***
Let's start off with the Donte Stallworth incident. He was driving under the influence when a pedestrian ran out into the street with no cross walk and Stallworth struck him. While Donte is at fault for being under the influence, it is also illegal (believe it or not) to cross without a cross walk. It was out of his power that the pedestrian did this. A sober person was just as likely to hit him. Both persons are at fault, not just Stallworth. He's a first time offender and typically, a first DUI offense receives little to no jail time. The family also settled for millions of dollars in retribution in this case, which also lessened his sentence. Like it or not, money talks and b.s. walks. Prosecutors and judges are very responsive to the wishes of the victims family in these cases. The victims family wanted this sentence for Stallworth, and the victims family is very likely to get what they want in these types of cases.
After his 30-day jail sentence, he's now on FELONY probation for ten years. Under felony probation, they're required to have someone in their lives for every aspect of their life: where they are, what they're doing, counseling, substance abuse counseling, etc. Plus, he can never have a driver's license again AND must contribute 1,000 hours of community service. By no means is this a slap on the wrist.
There was also no malicious intent on Stallworth's part. While driving under the influence is illegal, there are some things you can't control: such as a person running in front of your car. Stallworth, in my books, is still a murder.. yes.
Thirdly, Stallworth cooperated with law enforcement officials at all times. He called the police on spot and admitted to everything. He was also remorseful and apologetic from the very beginning, which can mean a lot when negotiating a plea deal with the prosecutor. This makes him look less like a criminal and more like a man who made a mistake, in which no message needs to be sent with a length prison sentence.
In Michael Vick's case, there are a number of differences. The first, and most obvious, difference is that Vick had a federal case, in which the judge decides the sentence, not the prosecutor. A person is much more likely to receive a more length jail sentence in federal court than state court.
Secondly, Vick vehemently denied the charges initially, while Stallworth was up front from the get-go.
Thirdly, Vick showed more of a criminal intent than Stallworth did. While Stallworth was irresponsible for drinking and driving, he didn't intend to kill someone, while Vick intentionally took part in a bloodsport, in which he showed more malice in his heart. This is much more likely to incur a punitive prison sentence as opposed to a rehabilitative probation sentence.
While both actions are unacceptable and irresponsible, both punishments fit the crimes. As much as people may argue, "A dog murderer received more jail time than someone who drove drunk and murdered someone," you have to look at all the facts. Had the pedestrian been in a cross walk and not run out in front of Stallworth's car, I'd be all for a life sentence. But, it wasn't all his fault and the family CHOSE to take the millions of dollars and only let Stallworth serve 30 days in prison.
It's unfortunate that we have a society that makes wrong decisions, such as the ones Michael Vick and Donte Stallworth made. Unfortunately, millions of Americans partake in illegal dog fighting rings and drunk driving every year, many of whom aren't caught.
I do support tougher DUI laws, in which a first offender is given a 30-day jail sentence, while second time offenders receive a year and prison and a suspended license for four years. Third time offenders receive a five year jail sentence and permanent loss of a driver's license.
Let both of these stories be a lesson to all of us, and lead us in the right direction in life.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment