I totally agree with you on the magnitude of this crime.

Drunk driving is a reprehensible crime and should be treated as such. Not as one where the offender needs to be treated with kid gloves and all the humanitarian rights groups falling over themselves to protect him.

However, a life sentence still seems extremely harsh for an offence of this nature even though its magnitude is severe, since it’s not one involving moral turpitude.

It is a highly negligent, callous act coming on top of previous convictions for the same offence and the sentence should be not less than 10 years of imprisonment with hard labour. :-)

Well, if it were a first offense of driving drunk, then I’d say be a little more lenient but this guy knew what drinking and driving could result in. I think the ticker here is, after he plowed into the other car because he ran the red light, he fled the scene, knowing he committed a crime. 3 people died, I think a life sentence with the victims photos from the crash should be permanently placed on his cell wall where he has to sit and stare at them for the rest of his life. We need harsher penalties for people who think they’re invincible by driving while intoxicated so more people don’t do it. It’s sad to think that more people die from drinking and driving incidents than most diseases can claim. All drunk driving deaths are preventable, that’s really the sad thing about that statistic.

In any case I was speaking from a technical and legal point of view to maintain the “dignity” of a life sentence, whatever than means. :-)

Though I will still maintain that a life sentence should be imposed only for the the upper-range of crimes involving real moral turpitude: like deliberate and cold-blooded murder, arson, banditry and dacoity, high treason, armed rebellion/waging war against the country, rape and so on. And the death penalty reserved for serial killers/rapists, child killers and so on.

Yes, while drunk driving is a reprobate and dangerous thing highly deserving of severe punishment, I think that a stiff prison sentence with hard labour would satisfy the needs of justice. Also it might be possible to deny parole on the basis of a stiff sentence rather than a life sentence where a prisoner might become eligible for parole after a few years.

But of course, I don’t know the US legal system and its system of “life sentence” which varies from country to country.

Being a law student, I guess I tend to evaluate these from such a point of view.

Cars should be retitled as “legally offensive weapons”. I am sure that if he had gotten drunk and shot these people that hs sentence would be far harsher than it will be for drunk driving. This is something that all governments need to look at as the penalties for killing people with a car are far too lenient.

ray, I just noticed that two of the victims were law students. Apparently I scanned the article too quickly or the white on black is doing something to my eyesight :-p

I change my mind about the sentence. Life sentence sounds about right.

ray, you’ve raised an interesting law point there about drunk people shooting.

In Indian law, if the state of drunkenness or druggedness is voluntary and self-inflicted, in many cases, the crime is treated as though it were done by the person as though he were sober and in full knowledge of the facts and consequences.

This case could actually be treated as a murder or at the least culpable homicide and not as a normal accident.

In the UK aren’t such cases treated as cases of manslaughter?

Duh… I should really stop blathering. He has been charged with murder.

Cool – he should be charged that way. In the UK, death by driving is treated very differently to deliberate death. So if I get in a car and speed and lose control and kill someone I would probably get a lighter sentence than if I took a gun and shot someone. The effect to the family is doubly hard that way- they lose someone and I wouldn’t be punished “correctly”. It’s been that way for years.