What should be done!?!?!?!?!?

[CTLawGuy]

Hypothetical.

Bob is a steelworker. He is the sole breadwinner for his wife, a homemaker who never finished high school, and three young children, 8, 6, and 3, one of whom has Down's Syndrome. They have no other income. They have little savings and few surviving family members.

One day, Bob goes to a bar after work with some friends. He gets extremely drunk on Rum and Coke. He stupidly decides, after a couple of hours, to hop in his truck and drive home. On the way home, he runs a stop sign at a rural intersection and slams into a car driven by Sally, a 20 year old college student. In the car were also Jill and Megan, her roomates. The force of the side-collision crushes Sally's little car like an aluminum can, killing all three women.

Bob is put on trial for aggravated vehicular manslaughter and DUI. THey are felonies and he is looking at hard time under a tough new anti-DUI law recently approved by the legislature. The evidence is overwhelming against Bob.

The prosecutor gives his main closing statement, after all the facts are presented.

Then the defense attorney gives an unusual statement. "You should not find Bob guilty, even though you might find he violated the law. Bob has a wife and three little children, one with Down's Syndrome. If you put Bob in jail, you are punishing them for something they didn't do. How will THEY live without Bob's support? What will happen to the quality of THEIR lives?
THEY didn't do anything wrong. You wouldn't punish little children, would you? What would they think of a society where THEY were punished for something THEY didn't do? When you decide whether Bob should go to jail, think of the children. Society NEEDS children like them to thrive in order to be successful in the future. We can't afford to alienate them or they will rebel against us. Thank you."

Then the prosecutor fired off a rebuttal to the odd bit of argumentation. "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is nonsense. I'm sorry that his wife and kids will suffer, but Bob BROKE the RULES. He knowingly drove while drunk, and knew that he risked killing someone. If you DON'T put him in jail, then everyone who has family members can get out of ANYTHING they do wrong! Society would be totally lawless! And besides Bob should have thought of his wife and kids before he decided to DRIVE DRUNK.

My colleague the defense attorney wants to put the pressure on the state to "think of the children." It is not we who are causing Bob's children to suffer, Bob is. Yes, we COULD not prosecute him. We could just let his rule breaking slide, but the price would be chaos, and a lawless society, where anyone can commit crimes at will and escape punishment. THAT would be worse for society than to have three children who may be upset at the system that took away their sole source of support.

And you know what, ladies and gentlemen, the children will understand in the future why they have suffered becuase of their father's incarceration. They will be good members of society and will not rebel against it in the future. So, find him guilty as I previously asked, and send him to jail for his killing of three young women."

You are on the jury. You believe with no doubt he is guilty on the facts. How do you vote?

And don't worry, this IS related to the primaries, if you read between the lines.

[patrice]

1. I don't know. I know it's ir-relevant, but I wish we had more choices. nt

[smalll]

2. I suppose this is intended as a defense of the "Old Testament justice" ...

inflicted upon the Democratic electorates of Florida and Michigan, right? I don't think the analogy is apt: it would be closer if we actually sent the children of DUIers to jail themselves.

[LakeSamish706]

3. The one thing that you did not dwell on is the 3 girls killed and there families...

Bob must go to jail period, to do otherwise would be irresponsible.

[kentuck]

4. You don't kill 3 people and say I'm sorry...

There have to be consequences for our actions. Three counts of involuntary manslaughter and throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

[TheDoorbellRang]

5. Send Bob to jail. There are consequences for irresponsible actions

BUT

In a more just society, some agency would reach out to the wife and offer job training and counselling -- AlAnon is free and it works. Her husband has an alcoholsim problem and it has most assuredly affected her and her children. With job training and counselling, her husband's incarceration could be the best thing that happened to her.

[Clovis Sangrail]

6. FL and Mi are not equivalent to drunk drivers

A drunk can drive under the influence for years without an accident.
They have a higher probability of getting in an accident and carted off to jail, but it's by no means guaranteed.

Fl and Mi would be more akin to:
A sober Bob is told by the police "we're going to throw you in jail if you drive drunk... and we're going to be following you on Wednesday night".
Come Wednesday night Bob heads out to bowling alley and waves to the police who have been following him as he gets out of his car.
2 hours later Bob comes out of the bowling alley bar fall-down drunk, waves to the police again, and proceeds to get in his truck and pull out of the parking lot.

To really make this really like Florida....
The cops pull Bob over and give him a warning about driving drunk, then tell him to call a cab to get home.
Bob, thinking the cops would never put him in jail, gets back into his truck and tries to drive away again.

This time Bob goes to jail.
And his wife is very upset with him.

on edit:
actually... his wife should throw him out of the house and divorce him for being such a dumb ass.... just like Fl and Mi should fire the dumb ass local politicians that got them in this mess

[TexasObserver]

7. What should be done? The prosecutor should have filed a motion in limine.

How is it that the defense attorney is making an argument to the jury on facts that were probably not in evidence and should not have been in evidence?

I do not believe the defense attorney would be allowed to either get such testimony into evidence, or to argue such things to the jury. They're irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence. If there is a separate penalty phase, those facts might be allowed then. They go to the issue of why he might have been drunk, or whether the community is better served by incarcerating him or not, but they do not address the issue of guilt or innocence in any manner, and are therefore irrelevant and should be excluded from consideration in the guilt or innocence phase.

[JVS]

8. Institutionalize Bob's kids. Tell Mrs. Bob to train for a job until she can afford to keep 3 kids.

That family is a disaster waiting to happen.