TX Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for 9th DWI

[Anti Federalist]

Recently, the case of Cameron Willingham (pictured) has been in the news. He was convicted of murdering his three children by arson in a 1991 house fire. He was executed in 2004. A new report from a national arson expert, prepared for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, has concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was seriously flawed and could not support a finding of arson

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

 

[Philhelm]

I'm glad that I live in a country in which I can murder people and molest children without getting a life sentence.

 

[Anti Federalist]

There have been hundreds of exonerated of death penalty cases, after the fact that these innocent people had gone through what is supposed to be the ne plus ultra of American Jurisprudence.

I just posted a story that chronicled 8 cases of innocent people that were executed.

Hundreds of false convictions...

Convincing evidence of innocent people being executed...

Thousands of stories yearly of corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges...

I'm sorry if it upsets some of you law and order types, but I stand by it:

The United States routinely executes and imprisons innocent people.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

Prison only deters vices and other "non-violent crimes" to a (low) degree. We already have the highest prison population in the world for this very reason:

 

[phill4paul]

We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.

Lies, damned lies and statistics....

http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm

 

[Anti Federalist]

Not more imprisonment per se, the drunk aside, but crueler punishments that cost the tax payer less.

Amendment 8:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Of course, billion dollar fines, and million dollar bails happen all the time.

No surprise there, the rest of the Amendments are not paid any mind to, so why not?

Drawing and Quartering in the public square, right?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously. Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?

Legitimate drunk driving has always been illegal. But how is "drunk" determined? The presence of alcohol, or so impaired that driving is obviously effected?

Most of us want drivers to be safe, but this can go too far, and we are already going down the road you want to take us. How many texting while driving incidents before life in prison? How about putting on make-up while driving? Shaving? Or how about the true number one cause of accidents, driving while tired?

And while we are at it, let's make getting a license a true test of competency. No more bad drivers on the road. No more beginner drivers on the road. No more drivers that come to complete stops in the fast lane of the freeway so they can slowly cut across all lanes of traffic to make an exit that they are missing.

And when you start down this path there is only one outcome: more draconian laws, more law enforcement, bigger budgets, and more people in jail. And in the end, the worse drivers on the road will probably still be out there, because you can't outlaw stupid.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

We have about 40,000 road fatalities a year, I'd bet at least 25% are related to being intoxicated with something.

Thanks for reminding me. No driving while on prescription drugs either.

(And don't leave out driving while tired).

 

[amy31416]

But then the rapists are having the times of their lives, getting laid left and right. Rape is actually cruel and unusual punishment. Flogging people instead of locking them up forever or putting people to work is on the surface crueler, but in reality much more humane than what we have.

Would you like to have that flogging job or something?

Rape will still happen, whether you get to flog men's nether regions or not. So you'd sentence them to both.

And mind you, I'm not even on the side of letting a drunk driver like this fellow go free without effectively addressing the problem. I just don't think that your solution or the state's is a good one.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Not seriously, I don't want anyone to get hurt, which is why that guy should be in jail.

Hey, countries with that have less crime, which means less aggregate cruelty.

You're predicting consequences that have not happened. For all we know this guy could go to rehab and clean up his act the next day.

(Granted I agree with you this guy seems like a scumbag)

AF said it well "pre-cime", this man has not killed anyone.

As you put it, the "aggregate cruelty" is a utilitarian approach to morality. This collective moral concept rejects individual liberties and is a big reason this country has lost its freedom - most people in power think the same way you do.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Lies, damned lies and statistics....

http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm

Good info.

It helps to remember that MADD is a neo-Prohibitionist organization. Driving is not their primary concern. Banning alcohol is. The founder of the organization left for that reason.

Separating neo-prohibition from driving is helpful when debating and dissecting this topic.

 

[JK/SEA]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

c'mon...really?.....how about this karmic possibility. You receive a 'no knock' visit from SWAT...oops...wrong house. Sorry for killing your dog and shooting your wife/husband.

Ain't law and order wunnerful....?

 

[tod evans]

c'mon...really?.....how about this karmic possibility. You receive a 'no knock' visit from SWAT...oops...wrong house. Sorry for killing your dog and shooting your wife/husband.

Ain't law and order wunnerful....?

Aw come on man.......He's one of those folks with nothing to hide...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

shouldn't you have to infringe on another persons life, liberty, or property before having yours removed permanently?

Well, he did injure someone, and there's no telling how many other people he may have injured during his 8 prior DWIs, but you are correct in that it's not justifiable to put him in prison for life just because of that.

 

[MelissaWV]

...
Yet again, we have another example of why Libertarians are not taken seriously. Was this penalty too harsh? Debatable. But arguing that drunk drivers should be allowed on the road, until they actually cause injury, is pure insanity. This isn't some philosophical debating society, it's real life and real death, and letting people drive impaired on the road is nuts. What happens when they kill someone? "Oh, that's just freedom at work"? What's next, legalizing driving for the blind?

Just once, I wish a major political party would nominate a true Libertarian to run nationally. That way when they flame out, there's no "Americans don't support third parties" excuse. Run on the 'legalize child porn and drunk driving' platform, please.

I find this interesting. Very few people on the forums are in favor of "letting people drive impaired on the road." There are some, but not many. Your assumption is that DWI/DUI laws will prevent this from happening. Why not just change the "I" from "Intoxicated" to "Impaired" or "Distracted"? Those laws already exist in most places (if not all). It is not somehow worse to be driving two beers than to be driving with a cheeseburger in one hand, your phone in the other, and a 5-hour Energy in your system. If there is a car weaving or driving in a massively dangerous fashion, then by all means, stop them from doing so. The REASON they were doing that is a matter for them to raise at their defense. Maybe they were suffering a medical emergency. Or maybe they were just really sleepy.

You see, what I'm bothered by is police checkpoints that assume SOMEONE is going to be guilty of SOMETHING, so why not pull everyone over and test them? And if you are over some arbitrary "legal limit," even if you are driving just fine, you are in some deep shit. That's okay, right? Totally Constitutional! There is also the scenario where they pull you over and "smell alcohol in the car" or spot an "open container," even though you are driving no worse than your average sober driver, and were endangering no one. There is a focus on singling out alcohol as the end-all-be-all of substances that cause accidents. That's dangerous for *everyone* involved. If you willingly decide you are going to read a book while driving --- and I have seen that more times than I thought I ever would --- and you rearend someone, I fail to see how that is somehow more excusable than if you were drunk and did the same.

Incidentally, the blind do not drive, but the deaf do. The "they might kill someone" argument could be used for any number of things, including ANYONE getting behind the wheel of a car, since MOST of us will be in some kind of accident at some point, which only needs a few variables tweaked to become a fatal one. This is one of the rationales behind things like seatbelt laws, even though I get the uncanny feeling that the seatbelt slipping upwards and half-choking me is not going to be a good thing if I am ever in an accident.

 

[torchbearer]

if you kill/injure someone(or property) while driving impaired, you have committed a crime.
to drive in a state that increases your chance to commit such a crime is not a crime.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I hope a drunk driver kills you and your family then.

Seriously though, we have to have some law and order.

The law wasn't made for order. Order doesn't arise from the government ordering people around. Laws are meant to provide justice, not to protect you from anything. What's more, laws CANNOT protect you. It didn't work with Prohibition, it didn't work with drugs, it doesn't work with speeding, it obviously doesn't work for DWIs either. Nobody is being protected just because there is "law and order". The only purpose of the law is punishment and due justice for injuries someone has caused.

Taking away someone's right to life just because they engaged in some dangerous behavior is insanity. Do you think that guy had any reason to believe that he would get life in prison for a stupid DWI? The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

On another note, aren't there laws that set a maximum sentence for a DWI? I thought there were a certain number of years you could be imprisoned, even for repeat offenders? I know there are in my state.

 

[carclinic]

You're predicting consequences that have not happened. For all we know this guy could go to rehab and clean up his act the next day.

(Granted I agree with you this guy seems like a scumbag)

AF said it well "pre-cime", this man has not killed anyone.

As you put it, the "aggregate cruelty" is a utilitarian approach to morality. This collective moral concept rejects individual liberties and is a big reason this country has lost its freedom - most people in power think the same way you do.

Punishments are meant to be deterrents, period. That's the means in which we need to be evaluating our criminal justice system.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't need a valium, I just think we need a harsher criminal justice system. I'd like to see flogging come back, old school death sentences (gallows), and an efficient prison system that actually deters crime.

Would you like to have that flogging job or something?

Rape will still happen, whether you get to flog men's nether regions or not. So you'd sentence them to both.

The reality isn't nice. For those who would advocate this, here's an example (Warning: graphic!):

http://m.worldstarhiphop.com/video.php?v=wshhIkl8iVo4mHVZZC8k

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Point is, the laws exist for a reason.

And that reason was never to protect you. It was also never to give unjust sentences to a non-malicious crime. Life for a non-malicious crime is not justice.