The boy's father, Kelly Brian, said after the hearing that he and his wife, Shari, were satisfied with the sentence.

That's all I needed to hear. I have no right to exact vengeance if I have no connection to the party requiring it.

People who kill people while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should lose their right to operate a motor vehicle for ten years. That should be the very minimum penalty and if judges want to make additions then be my guest. These people are as dangerous as armed robbers yet they are treated like mischievous children.

Whatever the criminal justice system is for, it is not to make the victim's family feel all right.

In a case like this one, in which the accused was driving under the influence of drugs, there has to be the presumption that what happened once might happen again. Criminal proceedings, from the crime she was charged with through sentencing, have to be conducted with the idea of preventing that in mind.

I am skeptical of the value of creative sentences in general, but am also willing to let judges so disposed try them. In this case I'd be less concerned about how the victim's family feels than with the prospect that some years down the road another victim's family will have to repeat their experience.

Not a prosecutor, but Arkansas defines manslaughter as:

A person commits manslaughter if:

(1) He causes the death of another person under circumstances that would be murder, except that he causes the death under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable excuse. The reasonableness of the excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be . . ..

A.C.A. § 5-10-104 (2005)

Its a class c felony, with a sentence of 3-10 years, but appears to be subject to probation.

The lesser crime of negligent homicide is the negligent causing of the death of another as a result of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (Class D felony) It appears that legislators amended the negligent homicide statute to make it a Class C felony if the above incident included the passing of a school bus.

People who kill people while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should lose their right to operate a motor vehicle for ten years.

I think that's being generous. I think they should lose the right to operate motor vehicles for 10 years because they're in jail, and upon release be provided with a shiny new bike, since that's the only form of wheeled transportation they're ever to be allowed.

What Zathras said. If this woman got doped up again & killed *your* kid, exactly how would the judge rationalize that clever sentence to you?

Slightly OT, a sentencing dodge that irks me is when parents cause the deaths of their children, say by driving with the kids loose in the back seat. The child dies in a wreck, the parent is prima facie guilty of (at least) negligent manslaughter, but the cops say "the parent has suffered enough."

Like the kid was a PUPPY or something, not an individual human being. Shades of parenthood as ownership.

Here we go: Another iteration of the "I'm tougher on crime than you" series of comments so common on right-of-center blogs. You know, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled definitively that drawing and quartering is unconstitutional; why not just use this as a test case? (I'll go on record predicting a 5-4 affirmance, with Gonzales filing a brief for the respondents, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter in dissent, and Alito writing the majority opinion...).

Also: It's always bothered me that people with kids respond so differently to these sorts of things than those that do not. My sense is that, had Nix run a red light and killed a 42-year-old guy in the crosswalk, this wouldn't be such a big deal (and few would have any problem with the sentence -- which, from what I know of the criminal law, is roughly similar to that typically handed down in like cases).

Agreed, stop the sentencing madness. (although 10 days is definitely a wrist slap - is she a congressperson's daugher?)

I've seen you guys drive, and you don't want 10 year prison terms for negligent homicide. You think you do, but you don't.

A desire for a more serious punishment is not about vengeance, it's reminding the guilty party and other drivers of the serious responsibility that accompanies driving a vehicle.

Too often people treat cars as toys, but they are potentially weapons. Accidentally killing a person (regardless of age) because you chose to use drugs before operating one should not be taken lightly.

A "right-of-center" trait to ask for higher sentences? One can't help but recall the outrage - from the left, too - when Republican Congressman Janklow ran a stop sign and killed a motorcyclist. He got 100 days in jail.

> People who kill people while driving under the influence of drugs or
> alcohol should lose their right to operate a motor vehicle for ten years.

If local news reports are to be believed, sentences like this are rather ineffective. The news reports often show people whose licenses have just been revoked walking out of the court room, jumping into their cars, and driving away. If your license were revoked for ten years, is there any chance at all that someone would follow up a year from now to see that you were not driving?

If you are the kind to drink/drug and drive, perhaps you are also the kind to drive without a license?

As a non-practicing law school grad, I'm a bit cautious about newspaper accounts of trials. There is so much context in even a relatively straighforward trial that it is very easy for important detail to be lost.

With regard to the Arkansas woman, it is entirely possible that she is genuinely devastated by what she did. Guilt is a real emotion and can be very powerful and if a judge sees it in a defendent, it should be taken into account.

What should the penalty be when you get away with numerous drug crimes, but are never caught?

I'm curious whether the drugs in her system were prescription or illicitly acquired. Either way, she'd definitely do hard time in Calif. What's that about law-and-order Republicans again?

Peter, I agree that guilt can be very powerful, and it should be considered by the judge.

But it should not receive higher consideration than the defendant's decision to operate an automobile while impaired by drugs. Such callous disregard for life should be weighed far greater than one's shame of their callousness.

Zathras: "Whatever the criminal justice system is for, it is not to make the victim's family feel all right."

You may want that to be true but it isn't. The obvious example: Vengeance is the only rationale for the modern death penalty. And many other punishments, I think it's safe to say, take into account things other than the reformation of the criminal. Revenge is part of the equation, which is why victims' families are so often allowed to speak at sentencing hearings -- it is, actually, to help them "feel all right."

And, one could argue that this has social benefits. Vengeance is a normal human desire, and for the state to acknowledge this and to regulate it (as the state does other human desires) helps maintain order.

It's a difficult balancing act, but it has to be performed. To say the criminal justice system is all about reform, and heck with the victim, is weirdly social-scientific.

Well, Andrew, if you run across someone who actually is arguing that the criminal justice system is "all about reform," you'll have to let us know, won't you? You haven't yet, not on this board anyway. Sorry.

"You may want that to be true but it isn't. The obvious example: Vengeance is the only rationale for the modern death penalty."

This is an obviously ridiculous statement. It should be rewritten to state: "You may want that to be true but it isn't. The obvious example: vengeance is one of many rationales for the modern death penalty. But vengeance is an emotional justification, and emotional justifications are not acceptable (to right-thinking people, like me). Therefore, I will claim that vengeance is the ONLY rationale for the modern death penalty so I can consequently claim the modern death penalty is, in fact, only (falsely) justified by an irrational, emotional appeal to vengeance, and therefore should be abolished." A rhetorical sleight of hand.

Steve

My sense is that, had Nix run a red light and killed a 42-year-old guy in the crosswalk, this wouldn't be such a big deal ...

Could be. Of course, when Bill Janklow, then a Congressman and former governor of South Dakota, ran a stop sign and killed 55-year-old Randy Scott, he got 100 days in jail -- a sentence that seemed ludicrously light to me, as well.

Nix had opiates and amphetamines in her system at the time of the accident.

Evidence of responsible drug use -- these should have balanced out!

Evidence of responsible drug use -- these should have balanced out!

I have actually seen where this was argued:

Both experts agreed that the methamphetamine most likely had some effect on Larry since it was found in his blood, but one expert indicated methamphetamine could be used to enhance performance, stating that the drug was sometimes used to overcome fatigue. Because methamphetamine is a stimulant and marijuana is a depressant, one expert also stated the effects of one could have cancelled out the effects of the other.

It would be up to the finder of fact to evaluate the expert's opinion that “the effects of one could have cancelled out the effects of the other.” (Does that mean that one can escape the ill effects of drug use, if only one takes enough countervailing drugs?)

Responding to trosky, yes they were prescription drugs in her system. The prosecutor failed to mention that. She had an injection in her knee the day before the accident. I am from Arkansas and this woman has been through a great deal of suffering since the accident. Personally, I think the sentence that she got was rather harsh.

Responding to trosky, yes they were prescription drugs in her system. The prosecutor failed to mention that. She had an injection in her knee the day before the accident. I am from Arkansas and this woman has been through a great deal of suffering since the accident. Personally, I think the sentence that she got was rather harsh.

Peace in the Middle East is obtainable with US and The European Union intervention