It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Life Sentence Too Harsh For Man Convicted of Ninth DWI?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Is Life Sentence Too Harsh For Man Convicted of Ninth DWI?


abcnews.go.com

And while that DWI was certainly enough to get Stovall in trouble with the law, when the judge found out the defendant had eight prior DWI convictions across several different counties in Texas, he ordered up a life sentence for Stovall.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure second degree murder in that state is a 20 year sentence. So life for driving drunk seems a little excessive.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits xcessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.

Is this a case of a judge with a chip on his shoulder? Maybe the judge gets money from the Prison Industrial Complex? I don't believe alcoholism is a disease, so the judge and I agree on this much, but I do think that this guy deserves the opportunity to sober up and go into a treatment center that gives counseling for substance abuse for a year or two rather than having his life ended on the expense of the tax payers.

abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
agreed. though it is likely the man never will sober up (Alcoholics anonymous has a 15% or so success rate) it is possible through technology to keep him from driving a car; for example a breathalyzer attached to the ignition. my point is that he is being put in jail for life because he has proven he is irresponsible and MAY end up hurting or killing someone else. what other instance of someone preemptively being locked up before having an ACCIDENT can anyone else think of?

truly this reminds me of bedlam, where men who really just needed medication and therapy were just chained to the wall so that no one had to deal with them.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Answer to the header question.....NO. Technology assumes he is driving HIS car. How many times are you gonna allow someone to point a gun at someone and spin the chamber with a bullet in it before you stop him/her? I am all for personal responsibility but this guy needs to be stopped.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by djvexd]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


Heck no this isn't too harsh, especially since that's in my neck of the woods.

I'm a firm believer in a 3 strike rule as far as violent offenses, and if driving drunk isn't already considered one, it should be. Seriously, operating a vehicle while drunk is just retarded.

The headline would read a lot differently if he had killed that person he hit:

"Nine Time DWI Offender Kills Family Man In Drunk Driving Accident"

I really think the judge used his best judgment here.

As far as that little quip about the Prison Industrial Complex...seriously? This isn't like it was a first timer, it's not like he was just pulled over for swerving, he hit someone. He repeatedly drover drunk. He should have been locked up after number 3. Plus, I doubt there would be that much of a kick back for the judge for sending one person away.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The way I look at it, he's committed attempted murder 9 times now, once for each account that he got behind the wheel drunk.

It does not say, so far as I saw, "no possibility of parole", so I'm sure he'll be up for a parole hearing.

Further, the guy also happens to be a serial criminal. He has a rather long rap sheet from what I read, and although sentences are not supposed to reflect past crimes already convicted, I'm sure that was a factor.

My guess is that his sentence will be reduced on appeal and that this judge's main goal was to send him a very strong statement. Not that I think it will do any good in his particular case.

Lastly, no matter when he gets out, it's pretty obvious he'll once again be behind the wheel drunk and gee, maybe this time he'll actually kill someone.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I think it sets a dangerous precedent. The man should have been put on long term (20 years?) probation with electronic monitoring. Anytime the man's bracelet started moving more than say 7 miles per hour, he gets a phone call to confirm that he is not drunk or if he is, that he is not driving the car. -- probably some technical details to work out there...

I think it would be a much more sane sentance to let the man keep working and supporting himself rather than making him an imprisoned ward of the state.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by againuntodust
 


Heck no this isn't too harsh, especially since that's in my neck of the woods.

I'm a firm believer in a 3 strike rule as far as violent offenses, and if driving drunk isn't already considered one, it should be. Seriously, operating a vehicle while drunk is just retarded.

The headline would read a lot differently if he had killed that person he hit:

"Nine Time DWI Offender Kills Family Man In Drunk Driving Accident"

I really think the judge used his best judgment here.

As far as that little quip about the Prison Industrial Complex...seriously? This isn't like it was a first timer, it's not like he was just pulled over for swerving, he hit someone. He repeatedly drover drunk. He should have been locked up after number 3. Plus, I doubt there would be that much of a kick back for the judge for sending one person away.


3 strike rule is fine. But strike 3 shouldn't mean you go to jail for life.

It should mean no more driver's license for however long is appropriate.

And yes, if the person would have killed someone the headline would read that he killed someone. And maybe then he'd deserve some long jail time to consider how bad of a decision he made and learn from that mistake.

I could even see 5 years for this crime, but not life.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Texas has very light DWI rules. 3 DWI = Felony 2-5 years IIRC. 9 DWIs I have no problem with the sentence. Breath machines can be circumvented very easily and really are more of a fine and annoyance than anything else. They measure things that don't apply, mouthwash will test positive. It comes in handy in the morning but I don't drink the stuff.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
On the one hand, life for driving drunk sounds harsh.
On the other hand, the odds are this guy should already be dead. If he has been caught 9 times, imagine how many times he has not been caught. Sad to say, but he will probably never sober up, so might as well keep him away from society. I think 10-15 years would be justified, but life is a little extreme...



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


I think the more telling thing is this guy is a career criminal. Theft, fraud, DWI.

He repeatedly shows that he cannot function under societies rules. Taking away his drivers license will not make him stop drinking, hell it probably wouldn't even stop him from driving. He already has proven he can't follow the rules.

Like other posters have said, he will get an appeal and parole hearing, it will get knocked down, sadly.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
9 DWI's. If free anyone taking bets that #10 won't be far along? This seems like a preemptive sentence. He would have killed someone eventually and would have gotten life. This just keeps those victims alive and the outcome the same.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Too much? I think not.

Those who think it is too much should put their families on the same roadways as this drunk. Maybe you could sit out loaded guns around your house too so the kids can play with them. Are they going to get hurt this time or hurt someone else? You hope not but chances go up each time.

This man has shown he will not stop placing (as someone else said) a loaded gun to other people’s heads. Drunk driving is one thing I agree that there should be strict laws for; in many cases I think they should be more strict.

Raist



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
there are many options to solve this:

take his license for the rest of his life, prohibit him from driving ever again

prohibit him from drinking alcohol, they have ankle braces that not only monitor where a person is ( which can alert the police if he is moving at a speed fast enough to be in a car ) but also it can somehow ( i don't personally know the scientific explanation how ) can smell alcohol in the sweat of a person wearing it

i mean, i understand he is a danger to everyone since he obviously is never going to stop drinking and driving, but really there are better solutions ... there are at least more solutions that just sending him to jail forever

i am also debating wether he was sent there out of cost benifit to the privately owned prison complex?

or would it be cheaper to just throw in him jail and pay for his tiny 3 meals a day for the remainder of his life, rather than have to pay for his parol officer and monitor and manage his ankle brace as i mentioned

who knows, but the justice in this country is really falling apart, nice post



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I can definitely agree that this driver needs to be off the road for the rest of his life and that he has a debt to society for his indiscretions.

But I'm thinking the logical answer would be a long term treatment facility to deal with his alcoholism and with the underlying psychosis which have caused him to become such a lush in the first place. This is definitely one messed up camper either way.

*edited for brain fertz*

[edit on 8/14/10 by Hefficide]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
There's always the alternatives for those inclined to leniency

For example, wait for him to hit and injure or kill someone

then hand a gun to the best marksman in the the victim's circle of friends and family

and allow that person to shoot the drunk between the eyes

No expense to the State

No inconvenience for the drunk

Justice seen to be done


Cost = one or more lives, depending how many people were unfortunate enough to be in the path of the drunk's vehicle



.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Dock9]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


It doesn't matter how long you take his license. I doubt he had a legitimate license this time around. After the eighth, I'm pretty sure you are banned from driving.

The problem is, this guy doesn't care whether or not he has a license. He's going to drive anyway, and drunk to boot.

Taking his license does nothing and is a allowing him to once again potentially drive drunk. Hence why the judge threw him behind bars for life -- the only way to ensure he's not going to get behind the wheel ever again.

Let's also keep in mind that he is hardly an upstanding citizen. He has a lengthy rap sheet -- consisting of robbery, battery, and more -- so what exactly is this man going to contribute to society even if he doesn't drive again?

Lastly, any other options -- such as a SCRAM -- won't work. He has proven, time and time again, to have zero respect for the law. He'll simply remove it, drive drunk to his "new" locale, and repeat. Yes the cops will know once it's off, but he will have a rather decent head start.

Why should we spend even more money then trying to track him down all over again?

Enough's enough. Throw away the key in this particular case in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


He needs to be somewhere other than the road. If TX went (was able) to go back to the days before Ruiz v Texas. The state could take care of it. They made their own clothes, grew/raised their own veggies and livestock. The prison system was self sufficient.

Now they get cable,computers and a college degree. I paid for my degree.

BTW Our Prison system made really good food.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Hmm.. I think I agree with you in this case, given the other circumstances about his behavior.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
A life sentence isn't reasonable in any case.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

-Einstein

I think we are not taking the proper steps in dealing with this person. Mybe it comes down to how we dealt with this person the first 8 times. Mybe society is insanity considering we continually use the same forms of punishment constantly with the same results expecting people to get better.



new topics




 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join