Not guilty by reason of "He's suffered enough"

[Duelist925]

I don't see it as torture. I see it as accepting the consequences of what you've done. If he doesn't like it, too bad. He CHOSE to drink and drive. I don't care about his tender feelings. Two children are DEAD.

I see it as damgerously close to it. And while I don't care much about his feelings, (like you said--two kids are dead) I do care whenever a legal punishment edges towards "too much" and really, after the crap he's done to himself, there isn't much more the law can do that wouldnt come close to that.

The cops arrested the father of Zahara Baker (the kid in North Carolina who lost a leg to cancer and got dismembered by her step mother) on drug charges unrelated to the little girls death during the investigation. Then ICE deported him back to Australia after the stepmother pled guilty in the criminal case (the father was never charged, and his involvement was very murky).

Id like to be clear: If theres any chance of a parent being involved in the kids death, I'm all for making sure they can't skip town.

If not, then, well, it'd be a dick move by a cop to arrest a parrent for something minor after informing them of the kids death.

[Greenday]

I don't see it as torture. I see it as accepting the consequences of what you've done. If he doesn't like it, too bad. He CHOSE to drink and drive. I don't care about his tender feelings. Two children are DEAD.

So besides not even being legally drunk, what proof do you have that it was alcohol as the cause of the accident and not the weather?

[Silverharp]

So besides not even being legally drunk, what proof do you have that it was alcohol as the cause of the accident and not the weather?

And that's where things get iffy. The police report that my wife had access to showed that the investigation result were that incliment weather was not severe enough to cause the loss of control by itself. The vehicle was in good working condition, the tires were good, and the road wasn't flooded out.

[HYHYBT]

...which doesn't rule out other possibilities, such as another driver running him off the road (which is also more likely in poor weather.) And, if I understand correctly, you can only *assume* it was the alcohol that caused an accident if the driver is over the limit... and you're back to not being able to prove guilt, on top of conditions likely to make at least some of the jurors sympathetic and therefore interpret "reasonable" doubt more broadly than they might otherwise (if, say, he were uninjured and the deceased were strangers in another vehicle).

[protege]

I don't see it as torture. I see it as accepting the consequences of what you've done. If he doesn't like it, too bad. He CHOSE to drink and drive. I don't care about his tender feelings. Two children are DEAD.

That's the main problem I have with drunk drivers. Those assholes nearly always survive the accident. Instead, the innocent victims...usually have their lives taken, or changed forever. In fact, a guy I went to high school was killed by a drunk driver a couple of years ago. I didn't know him very well, but by all accounts, he was a good guy. He was killed, while driving home from work late one night. Left behind...were his 1-year-old daughter, and his 3-year-old son. Neither one can understand what killed their daddy. All of that...because some douche made a poor choice. He lived, my friend didn't. How the fuck is that fair?

With that said, I have *very* little concern for the drunk. *He* made a poor choice which took another life. I don't give a shit if the guy has to do volunteer work for the rest of his life. The bastard got off lucky.

[Silverharp]

...which doesn't rule out other possibilities, such as another driver running him off the road (which is also more likely in poor weather.) And, if I understand correctly, you can only *assume* it was the alcohol that caused an accident if the driver is over the limit... and you're back to not being able to prove guilt, on top of conditions likely to make at least some of the jurors sympathetic and therefore interpret "reasonable" doubt more broadly than they might otherwise (if, say, he were uninjured and the deceased were strangers in another vehicle).

No other cars on the road, by his own account.

And I'll be the first to admit that I've got a skewed perspective on this. Not going to even try denying that one, so yeah, I'm taking it a lot more personal than if it were complete strangers.

[Panacea]

So besides not even being legally drunk, what proof do you have that it was alcohol as the cause of the accident and not the weather?

I wasn't saying whether or not he was actually guilty in a legal sense; I was speaking more to if he had been convicted, I would think that an appropriate punishment.

However, the amount of alcohol he had in his system is enough to slow his reflexes. While not legally drunk, it's very likely a contributing factor in the accident.

[Greenday]

However, the amount of alcohol he had in his system is enough to slow his reflexes. While not legally drunk, it's very likely a contributing factor in the accident.

I'd really like to know how fast and what kind of road he was driving on that a three beers worth would slow his reflexes down enough to make it a contributing factor.

[HYHYBT]

No other cars on the road, by his own account.

And I'll be the first to admit that I've got a skewed perspective on this. Not going to even try denying that one, so yeah, I'm taking it a lot more personal than if it were complete strangers.

Interesting. I'm surprised he said that; it would hurt his defense, if he needed to present one.