Posted on 01/25/2007 4:29:10 PM PST by SJackson
Gerald Lynch Jr.: Drunken driving sentences are disproportionately severe
A letter to the editor
Dear Editor: Joel McNally's column, "Truth in sentencing costly," caught my attention because I am incarcerated in a Wisconsin prison.
I found the article to be well written, and without any of the soft rhetoric that I so often hear. He was direct and to the point.
Wisconsin is the only state in the nation that does not require any jail time for a person's first offense drunken driving, yet the Legislature has changed the penalty for OWI homicide four times since 1992.
I'm incarcerated for OWI homicide and for causing two injuries while attempting to elude a Dane County sheriff's deputy on March 1, 2003. I'm where I belong. I received 15 years in prison and 20 years of extended supervision for my offenses.
I've met men in prison who have killed people with knives, guns and even a beer bottle. All of these men received less time than the people I have met in prison who killed someone by driving drunk. I can't be the only one who finds that to be a little odd!
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has sent me quite a few books on crash statistics. Allowing Wisconsin citizens to believe that if they don't hit anyone they will make it home safe is just not the truth.
For example, in 2002, out of the 129,072 total motor vehicle crashes in Wisconsin, 8,922 were alcohol-related (7 percent). That is, at least one driver, pedestrian or bicyclist involved in the crash had been drinking prior to the crash. Of those 8,922 crashes, 51 percent involved a vehicle striking a fixed object.
Someone has to let the citizens of Wisconsin know that they are more likely to kill themselves or someone in their car than kill someone else by crashing into them.
Gerald Lynch Jr. Jackson Correctional Institution Black River Falls
Published: January 24, 2007
Of those 8,922 crashes, 51 percent involved a vehicle striking a fixed object.
Someone has to let the citizens of Wisconsin know that they are more likely to kill themselves or someone in their car than kill someone else by crashing into them.
"Of those 8,922 crashes, 51 percent involved a vehicle striking a fixed object."
I hate it when a tree jumps out in front of my car!
Not sure what to think of it but very interesting. thanks for posting.
More serious.
That's news to me, and I don't think I believe it.
Gerald..you are exactly where you belong!
Yer right...I live in one that doesn't.
I agree that is odd.
Killing some one while driving drunk is stupid, negligent and thoughtless.
But it is not intentional homicide.
Punishment should take in to account whether the crime is intentional.
Actually, I think the guy meant to say just the opposite.
That would make more sense.
I wouldn't either. I've not heard of many (actually any, but I'm no expert) states that require jail on a first DUI. And my guess all, at least most, may when someone dies. He wasn't precise, but it's a letter to the editor.
It should. But most drunks who get behind the wheel know they're drunk, it is intentional. Get's messy though.
If I can find a link from a local paper, I'll post it, but I doubt I will.
A year or so I read of an incident where an individual with multiple DUIs and a suspended license was driving on a state highway, in Wisconsin.
Two unrelated witness' to the accident. He wasn't speeding, he had been drinking though possibly not legally drund, in the .06 to .1 area.
A car driven by a teenager ran a stop sign, he hit the car, one of the two or three teens in the car died. The teen driver wasn't high, just careless.
He was charged with manslaughter. I don't know how the case turned out. If he wasn't driving illegally, or the teen stopped at a stop sign, a life would have been saved.
He had no license, he should never have been behind the wheel.
The kid should never have died.
Manslaughter?
Sometimes I'm glad I'm not a Judge.
Why was I certain that that last sentence, spoken or not, played a major role in this article?
In my universe, that is always called "self-serving" and often irrationally so: other people are stupid, not me!
I have no sympathy for repeat offenders and I have known a few.
I have known two co-workers who lost there high paying jobs because of there inability to stop drinking and drinking and driving.
One of them had had several OWI offences but had never been in an accident.
His entire social network revolved around bars and booze. He could not admit that he had a problem.
It is sad. He was very good at his job, but you can’t take a chance with someone like that where safety of the public is concerned.
Had that man you mentioned not had a suspended license and been a repeat offender I would have sympathized with his plight.
Other than he was marginally above or below the legal intoxication limit he was not at fault. Yet he would be legally responsible in many states because he had been drinking. To me that is unjust.
The man has a point. WI needs to raise the penalty for intentional homicide to at least the same level as careless homicide.
"All of these men received less time than the people I have met in prison who killed someone by driving drunk."
First, codos to you for taking responsibility for your crime and doing your time without excuses.
Second, those other people should receive harder sentences. The argument that DUI homocides should be lighter isn't working with me.
The legislators set all guidelines for sentencing, not the judges. The legislators MANDATE that judges sentence a certain min DUI sentence. They don't do it for the other crimes. Talk to your representatives and lobbiest.
First offense DWI conviction in Alaska is 3 days, 2nd offense 20 days, 3rd off: 60 days, 4th off: 120 days, 5th off: 240 days, 6th off: 360 days. But, if it is a repeat off within the last 10 years, you fall into the Felony category and jail is way steeper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.