dude was *not* gonna stop...

Life? That is a bit harshiathink. Take his license, forbid him to own a car...but life in jail??? Article didn't state is he's ever been in an accident or not.. but life?

/doesn't drink
//anti drink driving

It's official, DUI laws are out of control.

Not harsh enough

Makes a 10 year stint in the slammer for pot look like summer camp. Don't ya think?

timmy_the_tooth: It's official, DUI laws are out of control.

It's official- anyone who drives intoxicated ten times is not going to stop doing so and is putting the rest of us at risk.

If it was his tenth time running down a street firing a weapon blindly, not caring if anyone was going to get hurt, you'd think differently.

Fark that idiot. People like that don't change. He's where he belongs.

It's for his 10th DUI. That makes him a threat to public safety. Justified, IMO.

santadog: Take his license, forbid him to own a car

Somehow, I don't think these would matter to him.

And rapists get 7 years.

R.A.Danny: And rapists get 7 years.

Not for their tenth time.

revrendjim: R.A.Danny: And rapists get 7 years.

Not for their tenth time.

This guy is yet to harm another person.

good....

DUI is potentially dangerous, there is potential for death and injury, and the likelihood he will stop is slim, but the punishment does not fit the crime because the punishment is absolute while the potential for future harm is not.

It is a reactionary sentence, not a rational one.

Dogberry: santadog: Take his license, forbid him to own a car

Somehow, I don't think these would matter to him.

Well then chop his fingers off so he can't hold keys or something.

You're right, Subby. They should wait until he kills your wife and kid, then jail him for life. Then he'll learn.

Ok, I just noticed my Boobies. I typed "Harshiathink, and the filter turned it into "Harshiathink"

Crap, make him drive a motorcycle or golf cart and the problem will solve itself.

timmy_the_tooth: DUI is potentially dangerous, there is potential for death and injury, and the likelihood he will stop is slim, but the punishment does not fit the crime because the punishment is absolute while the potential for future harm is not.

It is a reactionary sentence, not a rational one.

Purelilac: You're right, Subby. They should wait until he kills your wife and kid, then jail him for life. Then he'll learn.

Sadly, timmy is right.

"The jury handed down a big sentence, but it was a just sentence," Hoover said. "The jury apparently took this offense seriously and wanted to send a message that a multiple-DWI offender was not going to be allowed back on the roads of Wichita County."



Does the phrase 'cruel and unusual punishment' mean anything to these idiots?

Fine. take away his license. make sure he cannot buy a car ever again. that's all wonderful. But life inprisonment? FOR BEING A DRUNK!?

Purelilac: You're right, Subby. They should wait until he kills your wife and kid, then jail him for life. Then he'll learn.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what you do. Because you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. There is no such thing as a 'department of pre-crime' here, we have to wait for someone to actually commit a crime before throwing them in jail for the rest of their lives.

He wasn't found guilty of a pre-crime or pre-murder. He was found guilty of drunk driving 10 times. That is a crime.

Purelilac: He wasn't found guilty of a pre-crime or pre-murder. He was found guilty of drunk driving 10 times. That is a crime.

I can't WAIT for us to have felony obesity or felony smoking convictions.

Purelilac: That is a crime.

That is a bunch of moving violations.

R.A.Danny: Purelilac: That is a crime.

That is a bunch of moving violations.

traffic laws can now result in life inprisonment.

Land of the free/home of the brave.

Weaver95: Purelilac: He wasn't found guilty of a pre-crime or pre-murder. He was found guilty of drunk driving 10 times. That is a crime.

I can't WAIT for us to have felony obesity or felony smoking convictions.

Really?? Did you honest to God just compare drunk driving to being overweight?? Wow.

Ni!: Really?? Did you honest to God just compare drunk driving to being overweight?? Wow.

We're through the looking glass here. some guy just got LIFE for violating traffic laws.

Life in prison. Traffic laws.

So it isn't much of a stretch to see us enact universal health care and then get citations for not following government instructions to lose weight 'or else'. After all, we're apparently throwing people into jail for farking moving violations.

Ni!: Really?? Did you honest to God just compare drunk driving to being overweight?? Wow.

The state could've just refused to give back his license after a couple convictions. There's no mention of him driving without a license, so apparently he had one.

Weaver95: Yes, that is EXACTLY what you do. Because you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. There is no such thing as a 'department of pre-crime' here, we have to wait for someone to actually commit a crime before throwing them in jail for the rest of their lives.

Dude, you're just flat-assed wrong. Reckless endangerment is a crime, Weaver. Besides, there are lots of incohate crimes that don't require the consummation of the act to be criminal.

How many DUI's do you have, anyway?

How many DUI's do you have, anyway?

That's what I'm wondering. The idiot seems to think it's perfectly farking harmless.

timmy_the_tooth: the punishment is absolute while the potential for future harm is not

BULL! This guy has been CAUGHT nine times. How many times has he driven drunk and got away with it? Fry the bastard. He obviously doesn't care if he can't control his vehicle while intoxicated which means he is a public menace.

Sir Roderick Glossop: Besides, there are lots of incohate crimes that don't require the consummation of the act to be criminal.

Ah yes, our wonderful 'terrorist watch list'. nobody knows how you get on it and there's no way to get off it...but you find yourself being punished and not having commited any crime of any sort. Great jorb!

How many DUI's do you have, anyway?

None. I got family who are judges and cops dude.

eddyatwork: timmy_the_tooth: the punishment is absolute while the potential for future harm is not

BULL! This guy has been CAUGHT nine times. How many times has he driven drunk and got away with it? Fry the bastard. He obviously doesn't care if he can't control his vehicle while intoxicated which means he is a public menace.

If he had killed someone while driving drunk, I would tend to agree with you....but if ALL he got was a DUI charge then this sentence is definately 'cruel and unusual'.

Weaver95: Ah yes, our wonderful 'terrorist watch list'. nobody knows how you get on it and there's no way to get off it...but you find yourself being punished and not having commited any crime of any sort. Great jorb!.

What about things like "attempted (fill in charge here)" "conspiracy to (fill in charge here)" "reckless endangerment" etc.

Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought about criminal law- objectivist and subjectivist. You seem to be squarely in the former, while most "modern" (as defined by acceptance of the Model Penal Code- c/w common law codes) jurisdictions are in the latter.

Hence your frustration.

This is not like the judge just up and decided to throw down life in prison on the guy. He KNEW what he faced:

The offense was a felony because he had at least two such convictions in the past, prosecutors said. He faced from 25 years to life in prison.

Do people still read the articles around here? You guys against this are making it seem like this came out of left field. He's had multiple convictions on this offense, he knew full well the consequences he faced if he did it again.

Weaver95: Purelilac: You're right, Subby. They should wait until he kills your wife and kid, then jail him for life. Then he'll learn.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what you do. Because you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. There is no such thing as a 'department of pre-crime' here, we have to wait for someone to actually commit a crime before throwing them in jail for the rest of their lives.


He's GUILTY of committing an offense that is on the books, MULTPILE times. Now had he been picked up in a bar, drunk with keys in hand for the intention of drunk driving, that's a "pre-crime", but this is different. He was convicted of drunk driving in the past. Knew full well what would happen if he did it again, and he did it again anyways.

santadog: Take his license

You think he still had one after nine priors?

Sir Roderick Glossop: Hence your frustration.

I believe that, sooner or later, any law can and will be corrupted to serve someone's political ends. When that happens, the law should be repealed and entirely re-written.

This case appears to be a severe mis-carrage of justice. But hey, it's texas. They toilet train kids at gunpoint down there. So go ahead and throw people into jail for life if they run too many stop signs. But don't expect the rest of the country to think it's sane or even handed behavior from adults. This is simply vindictiveness on the part of the judge and jury.

eddyatwork: BULL! This guy has been CAUGHT nine times. How many times has he driven drunk and got away with it? Fry the bastard. He obviously doesn't care if he can't control his vehicle while intoxicated which means he is a public menace.

Did you just base a judgment on the concept of potential crimes committed in the past?

I want this guy off the street as much as anyone else, but the concept of life in prison for crimes he might commit is a slippery slope.

Why not give him 20 years? He'd be out on parole in 10 or 12 years or whatever, and if he got caught doing it again he'd go right back in for the remainder, getting out when he was 78.

He deserves a very harsh sentence, but life in prison for something that didn't result in a death is disproportionate IMO.

Multiple DUI sentences, especially for people driving at .2x, have needed to be harsher, but this is an overreaction.

Sir Roderick Glossop: Reckless endangerment is a crime

Ever see someone get a life sentence for it.

onecanshort: He's GUILTY of committing an offense that is on the books, MULTPILE times. Now had he been picked up in a bar, drunk with keys in hand for the intention of drunk driving, that's a "pre-crime", but this is different. He was convicted of drunk driving in the past. Knew full well what would happen if he did it again, and he did it again anyways.

Oh, right - TRAFFIC laws are FELONY offenses now. So run that stop sign three times in a row and you can be this guy's roomie for life.

great plan ya got there!

tallguywithglasseson: Ever see someone get a life sentence for it.

Never seen anyone farking stupid enough to do it nine times.

Fellows: eddyatwork: BULL! This guy has been CAUGHT nine times. How many times has he driven drunk and got away with it? Fry the bastard. He obviously doesn't care if he can't control his vehicle while intoxicated which means he is a public menace.

Did you just base a judgment on the concept of potential crimes committed in the past?

I want this guy off the street as much as anyone else, but the concept of life in prison for crimes he might commit is a slippery slope.

What do you mean crimes he might commit? He was caught on ten separate occasions of a felony offense!! He KNEW what he faced if he did it again. Is life in prison harsh for drunk driving? Yes.

So you know what? DON'T farkING DRUNK DRIVE THEN TIMES AND YOU WONT GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE!

Laws aren't put into place to be fair to criminals, there put into place to protect the citizens.

tallguywithglasseson: He deserves a very harsh sentence, but life in prison for something that didn't result in a death is disproportionate IMO.

that needed repeating, since some of you idiots aren't grasping the obvious.

Sir Roderick Glossop: tallguywithglasseson: Ever see someone get a life sentence for it.

Never seen anyone farking stupid enough to do it nine times.

Ok, so we've established that this sentence is grossly unfair. Progress at last!

abb3w: You think he still had one after nine priors?

The article doesn't mention him being nailed for driving without a license.

onecanshort: Laws aren't put into place to be fair to criminals, there put into place to protect the citizens.

wait'll someone decides to 'protect' us from tobacco, obesity and file trading. What then, O wise one?

onecanshort: Laws aren't put into place to be fair to criminals, there put into place to protect the citizens.

There's a whole slew of laws that appear little interested with protecting citizens.

onecanshort: What do you mean crimes he might commit?

He said:

"How many times has he driven drunk and got away with it?"

That's completely irrelevant and dangerous thinking.

And yet we can't get the drunk drivers who ACTUALLY kill people behind bars for more than six months. What the christ.

Weaver95: onecanshort: He's GUILTY of committing an offense that is on the books, MULTPILE times. Now had he been picked up in a bar, drunk with keys in hand for the intention of drunk driving, that's a "pre-crime", but this is different. He was convicted of drunk driving in the past. Knew full well what would happen if he did it again, and he did it again anyways.

Oh, right - TRAFFIC laws are FELONY offenses now. So run that stop sign three times in a row and you can be this guy's roomie for life.

great plan ya got there!

This isn't a traffic law. He didn't roll a stop sign. Didn't have a tail light out. He wasn't speeding.

He was operating a 2 ton mass of steel while plastered.

On so many occasions he was caught ten times doing so.

Do I think life in prison is harsh? Sure. But it's harsh because it's supposed to be a deterrent. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.