View Single Post
Old 08-21-2009, 03:42 PM   #8
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhuerbin88 View Post
But doesn't say something that Stallworth could even "pay" for his lesser sentence?
Stallworth "paying" for his lesser sentence, I think, was only a small factor in his sentence. It's a point, but, I certainly wouldn't consider it determinative in why he got his sentence.

Quote:
egardless if he didn't see the guy and was only .01 over the legal limit, I still think death trumps gun law violations in terms of a sentence.
So, then where would you draw the line?

First, you have the hurdle of proving Stallworth's guilt, which would not have been easy.

You have to do that before you can even begin to compare the two sentences.

Then you look at the gun violation compared to what Stallworth did. The question there is, would increased punishment seek to stop or lower the percent likelihood of potential harm for the offense? Do I think the mandatory minimum is a good law in Plax's case, not really, but, I think in terms of addressing the purpose it does so more than in Stallworth's case. The reasoning being that with Stallworth, there is less of a connection between the statute's punishment and the crime. For instance, someone who would otherwise illegally carry a gun in NY, might not carry it with them knowing that sentence. It's a different situation with DUI manslaughter because the harm you want to prevent is the DUI in the first place and the manslaughter is an element that is unknown.

As well, the idea that everyone who commits DUI manslaughter only gets 30 days, I think would also be incorrect. I would imagine that there have been greater sentences for DUI manslaughter than what Stallworth got.

I just don't see the point in trying to compare the two like you are doing.
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote