re: North Shore woman faces 60 years in prison after 5th DWI

quote:

---

Not sure why she looks happy there.

---

Still feeling the vodka red bulls.

One mistake I can understand, but anything past two should be major time.

quote:

---

At what point would she be considered habitual?

---

I'd say the 2nd time should count for habitual.

first one is clearly a warning, scares the average joe enough times to not do it again.

For people like her, shes been caught what 5 times? She's done it at least 500.

She needs about 8grams of ketamine via IV.

If we ever want to get serious on crime we will start executing people like this. Rope them up and this nonsense might stop

quote:

---

She looks older than my 76 year old mom

---

Your mom may be 76, but she still fricks like she's 26.

quote:

---

I dont believe that. If a drunk person doesnt think rationally enough to NOT drive, do you really expect them to think about the death penalty? Capital punishment has never deterred crime. Serial killers and murderers dont second guess their actions because of the death penalty

---

Agree.

However, she was sober before she had the first drink and sober when she decided not to designate a driver.

I usually don't like to see a draconian sentence but in her case, she needs to be off the streets for good or an innocent person is going to be maimed or killed.

Am I the only one that thinks its ludicrous that we put people in jail for this long for crimes committed without a victim? If there is no injured party but only the potential for injury, how does one justify this level of punishment? Have we become this pussified and panicky as a country?

If she shows to be a consistent danger when operating a motor vehicle then take this bitches drivers license away for the rest of her life for all I care but to actually take away her freedom, keep her from her family and ruin her life because she keeps getting tipsy when operating heavy machinery, is just ridiculous.

Malum in se. Malum prohibitum has no place in a free society and only serves the government, not the people.

quote:

---

At what point would she be considered habitual?

---

Habitual Offender Law applies to felonies. Her first couple of convictions (possibly first three with plea deals) would have been misdemeanors. So this sixth (!) conviction might be the first time she is eligible for Habitual Offender.

FWIW. This is exactly the type of offender for which that statute was written. The one who just continues to break the law regardless of everything the court throws at them.