Texas man gets unusual probation

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A judge slapped a man who played a role in a fatal road rage crash with two jail sentences and a string of restrictions meant to publicly humiliate him after jurors decided only on probation.

State District Judge Keith Dean ordered Frank Dorsett to serve two 180-day terms, drive a car with no more than 130 horsepower, carry a photo of the wreckage, take daily medication that will make him sick if he drinks alcohol and put a bumper sticker on his vehicle asking other motorists to call the probation department if he's driving recklessly.

www.cnn.com...

I think this is excellent. Too bad people died though.

A judge can never be too strict when dealing with drunk drivers. That guy shouldn't be allowed to drive anymore, but it's not up to me.

It could have been worse.

He might have had to wear a vote for George Bush T shirt as well. Now THAT would be humiliating.

Harris County Judge Ted Poe started this stuff a while back, two or three years ago or more. He retired last year from the bench. He made those sentenced to probation stand on the corner where the wreck was in a DWI where someone was hurt carry a sign saying they killed such and such here on a certain date driving drunk or he made convicts put a sign in their front yard discribing the crime or have the convict place flowers on the grave of the person killed. This has been going on here for a while and has started to expand to the rest of the country.

Sometimes I think judges hand down ridiculous sentences, just to get publicity for themselves. This guy should've gotten prison time. What about the families of the victim? "Oh, I'm sorry?"

Sentences should not go outside the boundaries set in the law books,IMO!

[edit on 20/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by BangorangRufio
A judge can never be too strict when dealing with drunk drivers.

I couldn't disagree more.

This guy probably should have gotten more of a sentence. But the overwhelming majority of "drunk drivers" which are neither drunk or hazardous, just targeted with unconstitutional roadblocks for county revenue, should be allowed some occassional leniancy and the right to a defense.

Judges no longer have that option thanks to this "war" which we've committed on motorists.

This murderers 360 days in jail is a joke compared to people I've met that made some post roadblock DUI violation like "being out after dark" and spent the remaining year of their probabtion in jail.

Alcohol related accident statistics are over-blown and twisted to fit the agendas of groups like MADD. And who can argue with a mother against something?

DUI GULAG

Original source
Simply put, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related and consequently, that particular fatality will be deceptively employed to bolster statistics designed to fortify the perception that mindless, epidemic-type numbers of drunk drivers are blindly hurling down our highways, aimlessly killing innocent bystanders. These same statistics are then implemented into a continual effort to persuade the legislature to enact ever increasingly stringent DUI laws and more severe punishments.

To further illustrate, there were 16,653 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2000, according to the NHTSA. Of these 16,653 alcohol-related fatalities, 12,892 involved at least one driver or non-occupant with a BAC of 0.10 g/dl or greater. 7,326 were the intoxicated drivers themselves, and 1,594 were legally intoxicated pedestrians and pedal-cyclists. The remaining 3,972 fatalities were non-intoxicated drivers, passengers, and non-occupants. So how many actual victims of drunk driving were there in 2000? Excluding the 7,326 legally intoxicated drivers and 1,594 legally intoxicated pedestrians/pedal-cyclists, there remain 3,972 fatalities; but even these deaths cannot be classified as victims because the NHTSA does not indicate which driver was at fault. For example, if a sober driver runs a red light and crashes into a driver who has a BAC of 0.10 or greater, and the sober driver dies, the NHTSA will proclaim that this fatality is alcohol-related, even though alcohol had nothing to do with the crash, and tragically, the intoxicated driver will potentially face vehicular manslaughter charges. Law enforcement will wrongfully conclude that the drunk driver is at fault, and more likely than not, will not execute a thorough traffic scene investigation. Essentially, if alcohol is involved, it is disorderly to blame. Meanwhile, organizations such as MADD are spoon-fed this fatality, and they in turn inappropriately use it to mislead our lawmakers.

With that being said, I do think that some sort of "shaming" as a punishment is much more effective then putting someone on probation, or giving them a fine, and a lot more cost effective too. I'd be much more likely to not do something illegal, even as simple as littering, if I was forced to wear a scarlet letter for a year. Maybe not something that extreme, but you get the idea.