Miles Quaritch
Member
Actually, yes. That's why each incident is its own court case. There is a happy medium between "no meaningful jail time" and "throwing the book at him for the next half decade". For some people, a short jail time, counseling, and a suspended license is enough punishment to prevent recidivism. Simply throwing them in the can for 3 to 5 years is just outright punishment with no thought for future prevention.
Taking away the ability for Judges and Prosecutors to evaluate individual cases on their merits and force mandatory sentences does a disservice to all of us.
I'm not as optimistic as you when it comes to believing short sentences and helping the person in cases like drunk driving will do the job and reduce recidivism.
Treating it like it's essentially a harmless crime until it's not is what allows people to think they can drive drunk.
Maybe I need to look into recidivism rates for people who got counselling and short sentences to see if they were caught doing it again within three to five years of receiving that help.
This is ridiculous because the law can't punish a "what if" - that's just not how our justice system works nor should it. DUI sentencing is serious, and part of it is attending a Victim Impact Panel, where a defendant hears from people who have lost loved ones to drunk driving - the point is to drive home how serious the offense could potentially be, but at the end of the day we can't sentence cititzens based on potential outcomes.
I disagree. The dangers of drunk driving as well documented. By choosing to do it, youre choosing to ignore risk that you killing someone is much higher than it normally would be. It's not so much about potential at that point. While it's not intent either, it's pretty damn close.