Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog
I know it's the defense atty's job to get his client off as light as possible, but I don't understand why drunk drivers need "a degree of hope".
|
The defense attorney's job is NEVER to get their client off 'as light as possible', but rather to represent the client's best interests and make sure the client receives his or her day in court, as well as due process. This is a vital distinction when we look at this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog
Drunk driving is a choice, and it's not something you can "accidentally" do. He complains that she's looking at it as "black & white", but I personally don't see much grey area there - you drove drunk or you didn't.
|
Without even discussing the 'choice' element of being intoxicated (which will get you into all sorts of sticky situations with, say, consent issues, etc), I think you can see how someone deserves due process (or a "degree of hope") . It's vital that punishments fit the crime - clearly there are problems in this realm, as current punishments are very severe for initial offenses, and don't deter repeat offenders. There's a definite disconnect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog
Am I the only one here who thinks this woman is right on target??
|
It's hard to say - personally, I don't think current enforcement of DUI laws in most states are at all effective, but I'm not sure how to better enforce these laws to a.) not create an unnecessarily punitive scenario for all offenders, with no distinction between levels of danger and b.) actually stop repeat offenses by 'problem offenders' . . . tough situation.
Threaded Mode
