Windshield Death Sentence -- Is 50 Years Appropriate Punishment?

C

catmango

No question her offense was inexcusable, but 50 years (and another 10 years for evidence tampering, to be served concurrently) seems a little extreme. Some people say that her being in the healthcare profession makes her crime all the more heinous. I think instead that it shows that, prior to the accident, she at least made a positive contribution to society.

Any thoughts?
 
Quote from rolegario:

No question her offense was inexcusable, but 50 years (and another 10 years for evidence tampering, to be served concurrently) seems a little extreme. Some people say that her being in the healthcare profession makes her crime all the more heinous. I think instead that it shows that, prior to the accident, she at least made a positive contribution to society.

Any thoughts?
More...

If I understand the facts, she was on two different drugs and alcohol. Although that is not an excuse, I can see how someone would panic given the proper circumstances.

She didn't purposely kill him. It amounts to grossly negligent homicide. 50 years was extreme. Something on the order of 10 years with parole in 5 would have given her plenty of time to reflect. The only thing this sentence does is cost the taxpayers more money.
 
I doubt she is a threat to society. Given proper drug counseling and a long probationary period, it makes a lot more sense to give her a smaller sentence. This stuff adds up and it causes prison overcrowding.

She'll be eligible for parole in 30 years.
 
She should've pulled stunt that in CA. A jury there would've given her 5 years' probation plus half a mill for mental anguish.

Let her rot in prison for her crimes. You're responsible for your own actions and must pay accordingly.
 
Quote from Tech Analysis:

Let her rot in prison for her crimes. You're responsible for your own actions and must pay accordingly.
More...

The problem is that the citizen's of Texas are ultimately paying. The last I read, it costs somewhere around $37,000 a year per inmate.

That means $37,000 x 30 years (if she makes probation). That is $1,110,000 dollars that taxpayers are paying while she stays in the state's prison.

The guy is done suffering. She made a mistake. Is that mistake really worth 50 years + 10 for lying? Can anyone blame her for lying? She was scared shitless. She was acting irrationally. She's responsible for her actions, but is she entirely responsible for her REACTIONS?
 
Quote from aphexcoil:



The problem is that the citizen's of Texas are ultimately paying. The last I read, it costs somewhere around $37,000 a year per inmate.

That means $37,000 x 30 years (if she makes probation). That is $1,110,000 dollars that taxpayers are paying while she stays in the state's prison.

The guy is done suffering. She made a mistake. Is that mistake really worth 50 years + 10 for lying? Can anyone blame her for lying? She was scared shitless. She was acting irrationally. She's responsible for her actions, but is she entirely responsible for her REACTIONS?
More...

Justice is now a financial matter?

What she did was reprehensible. She is entirely responsible for her actions.

Her use of drugs and alcohol are not considered mitigating factors in the punishment phase.

After she sobered up, did she report the "accident" and drunken "mistake" to authorities?

Biggs' battered body was found in a park the day after he was hit. Authorities had no leads in the death until four months later, when one of Mallard's acquaintances called police and said she had talked about the accident at a party.

Had she come forth and admitted her crime immediately upon sobering up, that would have helped her case, and I believe she would have received a lighter sentence as a result.

But she didn't do that. She felt no remorse sufficient to come forth on her own.

So she got drunk and talked about the accident at a party, that is eventually how she was caught.

The punishment fits the crime, which was not just the accident, but the failure to come forth and tell the truth.

There is a big difference in an auto accident between hitting someone and stopping, and hit and run. This was a clear case of hit and run.
 
Maybe if they didn't run prisons like fucking country clubs, we could shack them up 4 to a cell and give them periodic food drops of gov't surplus grains and cheese. Turn off the DirecTV feed and take out the computers.

Christ, some of these facilities have better living accomodations than us working stiffs on the outside.
 
Didn't she burn the front seats of the car to dispose of the bloodstained evidence?

This deserves leniency? 100 years ago she'd be led outside to the gallows. She should be lucky to be sucking air tomorrow.
 
Quote from aphexcoil:



If I understand the facts, she was on two different drugs and alcohol. Although that is not an excuse, I can see how someone would panic given the proper circumstances.

She didn't purposely kill him. It amounts to grossly negligent homicide. 50 years was extreme. Something on the order of 10 years with parole in 5 would have given her plenty of time to reflect. The only thing this sentence does is cost the taxpayers more money.
More...

Drugs and alcohol. You say it is no excuse then you cite it as a partial excuse. Wassup with that?

That she left him unattended for 2 days in that car suggests although she may not have purposely hit him, she deliberately let him bleed to death. Clearly, she chose to let him expire first before attempting to erase the evidence. She may have intended to hit him, we don't know.

Did you buy her tears Apexcoil?

50 years. You can make a lot of license plates in 50 years.
 
Quote from Tech Analysis:

Didn't she burn the front seats of the car to dispose of the bloodstained evidence?

This deserves leniency? 100 years ago she'd be led outside to the gallows. She should be lucky to be sucking air tomorrow.
More...

I'd like to see a little more compassion expressed in this world. This endless cycle of "an eye for an eye" went out with barbarism. Treat and release her after a more moderate sentence. There is no need to keep an endless cycle in perpetual motion.

She's responsible, but that doesn't mean that the courts can't find alternative methods of punishment that don't cost society $1,110,000 in this circumstance.

You know how many homeless people you could shelter with that money? In fact, wasn't that guy homeless that she hit? Why not half her sentence and give another homeless guy a chance at getting back into the game instead of this lifetime in jail bullshit that seems to work for the time-being but will ultimately catch up to us when our prison system overloads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top