions, which have caused irreparable harm to the victim and his family, your club, your fellow players and the NFL."
I think one of the biggest reasons why Stallworth got off lightly was because the victim was jaywalking, which some people seem to overlook. I'm not saying Stallworth should have recieved a light sentance because he hit a jaywalker, but the fact that the victim was jaywalking must have factored into the states attorney decision to go ahead with the plea bargain. If the victim was at a crosswalk then it would have been a slam dunk manslaugter DUI conviction and Stallworth goes straight to jail for a couple years.
Maybe it's because I jaywalk everyday to cross the street to the bus stop, but I see no harm in crossing the street at 7am to get to the bus stop. While legally wrong, no cop will stop you for doing it if you do it safely. If Stallworth was not drunk, he would have likely avoided the victim. Howcome nobody is making a big deal of Stallworth's judgment in reacting? He mentioned he flashed his lights to warn the victim. Why was he not braking instead?
I really think it defends on the intersection. 7AM can be very busy at some stops, was this the weekend, I don't know. But lets say you kill someone who is jaywalking and haven't been drinking, what do you think you should be punished?
The driver should be punished because he hit the person. The only instance I can think of where the driver should not get the punishment is if you can prove you did not have enough time to react (eg the jaywalker is a crazy psychotic idiot out to get money and jumps directly into your car when you are a few feet away.
