Another way of looking at this is that the actual crime was operating a vehicle while intoxicated, not that the vehicle struck and killed/injured others. Imagine, for a moment, that the same irresponsible moron was sober, merely having had turned his head briefly while chatting with a friend in the back of the pickup and had the same "accident". Would that then make it non-criminal?
I say not, it should still be criminal to cause an "accident" that resulted in death and injury. But our justice system, more often than not, presses no criminal charges at all with sober, yet irresponsible morons that are distracted "unlucky" drivers.
The crime was not vehicular manslaughter, it was manslaughter resulting from intoxicated driving. Imagine, for a moment that the police saw this same moron, swerving as he drove, and pulled him over prior to the "accident" and found him to be driving while drunk. Would that make him any less guilty?
I say not, just more lucky that the police got to him before he killed or injured anyone. Since we base our justice (certainly the sentence severity) on the result of a criminal act, and not on the criminal act itself then DUI/DWI are only "serious" crimes for the "unlucky" offender.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
The judge is basically proving the kid right -which in turn moots the purpose of the defense in the first place, because he's legitimizing the kids defense which makes everything the kid said TRUE, hence he's NOT insane and DOES NOT SUFFER FROM A MENTAL DISORDER.
This kid belongs in prison - at least - until he's 21, however I like 15 years a lot better.
Last edited by Mr.Nick; 12-13-13 at 10:15 PM.