Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

S/O Why shouldn't impaired driving (impaired meaning alcohol, drugs or cellphone use) have mandatory minimum sentencing?

What possible reason is there to give people second/third/fourth chances for doing something so fundamentally stupid and dangerous?

Answer Question

Asked by NotPanicking at 10:20 AM on Jun. 19, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,174 Credits)
Answers (11)
  • There is no reason. Just our justice system being stupid and selfish. Stupid because they don't want to punish people and selfish because they know most will do it again and the courts make more money each time.

    Answer by LostSoul88 at 10:23 AM on Jun. 19, 2013

  • I know that in OH, with each addition DUI offense, the penalties do go up. But you have to wonder at what point the court should just realize that the repeat offender just isn't getting it & just throw their butts in jail for years, before they end up hurting or killing someone!

    Answer by mrsmom110 at 10:31 AM on Jun. 19, 2013

  • Great question. I'm sure there's some BS law/reason but I can't think of a good excuse.

    Answer by maecntpntz219 at 12:01 PM on Jun. 19, 2013

  • There should be minimum sentencing. Why there is not, that' a good question. I have an uncle who was finally told after his eighth DUI offense that next time, he would go to the state prison. What did he do? Moved to another state and got a clean slate. Now he's got 47 more states to go, and hopefully he won't kill anybody in the process. It's unconscionable.

    Answer by Ballad at 1:07 PM on Jun. 19, 2013

  • ^^^Ballad- there has to be a way to cross check these types of things. Does he have a license in the other state or is he just driving anyway? I'm betting no insurance co. will insure him either, which means if he does injure or kill someone, they won't even get their medical bills covered. How sad.


    Answer by mrsmom110 at 1:48 PM on Jun. 19, 2013

  • It should. The kid who killed my dad texting and driving essentially got away with murder.

    Answer by Izsarejman at 2:35 PM on Jun. 19, 2013

  • When a crime is subject to a mandatory minimum sentencing law, the judge has much less discretion in setting your punishment. If you plead guilty or are found guilty at trial, you will get at least the minimum sentence set by law. The judge is not permitted to impose a shorter sentence. Even if there are facts that would normally provide a reason for leniency, the judge must ignore those factors. For example, if you were the principal offender or just an accessory, whether you hurt someone or actively tried to avoid hurting anyone or what your mental state at the time of the crime. Can you imagine getting 5 yrs in the federal pen for unknowingly harboring a fugitive?? There was a fact based movie called Guilty by Association who gets 20 yrs because her 'boyfriend' been dealing drugs for quite some time, and when he was caught, him on the other dealers blamed her...

    Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 6:16 PM on Jun. 19, 2013

  • >> claiming she was his accomplice all along, when in fact she was not. They all made deals with the DA and turned her in and a few others. And the MMS said she gets 20 yrs. MMS can be a good thing if it was more based on the 3 strike laws.

    Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 6:25 PM on Jun. 19, 2013


    Answer by Dardenella at 12:09 AM on Jun. 20, 2013

  • It should. The kid who killed my dad texting and driving essentially got away with murder
    Omg I am so sorry. That is horrible. :(

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 5:43 PM on Jun. 20, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.