[DCPatriot]

WHOA!!! Twenty years?

TWENTY YEARS??

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

You cannot equate an automobile, under the influence of alcohol with a Saturday-nite special used in a crime.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

"State District 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."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read this before posting.

[Movemout]

" 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. "

Maybe you missed this little tidbit.

[antidisestablishment]

You're absolutely right. Lethal injection would be more appropriate. He killed someone in commission of a felony.

[Slip18]

He was arrested 37 times in 27 years. He's 45 years old.

Every 8.76 months he has been arrested on average. He's been doing this since he was 18 years old.

He's a drug addict and alcoholic. He killed someone, injured his girl friend, then walked away. He doesn't belong behind the wheel of any vehicle. 20 years is definitely in order.

I congratulate the judge.

[cgordon]

Really? How long would you have given this guy had it been your son, father or brother that had been murdered? Weather a gun, a car, a knife, a ballbat or your bare hands - murder is murder - under the influence or not. I think 20 years is getting off easy for God says that a murderer shall be put to death...atleast this guy will be able to live for the next 20 years - even if it is in a prison...

Num.35
[16] And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
[17] And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
[18] Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
[21] Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.
[30] Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
[31] Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

[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.)

[PatrioticAmerican]

You mean killing someone with a car while knowingly drunk and knowing that drunk driving kills is not the same as murder by a firearm? I'd say that it is even far worse as the drunk has no idea who his victim may be.

I'd equate drunk driving with firing a gun randomly in a neighborhood.

[meandog]

You cannot equate an automobile, under the influence of alcohol with a Saturday-nite special used in a crime.

You're right, a SNS should draw 40-to-life!

[Oberon]

I'm a staunch Conservative, but the sentence is totally too long. You cannot equate an automobile, under the influence of alcohol with a Saturday-nite special used in a crime.

"Change your name, or change your ways." - Alexander of Macedon

[Joe Hadenuf]

WHOA!!! Twenty years? TWENTY YEARS?? I'm a staunch Conservative, but the sentence is totally too long.

Unless of course it was your boy, girl, wife or brother that was killed and buried.

[Guillermo]

Did you take into account the prior 36 arrests, like the Judge did?

I'd almost say 20 years isn't long enough.

[ruoflaw]

Oh we most certainly can! When a person allows him or herself to get intoxicated and then operates a motor vehicle and causes a collision which causes the death of another....then he or she is a murderer and what is worse is this no good man left the scene to protect himself! Do the math....this man has had all those arrests since he was 17 or 18 years old. This was no accident...it was murder and I wouldn't care if they throw away the keys!

[TC Rider]

You forgot to close your sarcasm tag.

< /sarcasm >

Better don your Nomex underwear.

[omega4412]

A DUI killing should be defined as murder with special circumstances.

[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.

[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.

[Trailerpark Badass]

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

Hardly. The killer has shown without question that he is incorrigible. He should be imprisoned for as long as the law allows, if for no other reason than to protect society from his lawlessness.

Even so, I think the penalty is far too easy.