Dear Mitchell Nussbaum, I appreciate your information, particularly in hearing that certain recent cases have similarly demanded 15 year sentences from Wisconsin judges.
But yet you seem to have lost the gist of my writing on the subject much as Jeff Schimpff seems to have done. Possibly it is the mentality today that any form of rehabilitation is not to be considered in prisons and sentencing. If people are not capable of change, it seems sentences should all be lifetime for all anti-social behavior? And maybe the term "manslaughter" is no longer a legal term and ""homicide and causing injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle" is how that is described. I cannot see how that volume of alcohol has much to do with the question if the "legal limit" is exceeded. And double speed is not much relevant. Bridge speed might be 15mph and certainly not more than 25mph. Now that the same alcohol limit applies to boats and snow mobiles, I wonder if the snow mobile "homicides" will garner fifteen year sentences? We pretty much "throw away the key" with other crimes, also. That is true of sex crimes. Upon release, they are not allowed to live in society. Strangely, with all the right-wing law and order hard line on crime attitudes, we nevertheless do feel others in society can change habits developed in poor environments and inner city criminal environments through our educational systems. How can that be if at the same time we feel as in Mrs. Burr's case, we as individuals are so locked in our "bad ways" that it takes fifteen years to shape up on drinking, driving, and endangerment? (Certainly she did not intend to ad homicide.) Anyway, you get my point. --Rehabilitation rather than simply following the assumption that habits trump and therefore necessite long sentences to deter and provide that warm feeling of Old Testament revenge. Actually, in looking at the job ads, I believe the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has largely closed up education facilities. I see no benefit for fifteen years as opposed to five for this woman. And the same goes for other behaviors deemed a menace like drug use which now fills our Wisconsin prisons to double capacity. Eric Mitchell Nussbaum wrote: > According to the articles I found, she was convicted of "homicide and > causing injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle." She ran down these > riders at around 2 pm. (which is generally considered to be "daylight > hours") after drinking "seven beers and two whiskey shots" at the tavern > where she worked the morning shift. (This info is from > http://www.twincities.com/ci_8303197) So she drank more alcohol than I > ever have in my life -- even in my carefree student days at UW-Madison -- > and got her blood alcohol level up to .0246%, got behind the wheel (I'm > surprised she could figure out where to put the ignition key), and > proceeded to run down three bicyclists. > > Sometimes Wisconsin courts are amazingly forgiving when a motorist runs > down a bicyclist (e.g. Jessica Bullen's death), but this case was just too > blatant. If you do a Google News search on "drunk driving sentence killed > wisconsin" you'll find several recent cases where drunk drivers killed > pedestrians or passengers and got sentenced to 15 years or more in prison. > > Like it or not, our society expresses disapproval of serious antisocial > acts by sentencing perpetrators to prison. To give this driver a pass -- > just because all she did was hit a few bicyclists -- would send a *VERY* > bad message. > > Eric Westhagen wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > Conspicuously absent from the television news and the article just > > posted on Bikies was the actual sentence which warranted fifteen years > > from County Judge Karen Seifert? Was it vehicular manslaughter? Is > > this the new sentence for such a crime or is this the sentence for this > > crime? Certainly as a bike rider, I don't want to encourage autos in > > running down bikes, but the actual details have not been made clear. > > There is no excuse for an auto driver not seeing a bicycle, a walking > > person or a dog on a bridge during daylight hours. If she were talking > > on the phone, looking at children in the back seat or merely singing > > joyously, there should be no excuse for reckless driving. > > > > I believe this case made all the television and print news because of > > the long sentence. As this article points out, three times the sentence > > expected was given. Certainly nobody wants Mrs. Burr behind the wheel > > anytime soon. She is now forty seven. When she is released, she will > > be collecting Social Security. That should sober up some would-be > > drunks like----say, our former Attorney General? But will it? Do we > > get confessions by torture, does it take fifteen years to "change > > habits" rather than five? Maybe fifteen years would be appropriate if > > we had an answer to such questions. What we do know is that her own > > family will probably become wards of the State. And the warehousing of > > Mrs. Burr will probably run twenty to fifty thousands or more per year. > > > > Have we ever handed out a fifteen year sentence for recklessly killing > > a person in or out of a motor vehicle on a roadway? I didn't hear any > > of that on the news. But, maybe I missed that? > > > > Eric Westhagen > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bikies mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
