Man sobs, sentenced to 20 years

The Advocate ^ | 11/14/02 | Marlene Naanes

[PatrioticAmerican]

Doing something that is known to be a cause of death is indeed punishable as though the person intended to kill.

Driving drunk, shooting a firearm in a neightborhood, etc., are know killers, and, as such, doing those acts are punishable as thought the person intended to kill.

The person in each case knows that the result may be the death of another. If they knowingly do these acts, then they are knowingly placing the life of others at risk.
Therefore, they do intend to kill. They certainly didn't intend to ensure the safety of others.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"The real crime here is the court system that allowed him to reach 37 arrests. "

Yep. The man deserves what he got, but our system is waaaaaaaay broken!

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I deny that a drunk driving death is unintentional. It's about as unintentional as me pointing a loaded gun at your head and pulling the trigger, then telling the judge I thought the safety was on."

If you truly thought the safety was on, I would agree with you.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"You are aware that the convicted is eligable for parole after 10 years, this sentence on it's face (20 years) may seem harsh to some, (not me), but in reality he is looking at no more than 15 years, which considering that he caused the death of another person, is not excessive at all."

As long as those who intend the death of others is punished more harshly, I'm OK with that.

[cinFLA]

If he had been incarcerated for a couple of years at say, his 5th offense, then this person *might* still be alive.

Agreed. We give him two years for each conviction after the fifth. That makes it about 64 years you are recommending?

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Driving drunk, shooting a firearm in a neighborhood, etc., are known killers, and, as such, doing those acts are punishable as thought the person intended to kill."

So are speeding, hunting, paying with matches, smoking in bed, and piloting. All these have been known to kill others. Yet we make distinctions based on mental states, and acknowledge that most of the time no harm comes from these risky activities. I think we would also agree that a drunk driver who kills has probably drivin drunk on average hundreds of times without killing, just as firing a bullet in the air in a populated neighborhood is very unlikely to kill. Compare those who intend to kill; they tend to be far more likely to fulfill their intentions.

"The person in each case knows that the result may be the death of another. If they knowingly do these acts, then they are knowingly placing the life of others at risk.
Therefore, they do intend to kill."

Knowing endangerment should not be punished the same as intended killing. Centuries of law have accepted that without controversey.

Now, if you tell me that reckless homicide is punished with 20 years, and intentional homicide is always punished with life in prison, or death, I'd accept the proportioality of that.

[DCPatriot]

Boy, these folks are tough!

[bassmaner]

I'm a staunch Conservative, but the sentence is totally too long.

This case is not easy, any way you look at it.

On one hand, this guy's recklessness resulted in the death of an innocent man. One could argue on those grounds that a 20-year sentence (or more) is perfectly justified.

But drunk driving is not like murder, robbery, rape, ag-assault, or anything like that in the fact that the drunk behind the wheel that kills does not kill with criminal intent: i.e., in most cases, the drunk driver is not a sociopath. In no way does that assertion excuse the drunk driver's behavior, but consider this: anyone could potentially wind up in Bennett's shoes. A mistake in judgement coupled with an unfortunate set of circumstances could land a person that never drove drunk before in the same boat. Perhaps that's why some judges are reluctant to throw the book at drunk drivers: they look at the defendant and imagine themselves in his place - "there but for the grace of God go I".

Being a chronic repeat offender, however, requires a rather harsh sentence. If I was the sentencing judge in this case, I would give him 5 years, put him on parole for the rest of his life when he's released, permanently revoke his license, and make living in an area served by public transportation a condition of his parole.

And, yes, I think a 5-year jail sentence is sufficiently harsh. For our criminal justice system to not be viewed as arbitrary and capricious, multi-decade, life, and death-penalty sentences should be reserved for SOCIOPATHS that really do commit violent crimes with criminal intent. Let's face it: DUI laws and sentences do have political overtones courtesy of the prohibitionist harpies at MADD, and politicians will trip over themselves to appear "tough on DUI" to those shrill latter-day Carrie Nations. Not too long ago, DUI offenses weren't even crimes; now, due to such shameless political pandering, they're viewed on a par with murder. I hope eventually sanity prevails, and DUI offenses will judged on an individual basis and defendants punished fairly.

Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

[PatrioticAmerican]

The thing is that any one of those actions may kill, and if they do, someone goes to jail. He drove drunk, killing someone. So he goes to jail. He did an act that placed the public at risk and that act killed someone. Such a risk needs to be locked up. We, as a society, cannot have such a risk. His jailing isn't so much punishment as it is our trust that he will not do this again. Predators on society, such a rapists and robbers, and people without regard to our safety, such a drunks who drive, need not be with us.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"and intentional homicide is always punished with life in prison"


You used the word "always". "Always" is never a fact of law. The fact is that murder can be, and routinely is, punished with life in jail or death, and manslaughter or unintentional homicide is routinely punished with less than life.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"does not kill with criminal intent"

Driving drunk is a known criminal offense with known possible consequences of crashing into and killing or seriously injuring someone. As such, his driving drunk is criminal intent, not to mention that he has been prosecuted many, many times before for the same offense.

[vnix]

I don't know what this fool was crying about, the judge did him a favor. He's not only a danger to society, he's a danger to himself. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, I am a recovering alcoholic. I drank since I was 7 years old, and when I was 27 I finally realized it was time to get help. I did alot of crazy things, but I refused to drink and drive. Now I was a stone cold, hardcore drunk to the tune of about 3 gallons of whiskey a week (it's cheaper when you buy in bulk) But I never once allowed myself to drink and drive. EVER. I don't buy any crap about not being able to make the right decisions because I was drunk. Being a drunk was a wrong decision, however, there are still responsibilities we are required to take on regardless of certain "illnesses". I have no sympathy for this guy, and the justice system is in need of serious overhauling. This guy should've been locked up long ago. Frankly, for the first offense, the license should be revoked for one year, second offense, the guy should never be allowed to drive again. By the way, I've been sober almost 12 years now.

[RightOnline]

"...Judge Todd Hernandez told Bennett, who was arrested 37 times in 27 years, that he had enough chances and sentenced him to 20 years in prison for vehicular homicide."

Read this again, and then tell me how this sentence was too stiff.

[monday]

"I'm a staunch Conservative, but the sentence is totally too long."

He was arrested 36 times before for this kind of thing. How do you explain to the family of his next victim that 20 years was too long and he deserved to be let out sooner. This guy might not mean to kill people, but it is clear he has no control over his actions. People like that cannot be allowed to harm others. It is sad but true.

[monday]

"Is jailing this man for 20 years an excessive punishment? "

What is a life worth to you? How many years should he forfit for taking everything his victim had?

[Atlas Sneezed]

"...Judge Todd Hernandez told Bennett, who was arrested 37 times in 27 years, that he had enough chances and sentenced him to 20 years in prison for vehicular homicide."

"Read this again, and then tell me how this sentence was too stiff."

Convictions for similar offenses are pertinent. Arrests that do not lead to conviction are not.

[monday]

"Convictions for similar offenses are pertinent. Arrests that do not lead to conviction are not. "

You say that like everyone has had a few arrests for drunk driving and for which they were not convicted? LOL..how many do you have? I would say that arrests are as good an indication of his propensity for drunk driving as are his convictions.

[ruoflaw]

take away his driver's license? What made you think he still had his drivers license? Repeat offenders of 4-6 or more DUI offenses no longer have a driver's license nor do they have insurance...but they don't care! They drive any way. They think their needs is way bigger then the public's right to be safe on our highways. These repeat offenders are a menace to society and they belong behind bars....this guy deserved what he got.

[bassmaner]

Driving drunk is a known criminal offense

True enough, but consider this: it's only been 20 years that most of America has treated it as such. Murder, rape, robbery, etc. have always been considered crimes in a civilized society, but DUI has for the most part only been deemed a crime in the early '80's.

Once again, I'm not saying this to excuse Bennett's behavior: he deserves harsh punishment for his horrifically negligent act. My point is that it doesn't rise to the level of what we've always considered violent crimes: there's no (to use the legal term) "mens rea" - legal intent - involved in drunk driving. In other words, he didn't set out to victimize the man that was killed. That's what (IMO) makes the difference between a reasonable sentence (5 years) and an overzealous, unreasonable sentence (20 years).

[bassmaner]

These repeat offenders are a menace to society and they belong behind bars

I agree, but 20 years is a bit too harsh and capricious. 5 years would be more reasonable, and coupled with a lifetime on parole, would be more than enough to send a message to this guy, who, IMHO, is a chronic drunk but NOT a sociopath.