Rare Justice Done in Vehicular Homicide

[farmerjumperdon]

Some judge finally got the cajunas to give a homicide commiting drunk what he deserved:

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1318697.html

I must admit I was surprised to see the average sentence has been 5 or 6 years. Seems we always hear horror stories of these people getting off with a few months, or nothing at all.

Still a little light though in my opinion. Given his history, I'd have given him 20 or so years.

[Fazor]

Suprisingly long and uncharacteristically detailed article. Here's some of the noteable snippits for the linkophobes like myself:

A 25-year-old St. Paul man received an 11-year sentence on Monday for a 2006 double-fatality drunken-driving crash, a sentence that one advocate believes is the longest in Hennepin County for such a crime.

On Dec. 17, 2006, Roban drank beer and brandy before taking his girlfriend's car for a drive. He killed John Everson of Champlin and his passenger. . . . . . Connolly noted Roban's blood-alcohol content at the time of the crash was 0.23 percent -- nearly three times the legal limit.
Roban has been on probation six times, and each time he violated the terms and also failed to complete several chemical-dependency treatment programs.
But among the factors that Connolly said convinced him of the need for the longer sentence: multiple victims, Roban's lack of a driver's license and his failure to heed the pleas from a girlfriend who asked him not to drive and then begged him to pull over.

[hhEb09'1]

his failure to heed the pleas from a girlfriend who asked him not to drive and then begged him to pull over. We shouldn't expect him to heed the pleas--he was drunk

[Fazor]

I rarely heed my girlfriend's pleas even when I'm sober. But I think the reasoning was because it showed, in this case, that he didn't care if he was drunk he was still going to drive.

[SeanF]

We shouldn't expect him to heed the pleas--he was drunk
By that token, then, we shouldn't expect him to obey the law when drunk, either.

And did I read that right? He killed two people and pled guilty to eight counts of vehicular homicide?

[Fazor]

By that token, then, we shouldn't expect him to obey the law when drunk, either.

And did I read that right? He killed two people and pled guilty to eight counts of vehicular homicide?

I thought it just said he plead guilty to [8] charges (I don't recall reading the number). I can't go re-check it because now the linked article is saying I have to log in to read it, but I'd guess it's 2 counts of vehicular homicide, a DUI/DWI/OVI/Whatever they call it there (Ohio uses all three for the same thing!), and multiple parole violations. I do recall one count of driving without a license, but that sorta pales in comparison to the whole kill 2 critically injure one thing...

[SeanF]

I thought it just said he plead guilty to [8] charges (I don't recall reading the number). I can't go re-check it because now the linked article is saying I have to log in to read it, but I'd guess it's 2 counts of vehicular homicide, a DUI/DWI/OVI/Whatever they call it there (Ohio uses all three for the same thing!), and multiple parole violations. I do recall one count of driving without a license, but that sorta pales in comparison to the whole kill 2 critically injure one thing...
Hmm, it's not prompting me for a log in. The relevant quote:

Roban pleaded guilty on May 24 to 12 counts, including eight criminal-vehicular homicide and four criminal vehicular operation.

[Fazor]

Interesting. I know I've heard them say "plead guilty to X counts of homicide" in murder trials with only one victim, but I've never really thought about it before. Hmm...instead of doing my daily crossword in my last 15 minutes like I usually do, let me investigate...

...okay from the United States Sentancing Comission (http://www.ussc.gov/simple/multiple.pdf)
I. Structure of the Multiple Count Rules In a modified real offense sentencing context, the structure of the formal charges is of less import than the actual conduct the defendant engaged in and the harms caused by this conduct. A single act may simultaneously violate several different statutes, each of which is sentenced under a different offense guideline. Moreover, an offense may be composed of multiple acts, each of which could be prosecuted separately.

I didn't research indepth, becuase this seems to make sense to me. Now I still have 10 min left which should be plenty for that cross-word. :)

[Doodler]

Nice little loophole in the double jeopardy laws.

However, in most traffic cases, they can only sentence you on the most severe charge alone, no matter how many total counts there are.

That kind of stacking of the deck ensures that for any given crime, something is going to stick if there's even the slightest level of guilt to be assigned.

[Roving Philosopher]

Hmm, it's not prompting me for a log in

A little side note: Do you have cookies turned off? The StarTribune website uses cookies to enforce its registration system (you get 1 free article, then you have to register). Block the cookies, and you'll never be asked to register. The Strib is my local paper, so I figured this out pretty early on.

[mugaliens]

Yeah...

And nothing was said about the passenger's blood alochol levels, or what motivated them to dive into a vehicle where "Roban's blood-alcohol content at the time of the crash was 0.23 percent -- nearly three times the legal limit."

Nothing was mentioned about their responsibility in the incident. They had, and made, choices, when much better, more live-saving choices were available.

Please exuse me while I take a taxi home...

[SeanF]

Nice little loophole in the double jeopardy laws.
Indeed. I've always thought plea bargains were something of an end-run around the self-incrimination prohibition, as well.

Yeah...

And nothing was said about the passenger's blood alochol levels, or what motivated them to dive into a vehicle where "Roban's blood-alcohol content at the time of the crash was 0.23 percent -- nearly three times the legal limit."

Nothing was mentioned about their responsibility in the incident. They had, and made, choices, when much better, more live-saving choices were available.

Please exuse me while I take a taxi home...
I don't think there were any passengers in Roban's car. At least, I'm pretty sure the two fatalities and one surviving injured person were all in the other car.

He killed John Everson of Champlin and his passenger, Jillian E. Banks of New Brighton. Alton B. Lancaster of Minneapolis was also in Everson's car and is still recovering from facial injuries from the accident...
Presumably, the designation of Ms. Banks as "his" passenger means Everson's.

[Tucson_Tim]

I have zero tolerance for drunk drivers. Period.

[jrkeller]

That's a small sentence.

Recently, they gave a drunk driver 46 years for a similar incident.

Link (http://www.hcnonline.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17110406&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532207&rfi=8).

[Fazor]

That's a small sentence.

Recently, they gave a drunk driver 46 years for a similar incident.

Link (http://www.hcnonline.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17110406&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532207&rfi=8).

He got an 18 year sentence for each of the two deaths, and 10 years for manslaughter. What the article leaves out is whether or not he can serve them concurently, my guess is yes. Which means, even though the total is 46years, he'll only be in prison for 18. Unless the judge specifies, as he did in the OP article, that they cannot be served concurrently, you serve each sentence at the same time, not one after the other.

[tdvance]

I have zero tolerance for drunk drivers. Period.

I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance :)

actually, in high school and in college, I tended to believe in "zero tolerance" policies, but as an adult, I've seen too many situations that turn out to be exceptions to the usual cases--e.g. zero tolerance for weapons in a school and this little girl gets suspended for bringing in a little pink toy gun on a keychain.... or the grandmother arrested for DUI because she underestimated the power of her medicine to impair driving... or the guy taking the bar exam who had a heart attack during the exam, another guy taking the exam got him medical assistance and was given a permanently-recorded failing grade for walking out on the exam.... or the time I failed a field sobriety test because I am overweight and cannot balance on one foot, but luckily the policeman had sense and said, technically you failed, but I'm not going to charge you, you're not intoxicated--I'm glad the policeman had that option (or a confirming breathalyser if came to that, but even that would be a pain in the butt, going down to the station, etc.). Or the woman in DC who had one glass of wine at dinner and then drove out of the parking garage with lights off (lighted city, easy mistake to make), was pulled over, admitted to having a glass of wine, but passed the Breathalyzer, was charged anyway because the policeman considered the admission of having a glass of wine sufficient, was found not guilty (of course) but still couldn't get her license back without a hearing because DC's DMV works like that, until it made the papers and suddenly the bureaucracy got into action and cleared her name and the offending officer was given official reprimand.

I prefer 0.1% tolerance myself. 0 tolerance fails when there are idiots in charge, and as the success of Dilbert shows, that does happen once in a while.

On the other hand I do understand that "discretion" is too often used as an excuse to let people off easy who should not be let off so easy. Like the woman who was found guilty of shoplifting something like 35 times before she got her first jail sentence, and only that because she finally got a conservative judge.

(so I think the solution is, get rid of idiots in authority--not that that will happen any time soon since you have to go to the next idiot up higher in authority to do that :) ).

Todd