Today, Gregory Hatt, a 5 or 6 (depending on the news source) time convicted drunk driver was sentenced to 10 days in prison after slamming into a police cruiser and then running from the scene.I'm not sure even where to begin with this. 10 days? I thought you got more than that for the first time you caused a drunk driving accident. I would think they'd give you ten days for running from a police car, drunk or not. He's been convicted at least 5 times, and he gets 10 days? The judge commented that he's not in the business of making the "popular choice". Well, no kidding, that's not in question. You are in the business of making correct and fair choices. 10 days? Hatt did two things wrong, running and drinking, that should get you more than 10 days by themselves. He got 2 days for each time he's been convicted of drunk driving. And the police officer may never work again?!? I just don't get it.
Apparently we shouldn't be as worried about the liberal judges in this country as we should the incompetent ones. I wonder if Judge Polk was roommates in law school with the judge who wouldn't send the pedophile to jail for being too short?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It never ceases to amaze me how folks will tolerate senseless carnage on the streets: 30-40 thou dead a year in US, scads more messed up. Letting drunken drivers back on the road must certainly add to this cost.
I was taught that the law tries to balance these 'costs' against the 'utility value' of the dangerous behavior. I'll admit that being able to drive around at high velocities has a high utility value; some harm must be accepted.
But what is the 'utility value' of being able to drive around drunk?
Post a Comment