Donald Benge sentencing

[Purple Fencer]

Just got back from court.

A few points:

Defentant's blood alcohol level was 0.15 -- 0.08 is drunk in California, so he was almost twice the legal limit when the accident occurred.

He was normally a beer drinker....the night of the accident he was drinking socially...but he was hitting vodka....he probably didn;t realize how it was hitting his system....he also tried to sleep it off...which means he was MORE than twice drunk when he stopped drinking, since his body had time to metabolize some of it.

The was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter and DUI (forgot the last count). He was not convicted of Murder 2....although the judge said herself that she thought it WAS murder....but she has to go with what the jury agreed on.

He was open to 3-11 years...the judge split the differance at 6....but the way California statute works, he'll probably only serve 3.

There will be a hearing for restitution in February, but I don't see him being able to pay the estate a lot once he gets out.

The DA had a stack of letters about Donals about 1/3" thick....it definitely made an impression on the judge, so thanks to all who sent something in.

It wasn't what we wanted for Donald, but it's better then nothing.

[OROD]

Thanks for the update Sam.

.

[Purple Fencer]

Thanks for the update Sam.

.

No prob....he;s probably arguing ROW with God anyway....you remember THAT one!

[rdg]

Just got back from court.

A few points:

Defentant's blood alcohol level was 0.15 -- 0.08 is drunk in California, so he was almost twice the legal limit when the accident occurred.

He was normally a beer drinker....the night of the accident he was drinking socially...but he was hitting vodka....he probably didn;t realize how it was hitting his system....he also tried to sleep it off...which means he was MORE than twice drunk when he stopped drinking, since his body had time to metabolize some of it.

The was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter and DUI (forgot the last count). He was not convicted of Murder 2....although the judge said herself that she thought it WAS murder....but she has to go with what the jury agreed on.

He was open to 3-11 years...the judge split the differance at 6....but the way California statute works, he'll probably only serve 3.

There will be a hearing for restitution in February, but I don't see him being able to pay the estate a lot once he gets out.

The DA had a stack of letters about Donals about 1/3" thick....it definitely made an impression on the judge, so thanks to all who sent something in.

It wasn't what we wanted for Donald, but it's better then nothing.

Let the man free of sin throw the first stone.

Sam

[Purple Fencer]

Let the man free of sin throw the first stone.

Sam

Not sure what you mean here...the defendant's blood alcohol level was TWICE the legal limit in California and a friend -- both of myself and fencing in general -- was killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you're implying the defendant should've gotten a lighter sentence, allow me to point out that the JUDGE HERSELF stated ON THE RECORD that SHE thought it should've been murder 2...a 15-life term...thanks to the jury feeling sorry for a drunk driver, the defendant DID get off easy....FAR easier than Donald Benge.

[epeelion]

I don't know anyone involved in this, but driving drunk is one of the most irresponsible things you can ever do. Drunk drivers should NOT get light sentences.

[keropie]

Just to REALLY open the can of worms, the question is much deeper than this. We now have an individual who has to live with two huge changes in his life: 6 (more likely 3) years of incarceration, with no significant freedoms and a hugely unpleasant existance (presumably), and then the knowledge that because of a poor decision on his part, a man was killed.

So the question becomes at what point a sentence of 15-life (or 7 years or 10 or whatever) would actually have improved the situation. I agree, drunk driving is terribly irresponsible, but in this case we are not truly judging drunk driving, but rather the effects of this particular incident thereof. And I know the pain, at some level. My brother was but in a back brace for 9 months because of a car driving the wrong way on a divided interstate where the driver (the most sober person in the car) was in the neighborhood of .20 IIRC. There was actually debate about whether it was the accident that killed the offender's passenger in the rear seat, or alcohol poisoning.

But I also have a friend who is serving a 7 year sentence (for another crime), and I can promise you that at this point his sentence is not rehabilitating him or improving his life at all (he's completely rehabilitated at this point). So does is truly serve any purpose that he remains in prison? Probably not, not really. And I know that sentencing cannot really be based on the individual, but rather the crime and the circumstances.

So, was this the particular driver's first offense? If so, I would postulate (with woefully inadequate information) that the sentence is reasonably accurate. Three years in prison is a long time. Were this a second or third offense for DUI, I would say that the sentence is insufficient. Clearly a person in for a 3rd DUI has failed to learn from previous examples, and constitutes a much more realistic threat to society.

My condolances to all involved, on both sides, because no one wins in a situation like this...

[Purple Fencer]

As I recall, it was his first offence...

[erooMynohtnA]

water cooler

[Purple Fencer]

water cooler

Not really....this is fencing related...

[OROD]

Not really....this is fencer related...

I fixed that for ya.

.

[tchwojko]

So does is truly serve any purpose that he remains in prison?

Even if it doesn't serve any purpose for that individual, it can be argued that it provides a strong disincentive for others to repeat that behavior.

[erooMynohtnA]

Not really....this is fencing related...

It is peripherally related to a tangent of fencing.

This isn't a discussion about fencing. It's a blog post about personal loss waiting for an argument about vengeance vs justice to break out.

I also don't think there's a need to start a new thread every time something happens, like a judge forgetting about the requisite intent of murder. We will have to agree to disagree.

[keropie]

Even if it doesn't serve any purpose for that individual, it can be argued that it provides a strong disincentive for others to repeat that behavior.

Particularly in the case of drunk driving, that would be a really hard argument to maintain/win. It's certainly not like the rates of drunk driving seem to be dropping. And yes, a certain part of the jail system does presume that jail time is a strong reason to avoid certain activities. And it IS a disincentive, but it seems woefully inadequate.

And yes, this probably really is a water cooler thread, but I lack the ability to move it. And I don't intend to start a new one.

[notalent]

Particularly in the case of drunk driving, that would be a really hard argument to maintain/win. It's certainly not like the rates of drunk driving seem to be dropping. And yes, a certain part of the jail system does presume that jail time is a strong reason to avoid certain activities. And it IS a disincentive, but it seems woefully inadequate.

And yes, this probably really is a water cooler thread, but I lack the ability to move it. And I don't intend to start a new one.

In CA the 15 to life means you do 15 then you become eligible for parole. Its safe to assume that the def. drove impaired many times before this incident. So a stiffer sentence keeps him off the road and endangering others for a longer period of time. We do call it punishment for a reason, drunk driving that involves a death is not about rehabilitation its about punishment.

[Fencergrl]

Even if it doesn't serve any purpose for that individual, it can be argued that it provides a strong disincentive for others to repeat that behavior.

Do you really think that longer sentences for vehicle manslaughter while driving impaired is a deterrent? About 2 months ago, I lost my nephew to a drunk driver. I don't think any drunk driver thinks about the amount of jail time he might get if he gets caught or questions if he is a danger on the road. I also don't think my nephew will be any less dead if the driver spent more time in jail.

According to statistics 1 in 10 drivers on the road between 10- 3 am are impaired. Literally... these are accidents waiting to happen. Roadchecks are probably the best deterrent. They are what a drunk driver worries about.

The breathalyzers that prevent a car from starting unless the driver is sober are a good idea for those who keep driving drunk.

[whtouche]

Not really....this is fencing related...

This is the opposite of true.

Not everything that tangentially involves fencers is "fencing related" and you know it.

If you started a thread about how you planted a garden it would not be "fencing related" because you fence.

[Purple Fencer]

This is the opposite of true.

Not everything that tangentially involves fencers is "fencing related" and you know it.

If you started a thread about how you planted a garden it would not be "fencing related" because you fence.

And if I put this thread in the water cooler how many would see it....and WHY exactly is WHERE this particular thread is placed an issue?

And how is this thread -- related to a specific fencer -- different than the "Mike Tyson" thread in this same area of the boards??

If you have a problem with it, ask Craig to move it.

[whtouche]

You're right, the location of this thread maximizes the views it gets. And no, I don't have a problem with the thread.
But you claimed the thread was fencing related, rather than giving your ACTUAL reason for posting it here, and now you have admitted that your previous claim was not true.

[catwood1]

Craig, or any other admin, can you move this thread?