[pirateboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He did not hurt or kill anybody, are people really suggesting that he should receive such a harsh sentence because he "potentially could have killed someone"?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I think there is merit in your argument about the LENGTH of the punishment, the above quoted is the dumbest [censored] I've read.

First, it's very results-oriented.

Second, while attemped murder is worse than DUI, if I try to shoot someone and miss, should I not be punished?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna avoid to resort to personal attacks, but you appear to have a personal stake in this matter and have shown an inability to think about this objectively.

Your comparison with attempted murder is completely idiotic. Please note the HUGE difference between the words "attempted" and "potential". This whole attempted murder thing was completely out of left field. For plowing into some kid you should be punished...for vehicular manslaughter. For driving under the influence you should be punished for *gasp* driving under the influence. DUI is a crime, people should be punished FOR THAT CRIME, not for what that crime could POSSIBLY or POTENTIALLY elicit, especially when laws are already in place to handle the elicited situation. Seriously, all these comparisons of DUI to attempted murder and the like just make you people look incapable of logical thought.


So far your only argument for such a long sentence is, "well it could possibly kill someone" or "well what if it was your kid who got crushed by a drunk driver?" as if either of those prove anything. Seriously, attempted murder?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you missed the [censored] part where I said murder >>>>> DUI. If you couldn't "potentially kill someone," then DUI wouldn't be a crime.