http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_re_us/wedding_crash;_ylt=AnLJaJVMjvjvtkWAj_ZlW5PMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
http://tinyurl.com/wduky
"Jury convicts man of murder in DWI case By FRANK ELTMAN, Associated Press Writer
19 minutes ago
MINEOLA, N.Y. - A jury convicted a man on Tuesday of murder for driving drunk the wrong way on a highway, slamming head-on into a wedding limousine and killing the chauffeur and a 7-year-old flower girl.
Prosecutors said Martin Heidgen, 25, drove his pickup truck more than 2 miles on the Long Island highway before ramming head-on into the limousine in July 2005. They contended Heidgen never tried to stop and turned slightly toward the limousine in the seconds before the crash.
Heidgen, of Valley Stream, had at least 14 drinks before getting behind the wheel; his blood-alcohol level, 0.28, was more than three times the 0.08 legal limit in New York state, prosecutors said.
Kate Flynn and limousine driver Stanley Rabinowitz, 59, were killed. Five other members of the Flynn family were injured.
A scream echoed through the courtroom as the murder conviction was read, with several of the jurors in tears as the slain girl's mother collapsed sobbing into her weeping husband's arms. The verdict followed a gut-wrenching, five-week trial that was filled with gruesome images and testimony.
Jennifer Flynn, who testified about holding her daughter's decapitated head immediately after the wreck, praised the jury for its decision.
"It was the right verdict," she said. "I'm happy for that."
Jurors, who deliberated for five days, saw a horrifying video from the limousine's surveillance camera that showed Heidgen's pickup truck barreling toward the car moments before the crash. It ended with the metal-on-metal crunch of the two vehicles colliding.
..."
Originally posted by flexmoreIf you get behind the wheel of a machine that can potentially kill, and you're not able to properly operate that machine because you don't have reasonable control of all your bodily functions, you should be harshly punished for that negligence.
murder involves deliberate killing.
did this person set out to deliberately kill?
or was it his intention to be criminally negligent?
-I say that all drunken driving arrests should be punished by taking away the driving licence for 5 years, and a 1 year mandatory jail term with no early release. (Suspension of license would start after the jail time is served.)
-However, if an injury is caused that is non-fatal, the punishment should be the same as above, but with 3 years in jail with no early release.
-If a death occurs because of the drunk, the punishment should be a 10 year suspension of license, with 10 years minimum behind bars, no parole.
The reason why there is such a high recidivism rate among drunk drivers is because the punishments are too light, just a simple slap on the wrist.
Originally posted by WildfireNot so sure about your recidivism reasoning.
If you get behind the wheel of a machine that can potentially kill, and you're not able to properly operate that machine because you don't have reasonable control of all your bodily functions, you should be harshly punished for that negligence.
-I say that all drunken driving arrests should be punished by taking away the driving licence for 5 years, and ...[text shortened]... among drunk drivers is because the punishments are too light, just a simple slap on the wrist.
If you're right, how do you explain people continuing to commit offences that will guarantee them the death penalty? That's as harsh as you can get and yet people still commit crimes that will lead to this penalty.
I think it might be more related to the 'it can't happen to me' mentality that infects all of us throughout our adolescent years, and for many continues to afflict them into adulthood.
Smoking cigarettes is a nice example of this because for many it's true.
If I smoke this cigarette, I'll be alright, cancer's not going to happen to me.
Likewise, if I drive my car after drinking, I'll be alright - I might even swerve in front of a few cars just for fun.
The notion of dying or of killing someone doesn't enter into it, since ... it can't happen to me.
Penalties and their severity are in this case irrelevant.
Originally posted by amannionyou can't 'continue to commit offences that will guarantee you the death penalty' if you've received the death penalty.
Not so sure about your recidivism reasoning.
If you're right, how do you explain people continuing to commit offences that will guarantee them the death penalty? That's as harsh as you can get and yet people still commit crimes that will lead to this penalty.
I think it might be more related to the 'it can't happen to me' mentality that infects all of u ...[text shortened]... ... it can't happen to me.
Penalties and their severity are in this case irrelevant.
also, although ' -some- people continue to commit', ' -some- 'is a lot smaller number than it would be were there is an active deterrence.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou know what I meant.
you can't 'continue to commit offences that will guarantee you the death penalty' if you've received the death penalty.
also, although ' -some- people continue to commit', ' -some- 'is a lot smaller number than it would be were there is an active deterrence.
People continue to commit crimes even knowing that others have been sentenced to death for these same type of crimes.
I'm not sure how much more active a deterent you could get than to sentence someone to death. But let's assume that you're talking about getting tougher on crime and all that jazz, there's always going to be a cost-benefit analysis on spending more in some areas of society and spending less in others.
Is spending more on policing, prisons, deterence or whatever justified by the rewards of less crime? Or might less be spent on these with some of the root causes of such crime being addressed instead - sort of like a 'give a man a fish, or teach him how to fish' thing.
you don't have to spend more. you could spend a lot less.
all that money spent on prisons is unnecessary. there are many islands in alaska available for exile.
as far as actually implementing such a plan ... there are far too many people dependent on the present system for it to ever be voted in.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou're probably right.
you don't have to spend more. you could spend a lot less.
all that money spent on prisons is unnecessary. there are many islands in alaska available for exile.
as far as actually implementing such a plan ... there are far too many people dependent on the present system for it to ever be voted in.
And in fact, a solution that exiles criminals from a society in such a way is probably likely to be far more successful in reducing the crime than one that merely imprisons or executes them.