Stallworth Pleads Guilty To DUI Manslaughter

[hoosier]

.......and others familiar with the case don't agree with you.

Perhaps not all your "others".

My opinion stands. This is an outrage.

And I say your opinion means very little in comparison with those who know the details of the case or are personally affected by it. The MH article includes a number of local sources who have intimate knowledge of the case and who support the sentence (including the family of the victim), whereas the only sources you can find that share your outrage are the national chapter of MADD and a New York Times sports blog.

I know which side I find more convincing.

[pbmax]

Hardly anything gets me fired up but this is a FUCKING JOKE! He kills a guy and gets 30 days!!!! My God. We are a broken society.

Bottom Line that is the quote of the night. There is no way any of us this side of millions would get that sentence for KILLING SOMEOONE. Wow. Dude killed someone driving wasted. Wow. Just look at that. 30 days. Shit. Snake would kill about 3 guys on my hit list, if I could 30 days. DAMN.

Of course Snake, that would be murder, a completely different crime and the only place you would spend 30 days is the county lockup awaiting trial. After that, you get a few years somewhere less hospitable.

As for Society being broken, society and the legal system have been functioning along these lines for quite a long time, long before the internet made us keenly aware of what athletes on other teams are doing in the offseason. And long before football was America's #1 sport.

Sitting at home or work comfortably in front of your computer, people seem to refuse to see the difference between an intentional killing and an unintentional one. This is one simple fact that Vick apologists love to forget when they complain about his sentence versus Leonard Little's time served (apologies if that is the wrong player, I think its Little) for a DUI-influenced death.

Criminal punishments cannot be based on the outrage factor. For the victim's family, closure and a sense of justice cannot come from JUST a long prison sentence. Because if that is all you hang your hat on, then you inevitably will feel betrayed when they leave prison. Closure has to involve more than jail and a sense of revenge.

[Scott Campbell]

.......and others familiar with the case don't agree with you.

Perhaps not all your "others".

My opinion stands. This is an outrage.

And I say your opinion means very little in comparison with those who know the details of the case or are personally affected by it. The MH article includes a number of local sources who have intimate knowledge of the case and who support the sentence (including the family of the victim), whereas the only sources you can find that share your outrage are the national chapter of MADD and a New York Times sports blog.

I know which side I find more convincing.

I don't really care if my opinion means very little to you. That's not the point of having an opinion.

Perhaps you haven't been affected personally by a DUI.

[Scott Campbell]

For the victim's family, closure and a sense of justice cannot come from JUST a long prison sentence.

Ok, lets be honest here. It sure looks like the victims family views on justice are being swayed by a large monetary payment.

[hoosier]

.......and others familiar with the case don't agree with you.

Perhaps not all your "others".

My opinion stands. This is an outrage.

And I say your opinion means very little in comparison with those who know the details of the case or are personally affected by it. The MH article includes a number of local sources who have intimate knowledge of the case and who support the sentence (including the family of the victim), whereas the only sources you can find that share your outrage are the national chapter of MADD and a New York Times sports blog.

I know which side I find more convincing.

I don't really care if my opinion means very little to you. That's not the point of having an opinion.

Perhaps you haven't been affected personally by a DUI.

Whether or not I've been affected isn't the point, because this isn't about me. It's about Stallworth and the victim's family, and less immediately about the community or society as a whole.

The family, the prosecutor and the judge have all expressed their support for the sentence that was given, and have given compelling reasons as to why. Do you think your own feelings somehow outweigh those reasons? Do you think the family should have to relive the trauma of losing a father/husband/brother against their wishes so that others who have no direct stake in the situation can feel better? Do you think your feelings of moral outrage should take precedence over a plan for restitution and community service that might prevent something like this from happening again?

And what gives you this unique insight into the family's thinking?

Ok, lets be honest here. It sure looks like the victims family views on justice are being swayed by a large monetary payment.

[Scott Campbell]

And what gives you this unique insight into the family's thinking?

Run of the mill conventional cynicism.

[pbmax]

For the victim's family, closure and a sense of justice cannot come from JUST a long prison sentence.

Ok, lets be honest here. It sure looks like the victims family views on justice are being swayed by a large monetary payment.

So the uninvolved public should decide what is good for them?

From the outside, you think its about the money, but they may have also been impressed by Stallworth's free admission and his refusal to run away from the problem. Its much harder to forgive someone who can't even bring themselves to admit wrongdoing.

Actually, I have a low limit on how involved a victim or their family should be in sentencing. But if this follows the guidelines set by the legislature, then its OK by me.

[Scott Campbell]

The family, the prosecutor and the judge have all expressed their support for the sentence that was given, and have given compelling reasons as to why. Do you think your own feelings somehow outweigh those reasons? Do you think the family should have to relive the trauma of losing a father/husband/brother against their wishes so that others who have no direct stake in the situation can feel better? Do you think your feelings of moral outrage should take precedence over a plan for restitution and community service that might prevent something like this from happening again?

Here's what I get from your message - I can get stinking drunk, hop in my car, run your daughter over and leave her bloody corpse scattered all over the pavement, and buy you off for a few bucks and a "sincere apology".

30 days for killing a man? I am outraged.

[hoosier]

The family, the prosecutor and the judge have all expressed their support for the sentence that was given, and have given compelling reasons as to why. Do you think your own feelings somehow outweigh those reasons? Do you think the family should have to relive the trauma of losing a father/husband/brother against their wishes so that others who have no direct stake in the situation can feel better? Do you think your feelings of moral outrage should take precedence over a plan for restitution and community service that might prevent something like this from happening again?

Here's what I get from your message - I can get stinking drunk, hop in my car, run your daughter over and leave her bloody corpse scattered all over the pavement, and buy you off for a few bucks and a "sincere apology".

30 days for killing a man? I am outraged.

You conveniently leave out the part about the prosecutor, the local chapter of madd, and the judge also being on board with the sentence.

Your outrage is understandable. It's also a good reminder of why vigilante justice is a terrible idea. But then explain this to me: what sentence would NOT produce this sense of outrage? What is the "right" amount of time to put a person behind bars in order to make amends for killing someone while driving drunk? Do you think more prison time would somehow bring more justice?

[Scott Campbell]

What is the "right" amount of time to put a person behind bars in order to make amends for killing someone while driving drunk? Do you think more prison time would somehow bring more justice?

You were so quick to dismiss the source I provided that you may not have seen this:

"Extra point: A country like Sweden imposes severe penalties for drunk driving and has a far smaller rate of fatalities involving alcohol and car accidents. What’s the message sent by Stallworth’s sentence?"


I don't know what the exact right amount of time is. But it ain't 30 days.

[hoosier]

What is the "right" amount of time to put a person behind bars in order to make amends for killing someone while driving drunk? Do you think more prison time would somehow bring more justice?

You were so quick to dismiss the source I provided that you may not have seen this:

"Extra point: A country like Sweden imposes severe penalties for drunk driving and has a far smaller rate of fatalities involving alcohol and car accidents. What’s the message sent by Stallworth’s sentence?"


I don't know what the exact right amount of time is. But it ain't 30 days.

I'm not convinced that imposing strict penalties is the best way to modify this kind of behavior. If drunks as a species were good at taking consequences into consideration beforehand, we wouldn't have the problem to begin with. Just to drive my point home a little more, El Salvador used to have a law on the books that imposed death by firing squad for drunk drivers. Safe to say they didn't have many repeat offenders, but I'm not sure they didn't have a lot of first time duis.

[Fritz]

.......and others familiar with the case don't agree with you.

Perhaps not all your "others".

My opinion stands. This is an outrage.

And I say your opinion means very little in comparison with those who know the details of the case or are personally affected by it. The MH article includes a number of local sources who have intimate knowledge of the case and who support the sentence (including the family of the victim), whereas the only sources you can find that share your outrage are the national chapter of MADD and a New York Times sports blog.

I know which side I find more convincing.

I don't really care if my opinion means very little to you. That's not the point of having an opinion.

Perhaps you haven't been affected personally by a DUI.

Whether or not I've been affected isn't the point, because this isn't about me. It's about Stallworth and the victim's family, and less immediately about the community or society as a whole.

The family, the prosecutor and the judge have all expressed their support for the sentence that was given, and have given compelling reasons as to why. Do you think your own feelings somehow outweigh those reasons? Do you think the family should have to relive the trauma of losing a father/husband/brother against their wishes so that others who have no direct stake in the situation can feel better? Do you think your feelings of moral outrage should take precedence over a plan for restitution and community service that might prevent something like this from happening again?

And what gives you this unique insight into the family's thinking?

Ok, lets be honest here. It sure looks like the victims family views on justice are being swayed by a large monetary payment.

Hoosier, your words above that I've put into boldface type - you have to be careful. Certainly individual circumstances must be considered, and the victim's or the victim's family's wishes must be considered - but on the whole it really better not be about the guilty party and the victim, and "less immediately about the community or society as a whole."

If individuals can decide between them what punishments or payoffs are appropriate, then the level of justice will be even more unfair than it already is. No doubt that in general money can buy justice, but if there is no sense behind our legal system that this involves an entire society, then we're screwed.

It is about the community and society as a whole. That's where the whole system came from.

[Freak Out]

It is about the community and society as a whole. That's where the whole system came from.

When we get away from this we end up with a Serbian tribal style of justice with honor killings and buyouts.

[hoosier]

.......and others familiar with the case don't agree with you.

Perhaps not all your "others".

My opinion stands. This is an outrage.

And I say your opinion means very little in comparison with those who know the details of the case or are personally affected by it. The MH article includes a number of local sources who have intimate knowledge of the case and who support the sentence (including the family of the victim), whereas the only sources you can find that share your outrage are the national chapter of MADD and a New York Times sports blog.

I know which side I find more convincing.

I don't really care if my opinion means very little to you. That's not the point of having an opinion.

Perhaps you haven't been affected personally by a DUI.

Whether or not I've been affected isn't the point, because this isn't about me. It's about Stallworth and the victim's family, and less immediately about the community or society as a whole.

The family, the prosecutor and the judge have all expressed their support for the sentence that was given, and have given compelling reasons as to why. Do you think your own feelings somehow outweigh those reasons? Do you think the family should have to relive the trauma of losing a father/husband/brother against their wishes so that others who have no direct stake in the situation can feel better? Do you think your feelings of moral outrage should take precedence over a plan for restitution and community service that might prevent something like this from happening again?

And what gives you this unique insight into the family's thinking?

Ok, lets be honest here. It sure looks like the victims family views on justice are being swayed by a large monetary payment.

Hoosier, your words above that I've put into boldface type - you have to be careful. Certainly individual circumstances must be considered, and the victim's or the victim's family's wishes must be considered - but on the whole it really better not be about the guilty party and the victim, and "less immediately about the community or society as a whole."
If individuals can decide between them what punishments or payoffs are appropriate, then the level of justice will be even more unfair than it already is. No doubt that in general money can buy justice, but if there is no sense behind our legal system that this involves an entire society, then we're screwed.

It is about the community and society as a whole. That's where the whole system came from.

By "less immediately" I didn't mean that the interests of community and society should secondary to family, just that they aren't immediately visible in the court room and aren't always easy to discern, whereas the family and its wishes usually are. "At a more abstract level," in other words. I don't disagree at all with your point, by the way, that the legal system works primarily for the good of the whole and not in the interests of those immediately affected, even if the good of the whole can be hard to fathom sometimes.

[Fritz]

Right. It's just a question of emphasis. I think we're on the same page here.

Unless my post is the beginning of a new page of the thread. Then we wouldn't be on the same page.