Some folks feel like Donte Stallworth got off easy. I don't think there's a racial angle here, but I do think that the notion that there is universal justice system that works the same for everyone, everywhere is something that a lot of us (I won't even say black folks) can ill-afford.
In other news, it looks like Brett Favre is on his way back.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Does anyone care about Brett Favre any more except Brett Favre?
maybe you'd care if your other options were Tavaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfelds as alternatives
wow, redundant
That's a low bottom for your barrel to scrape, I suppose.
This is what I don;t get, did the Vikings just wake up and realize those guys both suck?
There have been lots of QBs available who were better options than Favre, Jeff Garcia was a FA for one obvious example.
Yeah, and the funny part is, Garcia is actually pretty well suited to that team. His scrambling isn't what it used to be, but at least he's got more intelligence than those two clowns. Which, if they ever get Peterson catching the ball really well, could be deadly
"Afford" is the operative term here. That being said, as a first-time offender, who wasn't driving recklessly, who hit a guy that wasn't in a crosswalk and who has cooperated fully with the authorities at every step in this process, I'm not sure Stallworth deserved to have the book thrown at him anyway.
24 days is throwing the book at someone?
are you serious? wasn't driving recklessly? he was drunk. how more reckless can one be? i'd rather he was sober and drag racing in a walmart parking lot.
I meant have the book thrown at him with a very severe punishment. I think he may have gotten off somewhat easily, but I also don't think he deserved the sort of draconian punishment that some people are going to demand.
As far as his driving, he was traveling 50 MPH on a 40 MPH road, which is what most of us do. And I don't believe he was cited for doing anything reckless like swerving between lanes (although I could be wrong, but that sort of thing is usually included in newspaper stories, and I haven't seen it.) So he wasn't obviously driving like someone who's impaired, which doesn't mean that he wasn't impaired, but it's a point in his favor.
I know the kneejerk reaction here is going to be that he should be treated harshly by the judicial system, because a man is dead and Stallworth is "just another entitled athlete" and all that, but this case has a lot of extenuating circumstances, and our judicial system makes room for those. Not all drunk driving accidents are the same, and they shouldn't all be treated in the same way.
Maybe he is just a more talented drunk driver than others,that doesn't bring back the man he killed, nor does it make what he did not a crime.
I don't think Craig T was saying that Stallworth HAD the book thrown at him, but was saying that he didn't deserve to have the book thrown at him anyway. That's certainly up for debate.
I know that it is nearly impossible to stick up for drunk driving, but just because you are over the legal limit does not necessarily mean you are driving recklessly. At least not in the legal sense. I know nothing about this particular case, but that isn't true in every case. Drag racing in a Wal-mart parking lot is probably far more dangerous than driving while you BAC is a .08.
Does it make any difference if it's 0.126? I don't know to much, but that seems more than a bit over the limit. According to the University of Oklahoma Police blood alcohol calculator (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm), a 200 pound person (Stallworth) would have a BAC of 0.11 if he drank 7 beer in 2 hours, and 0.13 if he drank 8 in two hours. I don't know about you, but that seems a lot to me.
two things,
I meant to type "I don't know too much," and I didn't make up the number .126. It's from the AP article on Stallworth's plea.
Well, I think it does make a bit of difference. For the longest time, in almost every state, the legal limit was .1 BAC. This has since changed due to organizations such as MADD obtainiing much more clout in the past couple of decades. I just find it interesting, that in nearly every DUI resulting in a fatality, you almost NEVER see someone with a BAH that's lower than about a .12. Now obviously, we're arguing small amounts here, but I do find it interesting.
I am just disgusted in general the way the courts handle drunk driving cases, especially when they result in death. I find it especially offensive when people like Donte Stallworth who can afford private drivers commit such crimes. It seems like in this country you can serve more time for stealing someone's car then if you were borrowing it and got drunk and ran them over, just because you said woops it was a big accident.
The only thing that seems strange to me is it says he flashed his lights at the victim to warn him. I know this seems obvious, but why didn't he just stop? My only guess is that he noticed the guy was about to walk in front of him, so he flashed his lights to give him a heads-up, and the guy walked in front of him anyways? Either way, they must have thought that him being drunk wasn't the full reason this guy died. Otherwise, this does seem like a really light sentence. And it certainly makes Vick's sentence seem positively ridiculous in comparison, but I'll refrain from getting into that.
I refuse to comment on Brett Favre. That would be giving him exactly what he wants.
the dichotomy between just and unjust in america is baffling.
Anyone whose drunk driving results in the death of another, and for whom the sentence is 30 days in jail DID get off easy. It strikes me as absurd that such a conclusion is something "SOME folks feel." really?? There's not 100% agreement that an idiot who CHOOSES to drive while intoxicated and KILLS someone shouldn't spend more time in jail than 30 days??
Can anyone make a decent argument as to why 30 days in jail ISN'T getting off easy for such a crime? Plexico Burress may get at least that much for shooting himself in the leg at a nightclub (a dumb move, for sure).
The guy CHOSE to drive drunk. We are living in 2009. The time for excusing such behavior is LONG past. To describe his post-killing behavior as "responsible" (he called 911, etc) is laughable. So, because he didn't flee the scene, we should clap him on the back? Oh, thank you Mr. Stallworth!
The facts point to class being more of a factor than race. The only racial angle to be found would be for those for whom the mere existence of any racial identity is always already a "racial angle." He isn't getting off easy because he's black. There's nothing in the evidence to indicate that ANYTHING that has occurred is due to race.
As for class, the family of the deceased agreed to the terms of the plea deal, and one can only imagine that getting $$$$ from Stallworth helped expedite that consensus. If he were a truck driver instead of an NFL WR making millions, he may not have been able to offer such a settlement, and they may not have been so agreeable.
Stallworth makes enough money to pay for a full-time chauffeur. His willful decisions to drive drunk show how poor his judgment is. And until we as a society stop saying things like "it happens to all of us" (no, it doesn't) to excuse the behavior or "well, he's really remorseful and promises to be active against drunk driving" (applause?) as a way of excusing lenient punishments, DUI deaths will continue.
Leonard Little - CONVICTED of vehicular manslaughter from a DUI - keeps playing in the NFL, AND continued to drive drunk (DUI AFTER his first crime).
p.s. - Brett Favre is a self-absorbed egomaniac that hasn't played a decent "pressure game" in more than a decade. the only reason the Vikes want him is because Tevares Jackson is an even worse option.
"Can anyone make a decent argument as to why 30 days in jail ISN'T getting off easy for such a crime?"
Well, if the accident wasn't ANY fault of the driver, which is possible in a drunk driving case, 30 days seems about fair. That being said, it is probably impossible to conclude that someone's drinking had NOTHING to do with an accident.
hmm, this seems to be a defense of something different, not one *such* as this - where the driver was at fault.
1) driving while intoxicated is a crime.
2) while one could provide hypothetical circumstances (family member dying, etc) to justify driving drunk, those are rarely if ever the actual facts of the case. when they are, they should be considered. when they aren't, see #3
3) until criminal sentencing is no longer perceived to have ANY deterrent effect, DUIs that result in death should be punished severely.
i.e., the costs of DUI-related fatalities so far outweigh any benefits, that erring toward severe sentencing should be the default.
what is the harm of being too harsh on the defendants? they are so distraught when they get out of jail in 20 years,
they go get drunk at a bar, drive drunk, and kill someone?
we KNOW what the harm of being too lenient is - defendants become recidivists. check the monthly police blotters and count the times that a person with a DUI gets a 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th.
"what is the harm of being too harsh on the defendants? they are so distraught when they get out of jail in 20 years,
they go get drunk at a bar, drive drunk, and kill someone?"
I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. You could use the same reasoning for locking up anyone who does anything against the law for years on end. If someone who is sober as a priest is driving 15 miles over the limit and kills a pedestrian, should they be locked up for the same amount of time as your hypothetical drunk driver? Because they have also violated the law, and the outcome is the same.
Our justice system isn't just about deterrence, it's about fairness of punishment. If we chucked everyone who drove over the speed limit in jail for 20 years we'd get everyone driving a hell of a lot slower, and our roads would be safer, but is it really worth the cost of putting scads of non-violent people in prison?
Well, you asked if someone could argue if it wasn't getting off easy for such a crime. I'm completely on board with just about everything you're saying. I'm simply arguing that it is possible you could be driving over the legal limit, get in an accident where someone dies, and it NOT be your fault. In such a case, a lesser sentence seems appropriate. Not all drunk driving cases are the same, and shouldn't be treated as if they are.
This case seems very strange to me. If he was aware enough to flash his lights at him, how was he not aware enough to stop? It seems like there must have been witnesses claiming that the gentleman stepped right out in front of him.
Stacy- I suspect thats what happened. I know with deer running out in the road without looking flashing or honking at them can sometimes keep them on the shoulder and avoid an accident where slamming on the brakes would never stop the car in time.
Of course someone can make that argument. What if the victim in this case darted out into traffic at the last minute, leaving even someone who wasn't impaired no chance to stop? People are making some pretty large logical leaps just based on the fact that Stallworth's BAC was above the legal limit and someone is dead. The courts have vetted this case and decided that Stallworth deserves what he got. That doesn't mean they're right, of course, but shouldn't someone have some sort of evidence of Stallworth's culpability as the party at fault before they decide that he should fry? Just being over the legal limit doesn't immediately make you the person at fault in an accident.
your logic fails to account for the fact that being over the legal limit is itself a crime. the only person who can't hypothesize circumstances where the drunk driver wouldn't be at fault is the one who is laying dead on the street.
the logical leap is to assume that these kinds of circumstances are so common as to deny that presumption be against the DUI driver.
Stallworth broke the law. if he had chosen NOT to drive drunk then, he would not be where he is now. sure, we can imagine some other way the dead person would still wind up dead. i'm just not sure what the point of that is - what are the benefits for theorizing when it might not be so bad to drive drunk?
your logic fails to account for the fact that being over the legal limit is itself a crime.
So is driving over the speed limit. Your line of argument seems to want to draw a specific conclusion of causation from Stallworth's blood alcohol level to the pedestrian's death and it is not clear that that is appropriate in this case. Indeed there is some evidence to believe that the court, having heard all the evidence, decided that it wasn't.
Stallworth broke the law. if he had chosen NOT to drive drunk then, he would not be where he is now.
Or he could have chosen to drive cold dead sober and ended up in exactly the same situation which is a scenario that also takes place all the time.
From a personal perspective, I live in Vegas and Miami Beach and, in both cities, go many places on my bike, so you can imagine that I am not a big fan of drunk driving. But I am just as wary of the public policy approach that tries to address all crimes through a lens of moral opprobrium.
Hypothetical question:
If someone drives drunk hundreds of times in their life, but never gets into an accident, or hurts so much as a fly, have they done anything immoral?
That's the thing with this case and others like it, people focus so heavily on the outcome that they don't see the underlying principles.
Your hypothetical person is a much, much worse and more dangerous person than Donte Stallworth. He's just really, really lucky. That person should be locked up forever, throw the key away, all that macho bullshit that we proscribe for any other piece of shit rapist or murderer. If the goal is to make society safer, which is what it should be, then of course the first-time offender deserves a much more lenient sentence than the person who's done this hundreds of times, even if the first-time offender had the bad sense of timing to hit and kill someone and the hundred-time offender hasn't so much as scratched someone's bumper. But the emotion of cases like this, where there's a dead body and a rich athlete, can overpower that in the mind of the public.
Yeah, Craig T, but you are also assuming that Donte Stallworth is a first time offender. That's giving him a LOT of credit. I'm talking about someone who has driven with a .1 BAC their entire life, but has never gotten into an accident, or gotten a DUI. Has that person done anything wrong? Legally, certainly. But morally? I'm not convinced. No more convinced than someone who has driven 7 mph over the speed limit their entire life, and never gotten into an accident.
So ... if I stole from my employer all my life but never got caught, I would not have done anything immoral? If I molested little boys for decades but never got caught, I'd be all right with heaven?
I use these particular analogies for a reason -- people just do not take drunk driving seriously enough as a crime. Every time you get behind the wheel drunk, you are guilty of reckless endangerment.
I find throwing hypotheticals out like this insensitive to the person who was killed as a result of what Donte did.
Perhaps, but for me, your question demonstrates the extent to which questions of morality are on such shaky ground when they are divorced from the issue of direct outcome. Its difficult to argue, I think, that an act is obviously immoral when it doesn't hurt anyone but one could argue that by driving drunk one is making that behavior more normative and thus increasing the likelihood of harm coming to someone else indirectly. Alternatively one could argue that the immorality is based upon on one's disregard for the increased risk presented by the activity in itself.
This is actually meant as a reply to Jennifer. The problem with your hypotheticals is that the immorality can be located precisely in the harm they cause. The issue that Stacy is raising is not whether or not one is caught. It is whether an act that causes no harm can reasonably be considered immoral. Your hypotheticals don't address that question at all.
Jennifer,
If you feel like your comparisons are legitimate at all, I'm not really sure what we have to discuss. If you drive drunk your entire life without hurting someone, then, um...you are not hurting anyone. Unlike the situations you described.
And I certainly don't see how this is insensitive to the guy Stallworth hit. The guy is dead, yes, but we're not talking about him anymore. I simply asked a question which I thought might be some interesting food-for-thought.
You said it more succinctly than me. I should say that anyone who is driving with a BAC above the legal limit deserves some sort of punishment, because that is a crime and for good reason. But there are degrees as to how much culpability the legally intoxicated person has for an accident (and like you said, that degree is probably never zero, but it can be low.) and the punishment should take that into account.
the problem with these rebuttals [yours and brent's] is they assume the best-case scenario for the drunk driver (they are drunk, but not impaired; they weren't at fault; they are a first time offender, etc), when the research on DUIs simply doesn't support these rosy scenarios.
the profile for the DUI offender is likely not someone who was just drinking and driving this one time. if they were involved in the accident, it is almost always the case they were at fault. if there was a fatality resulting from the accident, the DUI driver usually is at fault. these claims are supported by police investigations. check the record.
i'm not saying DUI drivers are immoral. i'm saying they are STUPID and SELFISH. they're refusal to follow the law imperils the lives of others.
no one has said extenuating circunstances should be dismissed. what i HAVE said - without a decent response - is that way more often than not, those extenuating circumstances don't exist. THIS case shows that: a man who could have afforded to pay someone else to drive him, CHOSE to drive drunk; his actions resulted in the death of another human (yes, he WAS at fault, as admitted to by him and proven by his willingness to pay the victim's family).
and the claim that punishment is not meant to deter is just flat out wrong. time and again, sentencing records show judges saying just that - criminal sentencing is intended to deter future crime by the defendant in that particular case AND other who might be considering committing similar acts.
"what i HAVE said - without a decent response - is that way more often than not, those extenuating circumstances don't exist."
The reason you haven't gotten a decent response to that is probably due to the fact that no one is disputing it. No one is arguing that more often than not, the drunk driver is at fault. Clearly, that's the case. But just because that's the case doesn't mean that it is always the case.
the problem with these rebuttals [yours and brent's] is they assume the best-case scenario for the drunk driver
No. I am assuming nothing. You are assuming a causal link in this circumstance and it is not clear that that is appropriate. Do you mean that you believe that Stallworth should be punished on the basis of some statistical evidence?
if there was a fatality resulting from the accident, the DUI driver usually is at fault. these claims are supported by police investigations. check the record.
Check what record? Do you mean that you have done a statistical analysis by reading through the arrest records and dispensations of a large sample of cases that reveal that drunk driving is "usually" at fault in cases where a driver was drinking? I have seen plenty of evidence demonstrating correlation but very little demonstrating causation. I have also seen evidence that show that, although farm more fatal automobile accidents occur in cases where no one is drunk, there is a slightly higher incident of per drunk driver than per sober driver. This sort of evidence would probably be enough to justify laws against drunk driving but I don't see how they could justify treating all cases of drunk driving as the same.
However, I would be happy to see the record of which you speak.
CHOSE to drive drunk; his actions resulted in the death of another human (yes, he WAS at fault, as admitted to by him and proven by his willingness to pay the victim's family).
They were able to get him to admit that and save themselves a long and costly trial trying to prove it instead. If they failed, he would have gotten off with even less punishment. There's a difference between getting a defendant to admit to something in a plea bargain and being able to prove the same thing in a court of law.
is that way more often than not, those extenuating circumstances don't exist. THIS case shows that:
But not always, and it has to be proven. You can't speculate in court on what the average DUI case involves, or what usually happens in these cases. I also question your methodology for proving it's "way more often than not" How many times when a DA goes for a conviction by trial do they succeed in a case like this? How much of that "way more often than not" is based on people plea dealing a lenient sentence? How much is based on the methodology if BAC > 0.09 alcohol is 100% at fault?
Let's think ahead to the Burress outcome (whenever that case gets to court). How does the Stallworth sentence affect Burress' possible sentence, if at all? Stallworth killed someone; Burress shot himself.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2009/06/17/2009-06-17_plaxico_burress_lawyer_argues_for_donte_stallworthlike_sentence_or_less.html
Different states, different laws, not much connection at all.
perhaps the better question is whether there's a connection within the NFL sentencing. how will Goodell treat the two?
i say both get multiple game suspensions, based on Goodell's record as Commish.
Yeah, there's not a racial angle here, just a money angle. Every time I see a story like this I think, wow, it must be great to be able to afford lawyers like that. This story simply would never have the same outcome if Stallworth wasn't making millions: 1.) because he would not be able to buy his freedom with expensive lawyers, and 2.) because the family would have had no other path to closure except seeing justice served by the longest sentence possible under law. Seems their closure came from lots of cash in this case. God bless them, and I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same in their position, I probably would - I just don't think they would be quite so forgiving without the dollar signs.
While it is sometimes disappointing when people aren't punished as harshly as we'd like the alternative- mandatory minimums and the like, strikes me as a decidedly worse alternative.
And while his socioeconomic status might have helped him get the best possible outcome, sweetheart deals aren't reserved for the rich and famous. Indeed it's probably easier to move these kinds of slap on the wrist deals through with "nobodies" because noone is watching for the outcome. Anecdotally, I can say I know an otherwise insignificant person who, in the same situation as Stallworth, was given an even lighter sentence. Ultimately it depends on the judge,jury prosecutor,lawyers, etc.
That said, all the grey area in our justice system is the main, probably only, reason why I can't support the death penalty. There are some people out there who "deserve" to die, but there is simply no way such an extreme and irreversible measure can be doled out "justly" within our system.
Brett Favre needs to stop. I'm one of his biggest fans, but he NEEDS TO STOP. He needs to find something to do. This is just...wrong.
30 days for KILLING SOMEONE WHILE DRUNK?
Sigh.
This is ridiculous. If his name was Pookie, we know what the sentence would be, and it wouldn't be no damn 30 days.
you are right...there is no racial angle. this is a class angle. a privilege angle. the color that counts in all of this is GREEN. if he wasn't OF USE to the NFL, he'd be going to jail. it helps that he killed an old Latino guy. If it had been a White anything.....well....I have my suspicions.
Judging by his stats, you could even that question "of use to the NFL point."
Sorry, nothing like taking a cheap shot at a guy whose serving a month for killing someone
That being said, it is probably impossible to conclude that someone's drinking had NOTHING to do with an accident.
The relevant question is does the DA have to prove that his drinking was the cause of the accident or not to get a conviction? At least from a quick reading of the Florida penal code the DA would need to prove that the intoxication was the cause of the accident.
your logic fails to account for the fact that being over the legal limit is itself a crime.
Not really, since the punishments for a first conviction DUI are far less than for vehicular manslaughter. How many people go to jail for more than a single night for a DUI?
For a first conviction DUI in Florida the imprisonment is.
First Conviction: Not more than 6 months. With BAL of .15 or higher or minor in the vehicle: Not more than 9 months.
http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/duilaws.html
For a first DUI he would have received a more lenient sentence than what he got now. He would have had less probation, 1 year of license suspension and a max 6 months imprisonment instead of 30 days + 2 years house arrest.
There are obviously several mitigating factors here:
Driving 50 in a 40 - That's about what I usually drive, and I get people behind me angry that I'm not going faster.
A jaywalking pedestrian - I'm sure if he hit someone walking on the shoulder, or the sidewalk, the penalty would have been far worse.
No reckless driving - If there were, it would have been mentioned. Yes, some people upthread have correctly said that it's reckless to drive at .1 no matter what. But it's also reckless to talk on the phone while driving. Or to turn around and look at your kids while driving. Or to look down for a split second to pick up something on the floorboard you dropped. Unless you want to advocate the same draconian policies for people driving recklessly in those situations, keep in mind you're not being consistent about penalties for what happens when you drive recklessly just because one of them is "omg drunk driving".
Also, my guess is that as a young professional athlete who obviously doesn't make the best decisions, he probably drinks and parties on a regular basis. That .126 is not going to affect him nearly as much as it will your average cubicle worker to whom 8 beers sounds like a massive indulgence. I've never understood why a DUI is based on a strict blood ratio instead of the actual degree of impairment, but those are the laws.
Finally, full cooperation - a lot of people in his situation would have immediately fled the scene and tried to cover it up somehow. He immediately called the police and reported it, and has accepted full responsibility. That matters more than you think in dealing with prosecutors, whose job is made a lot easier with those kinds of defendents.
Co-sign on everything above. This is what I've been trying to get at in a round-about way. A .1 BAC is not close to the same thing for everybody. Now obviously, we must have laws, but all drunk drivers are not created equal. People find that very offensive, but it is the truth.
Thirdsies on that, obviously. There is fault to be assigned here to the victim, as unpleasant as it is to point that out.
Another hypothetical:
If someone decides to get in a car with me after we have both been drinking at the bar for hours, and I get in an accident and my buddy dies, shouldn't my punishment be much less severe than if I were to kill a random stranger walking down the sidewalk? I ask this as someone whose uncle died while riding drunk in a car with his equally drunk friend. They were both 17. Should my mother's family have held his friend responsible for their son's death?
Not sure if I want to wade into the middle of this, but...
I saw a report on CNN a few years ago about a study, at The University of Utah IIRC. They used simulators to test people's driving ability under 3 scenarios. A baseline group, a group that was at the legal limit (.08) and a group that was talking on Cell Phones. The results were there were no differences between the baseline and the legally drunk group. The Cell phone group were far worse.
And experts say the hands free laws are meaningless, it isn't holding the phone that is the issue, it is the concentrating on the phone converstation that causes the problem.
I can speak from experience, my wonderfully maintained '94 Range Rover that I will likely never be able to find a replacement for in such good condition (yeah I'm still ticked 5 years later, blue book doesn't take into account how hard it is to find something!) was totalled because a woman driving a Jeep Cherokee and talking on a Cell phone turned left right into me when her turn lane had a solid green yield light not the green arrow which she apparantly thought she did. She was so obvlivious to what was going on she never even hit the brakes, just drove right into me as my front end was crushed like an accordion.
Isn't that what happened with Hulk Hogans kid? He got 8 months in jail, and his friend was not killed but severly injured to the point of being in a nursing home for the rest of his life. He was never charged with DUI, but reckless driving and they did find alcohol in his system.
But to your question, absolutley the punishiment should be less severe. There are choices everyone makes, and it is our choice to get into a car with someone who is drunk, therefore that person shares in the responsibility. The person who is walking down the street has no say in the matter.
30 days in jail wasn't the whole punishment for the record. There is two years of house arrest, 8 years probation, 1000 hours of community service, a lifetime suspension of driving priveliges, and he has to go back and play for the Cleveland Browns.
I can't believe they made him go back to the Browns. That's unconstitutional at best.
Okay, I get the distinction that Stacy and Brent are making. How about this analogy instead? I live in the hills and I shoot my rifle every night into the valley for years. No one ever gets killed or even shot. Is that an immoral act? Isn't endangering the lives of others immoral, even if no one ends up getting hurt in the end?
I can only answer similarly to how I answered stacy originally. I think the answer in cases like this is probably but we are on much shakier moral ground because the operative issue no longer hinges on quantifiable harm but the increased risk of harm. How do we measure that increased risk and what is the moral/immoral threshold? If something I do increases the risk of an innocent's persons death by .001 percent, have I crossed that threshold?
As I said above, I do think that you can make a case on that basis but I would also say the case depends upon just how I assess that increased risk and that will vary a lot in individual circumstances regardless of the objective parameters or statistical evidence.
In the case of Stallworth, I think everyone agrees that he deserves some punishment. I think the difference is over how severely he should be treated and some people seem to want to make that decision on the basis of the outcome. I, however, am not inclined to do that.