[Atlas Sneezed]

I tend to agree that the sentence is excessive. First, past arrests aren't convictions. Second, the punishment should fit the crime, and let past punishments fit past crimes. Third, I sure hope that people who INTEND to kill others aren't being sentenced to less than 20 years, EVER.

Even the worst imaginable recklessness is vastly different from murder.

Frankly, if 5 years won't sober the guy, 20 won't. If the only justification is to take him off the road for as long as possible, then the justification is no different than for using the death penalty for unintended killings flowing from reckless actions.

I am also curious about his BAC. Lots of people drive at BAC levels (0.05-0.12) that used to be legal when the levels were established by medical evidence, and not political correctness. If one of those moderately impaired people (no more a risk than a sober teenager, cell-phoner, tired driver or octagenarian) happens to have an accident that happens to cause a fatality (and the accident might have occurred even if sober, as accidents often do) it would be wrong to throw that person in jail. (He should of course be financially liable for his negligence.)

[cgordon]

He did intend to kill. He intentionally got himself drunk and high on drugs and then intentionally got behind the wheel of a car. He intentionally put himself in a situation to take the life of another human being. No matter how you cut it, it is murder.

"financially liable for his negligence"? The person he is financially liable to is DEAD!

[mombonn]

sheesh, the only excuse you didn't make for this guy was "the devil made him do it."

A man is DEAD because of his decision to drink, drug, and drive.

20 years sounds just fine to me.

[Bogey78O]

He was sentenced to 20 years. That doesn't mean he'll spend 20. Odds are he'll spend 10 or so then they'll release him under parole.