[Chongo]

Is Life Sentence Too Harsh For Man Convicted of Ninth DWI? If he had killed someone, no. Ten to twenty years would be more appropriate and less like to be lessened on appeal. What surprises me about the ABC article is that Stovall's ethnicity is not mentioned. I wonder how long it will bebefore the NAACP or Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson get involved
Texas Man Gets Life Sentence for Ninth DWI - ABC News

The ninth conviction was the breaking point for one Texas judge who earlier this week sentenced a habitual drunken driver to life in prison.
Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas.

And while that DWI was certainly enough to get Stovall in trouble with the law, when the judge found out the defendant had eight prior DWI convictions across several different counties in Texas, he ordered up a life sentence for Stovall.

This is someone who very deliberately has refused to make changes and continued to get drunk and get in a car and before he kills someone we decided to put him away," said Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley.

Bradley said that in addition to the multiple DWI convictions , Stovall also had a extensive rap sheet for other crimes, including burglary, credit card abuse and supplying alcohol to a minor.

[ghporter]

I don't know... Unfortunately around here there isn't any real consistency in how DWI is handled; one county may throw the book at you and another adjoining county may give you a stern warning. So Stoval got a number of convictions in a number of different counties-none of which seems to have gotten him much time in jail-and he's managed to rack up a horrendous record because these different counties just haven't talked to each other.

Texas' DWI enforcement NEEDS fixing. Mr. Stoval is an unlikely but probably useful catalyst for this, IF we actually do something about it.

I'll also point out that the guy could be called a "habitual offender" just for his DWIs, but his record is more than just driving drunk. This probably had some effect on the judge's sentencing.

[Dork.]

I think he deserves the sentence, but it is unusual enough that it might be successfully appealed. Even a 20-year sentence would have been more conventional (thus more likely to stick), and getting a 20-year sentence at age 54 is essentially equivalent to a life sentence. Who knows what might happen on appeal: the entire punishment may get thrown out, and he might be free after that.

If he is ever released, he should probably never be able to get a drivers license again, even if he manages to quit alcohol for good and turn his life around.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Good job by the judge.

I don't think Canada's criminal code would allow a judge to do that though.

*Edit: This notorious drunk driver in Canada got 8.5 years. I'm not sure if there's a maximum length set out for impaired driving in our Code though.

greg

[amazing]

A person with that approach to drinking repeatedly and driving drunk repeatedly is a deadly time-bomb. It's only a matter of time until someone is killed. And there is mostly no likelihood whatsoever of a will to change, sad to say.

Now, given that the life sentence is going to draw too much publicity and therefore will be unlikely to stick, a long 20-25 year sentence would have been a better way to keep him from DWI and killing someone.

[Rumor]

Way to take a non-racial news article and throw some race into it so you can show your dislike/hate for a few people that disagree with you.

Seriously.

[ghporter]

I think there aren't enough people on this board who are familiar with Texas' courts, and especially the Court of Criminal Appeals and its record, to be able to have an educated opinion of what might be successfully appealed. The CCA has a record of not overturning original verdicts, even when there are egregious breaches of process, representation, and even law.

If the original verdict is appealed, the Court may simply say "look at it again." Or say "well done" for that matter. The smart thing is for both the state's courts and the Legislature to take this as a big wake up call to do SOMETHING about the fragmentary way DWI is handled on a county-by-county basis. But then my state's Constitution is built to KEEP the Legislature from doing much; they meet for a restricted (and brief!) time every other year and they often are required to extend (the governor can call special sessions) just to get the next budget passed. They are intentionally "amateur" legislators. Our Constitution was written in 1876, and has the distinction of being one of the most amended in the country in part because it's structured with statute instead of basic rules.

[OldManMac]

No, he should have gotten a life sentence much earlier. It's time to get the non-violent offenders out of prison earlier, and make room for truly dangerous people, such as this person.

[turtle777]

I think he should be given an option: life sentence, or both arms chopped off.

-t

[Snow-i]

Why was his license not permanently revoked long before his ninth dwi?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why was his license not permanently revoked long before his ninth dwi?

The newspapers are full of articles about people driving drunk without a license.

[hyteckit]

This being Texas, I'm surprise he didn't get the death penalty.

Texas is really tough on being drunk. It's illegal to be drunk in public.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why was his license not permanently revoked long before his ninth dwi?

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The newspapers are full of articles about people driving drunk without a license.

See my earlier posts-there is no consistency in how each county (we have 80 something of 'em) handles DWI. We also have plenty of people driving without license, insurance or for that matter, any skills in the act of driving itself. However, driving on a suspended license or driving while your license is revoked IS usually handled very consistently-the offender is locked up for a while and the car is impounded-and won't be released until the offender can show that he has a valid license. That gets pretty expensive.

[Shaddim]

Too harsh? No. In some states it would have happened after 3.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The newspapers are full of articles about people driving drunk without a license.

Yeah, and it usually lists that with the offenses. I didn't see it among the list.

[Paco500]

I think it's too harsh. Giving someone a life sentence for something they might have done or might do in the future (kill someone) seems wrong to me.

I think he should be fined exceedingly heavily, banned for life from driving, and wear a monitoring bracelet thing.

I would think extraordinary measures to monitor his behavior out side of prison would still cost less than incarceration and be more fitting.

The gut is obviously a thick headed idiot who regularly engages in activities that could lead to the death of innocents, however it hasn't yet and I'm not comfortable locking someone away for life for something that might happen.

But it's Texas, so throw logic right out the window.

[OreoCookie]

It's way too harsh. Life sentences should be reserved for the most serious of crimes. Here, someone is put away for crimes he hasn't yet committed -- which I think is inadmissible.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yeah, and it usually lists that with the offenses. I didn't see it among the list.

I didn't read the article, but my point was simple. This individual has a very serious problem; to the point where he's going to kill someone someday. He's an individual who won't (maybe can't) stop drinking, and simply taking his license away isn't going to solve anything. Throw him in jail and throw away the key.

[ghporter]

Paco and Oreo, the guy has a years long history of driving while intoxicated. That makes him a menace; having been convicted that many times shows that he has no ability (for whatever reason) to not drive drunk. Now I think that the sentence should be moderated, but he is still a threat to society.

[OreoCookie]

Yes, he's a potential threat to society, but there are other methods at the disposal of the legal system. Putting someone away for life for crimes he hasn't committed yet is for sure not proportional.

Put a tracker on him, give him mandatory therapy, fine him, but a life sentence should be reserved for murderers (not potential murderers), pedophiles and such.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why was his license not permanently revoked long before his ninth dwi?

Bingo.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Put a tracker on him, give him mandatory therapy, fine him, but a life sentence should be reserved for murderers (not potential murderers), pedophiles and such.

...and if he continues his behavior? Permanent house arrest? Permanent rehab?

[ort888]

Having his license taken away would not stop this guy from driving.

Screw him. Lock him up. I'm sure you can make all sorts of excuses or counterpoints, or point to legal precedence and blah blah blah, but seriously, **** this guy. I have no problem with locking him away forever. It's obvious that his behavior will never change.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...and if he continues his behavior? Permanent house arrest? Permanent rehab?

… then he'll be prosecuted every single time. That's the way the criminal system works: you punish people for things they have done instead of for things they may do.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… then he'll be prosecuted every single time.

The guy has been convicted of DUI 9 times. You don't get the feeling that current prosecution hasn't been getting the job done adequately?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's the way the criminal system works: you punish people for things they have done instead of for things they may do.

Arguably, the concepts of three strikes laws and parole are all about what you may do in the future.

[Goldfinger]

I think giving someone life for this is pretty damn sickening. I mean, give him a huge fine, revoke his license for X years, impound his car, install an alcohol lock in his car etc. Tons of options. But basically taking away his entire life for something that could happen... please.

It's obvious that this man has a serious drinking problem. Why not start with mandatory rehab and therapy. Which is somthing that can actually help the man instead of just throwing him in jail and leave him to rot.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is Life Sentence Too Harsh For Man Convicted of Ninth DWI? If he had killed someone, no. Ten to twenty years would be more appropriate and less like to be lessened on appeal. What surprises me about the ABC article is that Stovall's ethnicity is not mentioned.

Why does that surprise you? There doesn't appear to be a racial angle to the story at all.

Originally Posted by Chongo

I wonder how long it will bebefore the NAACP or Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson get involved

I wouldn't expect to see that unless Texas has a record of meting out significantly lighter punishment for white DWI offenders with a similar history. And if that were the case, then it would be totally appropriate for them to get involved with it as a civil rights issue.

In any event, a life sentence is way over the top IMO. The man is 54 years old ... 10 - 15 years would have been sufficient to protect the public from the danger he poses.

OAW

[P]

What has been his convictions before this? If he has never been to jail before, then yes life is excessive. Jailtime is appropriate at this point, but not life.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You guys might be missing the point of prison. It's not just to punish the guilty, it's also to intimidate everyone else into obeying the law. The excessiveness of "life" over "20yrs" in a case where it makes no practical difference is intended to send a message to all the other habitual drunk drivers that this behavior is not acceptable.

[hyteckit]

Maybe we can get Mel Gibson to move to Texas.

Mel Gibson Crashes His Car

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The guy has been convicted of DUI 9 times. You don't get the feeling that current prosecution hasn't been getting the job done adequately?

That's not the point, the DA only prosecutes people for committing crimes and it seems they have done the job each time adequately. Putting this guy behind bars for a few (tens of) months would be one solution without putting someone away for life for something relatively minor (again, compared to, say, murder).

Putting him away for life is cruel and does not fit the crime.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Arguably, the concepts of three strikes laws and parole are all about what you may do in the future.

I find the three strikes law deeply inhumane and not very useful at all -- especially the way it is applied. (Since I don't want to divert the discussion from the three-strikes law, I think it's best if we don't pursue this topic any further.)

Parole is not about punishment, it's about rehabilitation. It's a different concept.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You guys might be missing the point of prison. It's not just to punish the guilty, it's also to intimidate everyone else into obeying the law. The excessiveness of "life" over "20yrs" in a case where it makes no practical difference is intended to send a message to all the other habitual drunk drivers that this behavior is not acceptable.

The message you send here is that repeated DUIs are as bad as murder -- and that's not a message I want to send.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The message you send here is that repeated DUIs are as bad as murder -- and that's not a message I want to send.

First time, maybe it was an accident. Second time, you should know better and have your license revoked for everything except work or school. Third time or more a person knows they're getting drunk, then getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. So it might not be murder, but it's like handing a 9-year-old a loaded gun and telling them not to shoot themselves.

It needs stiffer penalties, and I think life in prison for a 9th conviction of DUI is more than acceptable.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, he's a potential threat to society, but there are other methods at the disposal of the legal system. Putting someone away for life for crimes he hasn't committed yet is for sure not proportional.

Put a tracker on him, give him mandatory therapy, fine him, but a life sentence should be reserved for murderers (not potential murderers), pedophiles and such.

Unfortunately this too is up to the county in which the perpetrator is convicted-and there is even less standardization of "prevention" in our laws than there is standardization of handling DWI convictions in the first place.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The message you send here is that repeated DUIs are as bad as murder -- and that's not a message I want to send.

You were aware that Texas has a rather busy execution chamber, weren't you? If the judge were equating DWI (not "under the influence" but "while intoxicated," a qualitative quantum leap up in seriousness) with murder, he may have tried to push for an even harder sentence. Further, "life without the possibility of parole" is a possibility here as well. A basic life sentence pretty much guarantees at least 18-20 years behind bars, not "until you die of old age."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You guys might be missing the point of prison. It's not just to punish the guilty, it's also to intimidate everyone else into obeying the law. The excessiveness of "life" over "20yrs" in a case where it makes no practical difference is intended to send a message to all the other habitual drunk drivers that this behavior is not acceptable.

It's also to protect society from an idiot who can't keep from driving when he's drunk.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's also to protect society from an idiot who can't keep from driving when he's drunk.

They could have tried confiscating his driver's license first.

[OldManMac]

Maybe we have to wait for him to do something like this before we finally realize he can't be a functioning part of society.

Charges Brought In Fatal I-275 Crash - Detroit Local News Story - WDIV Detroit

[amazing]

I think what people don't get is just how wacky things can get in Texas. Obviously this fellow was caught in multiple jurisdictions, and each jurisdiction probably did something different. It's the People's Republic of Texas, after all...

Just for contrast, here's a fellow who got 25-years-to-life in California (that ridiculous 3-strikes law) for stealing food from a church where he'd been given food previously. None of his 3 strikes involved a weapon or injuries.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010....html?ref=news

Driving drunk 9 times (and that was only the number of times that he was caught) is way more deadly.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

They could have tried confiscating his driver's license first.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Maybe we have to wait for him to do something like this before we finally realize he can't be a functioning part of society.

Charges Brought In Fatal I-275 Crash - Detroit Local News Story - WDIV Detroit

It would appear that "confiscating" a driving license has a minimal effect on some drivers...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Unfortunately this too is up to the county in which the perpetrator is convicted-and there is even less standardization of "prevention" in our laws than there is standardization of handling DWI convictions in the first place.

So adding more inconsistency by doing very, very little 8 times and then sending someone away for life (even if it's `just' 20 years) is a good thing?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You were aware that Texas has a rather busy execution chamber, weren't you?

Yes, and this is a good thing how? In any case, life sentences are reserved only for very serious crimes that people have committed. The sentence here is akin to taking someone off the street for a long, long period of time for something he may do in the future.

The problem is not the criminal, there will always be some cases that the legal system has trouble with, because they fall through the cracks. But to attempt to `fix it' by screwing one person on a per-case basis instead of fixing the laws helps no one in the end.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A basic life sentence pretty much guarantees at least 18-20 years behind bars, not "until you die of old age."

I know of the differences between lwop and a life sentence, but still, how is this a good thing to punish a repeat DUI offender in this manner? I just don't get it. If you think there are too few possibilities to punish someone who drives a car while he's inebriated, push for other options here. Perhaps even send him to prison for a year or so (although I'd hope that this is made clear by the judge during the previous trial (If we catch you again, you'll spend time in prison, period!).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The message you send here is that repeated DUIs are as bad as murder -- and that's not a message I want to send.

Sure, why NOT. What's the problem ?

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

They could have tried confiscating his driver's license first.

They did, several times. He had been driving without one for years.

[Chongo]

At least he was alone. One of our local idiots
Mesa man driving on suspended license crashes with young son in car | Phoenix News | Arizona News | azfamily.com | Yahoo News

One of our local TV stations did a report where they followed people out of traffic court. These people had their licenses suspended or revoked for various reasons, then proceeded to get in their vehicles and drive away! I'll post the video if I can find it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The message you send here is that repeated DUIs are as bad as murder -- and that's not a message I want to send.

How is it any different than repeatedly firing a gun blindly into a crowd?

It's almost as bad as driving slowly in the left lane? j/k