Texas man gets life in prison for DWI

[Anti Federalist]

Is Life Sentence Too Harsh For Man Convicted of Ninth DWI?

The ninth conviction was the breaking point for one Texas judge who earlier this week sentenced a habitual drunken driver to life in prison.

Bobby Stovall, 54, was driving his truck in Round Rock, Texas, in early July when he weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver. It was later determined that Stovall had a blood alcohol concentration of .32, four times the legal limit in Texas.

And while that DWI was certainly enough to get Stovall in trouble with the law, when the judge found out the defendant had eight prior DWI convictions across several different counties in Texas, he ordered up a life sentence for Stovall.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-life-sentence-ninth-dwi/story?id=11395058

[00_Pete]

Harsh? Yes.

Is it good that this maniac will no longer be able to drive in those conditions? Yes.

[james1906]

Harsh? Yes.

Is it good that this maniac will no longer be able to drive in those conditions? Yes.

+1

This is the only way for this asshole to not drive again.

[Dr.3D]

So what's life now? Is he going to be back out in say 25 years?

[michaelwise]

Free room and free meals for the rest of his life at tax payers expense, nice. Where do I sign up?

[squarepusher]

how about, man gets life in prison for reckless assault ?

[Anti Federalist]

Two questions:

Where is the jury?

How can past convictions be admitted to send a man to prison for life? I thought, perhaps incorrectly, under rules of evidence that past convictions could not be admitted as evidence or used to determine sentencing.

[james1844]

Michael - dude, prison is NOT fun. Even if life in prison is 25 years, it basically means whatever kind of life that guy had is over.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm wondering why his driver's license wasn't revoked a few times ago. It seems like that would be a more appropriate sentence. Unless I missed somewhere that he killed or maimed someone.

[james1906]

Everyone, please note that a BAC of .32 is not "impaired judgement." .32 means you're fucking hammered.

[james1844]

Anti-federalist - under federal sentencing guidelines and many state guideline systems the two major factors which impact someones sentence are the seriousness of the current offense and ones past criminal history. In statistical models they are both highly related to reoffending.

[Anti Federalist]

Anti-federalist - under federal sentencing guidelines and many state guideline systems the two major factors which impact someones sentence are the seriousness of the current offense and ones past criminal history. In statistical models they are both highly related to reoffending.

So, past convictions can be used for sentencing purposes, but not to achieve a conviction?

[amy31416]

I'm wondering why his driver's license wasn't revoked a few times ago. It seems like that would be a more appropriate sentence. Unless I missed somewhere that he killed or maimed someone.

Hmm. The article didn't make mention of his DL at all, but that usually won't stop a fellow like him.

[pcosmar]

Life sentence.

Well, the guy is an idiot. He did damage and should be sentenced. To be honest a 10 year sentence would have likely been a life sentence anyway.

But it does seem the judge was just attempting to make a point, and that will likely lead to an appeal.

With a good lawyer the guy can be out in 2 years.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is a tough one. There are bad drivers who continually get into accidents without alcohol. What do you do with them? The repeat offenses play a part. Was somebody hurt in any of the other accidents? At what point does non-violent crime add up to a life sentence?

And in this specific case, the guy seems to be a multiple offender of many types. A repeat burglar too?


Bradley said that in addition to the multiple DWI convictions, Stovall also had a extensive rap sheet for other crimes, including burglary, credit card abuse and supplying alcohol to a minor.

"He basically walked through the penal code for the past twenty years without any regard for safety or society," said Bradley. "In every single one of his cases he had an opportunity to change."

[Natalie]

Everyone, please note that a BAC of .32 is not "impaired judgement." .32 means you're fucking hammered.

Yeahhh.... Don't most people die if they get to around .40? I think I remember that from driving class :p

I do not mind that he is in prison for life. If you can't learn after your first dwi not to do it again, then you are an idiot. Eight DWIs means he has no remorse and clearly none of his previous punishments served as any sort of deterrent. He will never learn. It reminds me of that one episode of Dexter where Dexter kills that serial drunk driver.

[Number19]

Should DUI/DWI even be illegal?

I had an uncle who by today's standards would be considered an alcoholic. In a lifetime of drinking, and driving home from the honky-tonks and bars, he never had an incident of property damage or injury to another individual.

Now, the subject of this thread, I wonder, in 8 prior incidences, how many of these involved damage or injury and how much prior time had he spent in jail or prison because of these.

So, what actually constitutes a crime?

[LibertyEagle]

Hmm. The article didn't make mention of his DL at all, but that usually won't stop a fellow like him.

Maybe not, but if he didn't kill or hurt anyone, I think a life sentence is way overboard. Otherwise, permanently take away his license, throw him in jail for 6 months...

Otherwise, it seems to me that the judge sentenced him just as if he had killed someone. For some reason, this really bothers me. I don't like convicting and sentencing someone as if they had done something that they have not done.

It just doesn't sit right.

[amy31416]

Maybe not, but if he didn't kill or hurt anyone, I think a life sentence is way overboard. Otherwise, permanently take away his license, throw him in jail for 6 months...

Otherwise, it seems to me that the judge sentenced him just as if he had killed someone. For some reason, this really bothers me. I don't like convicting and sentencing someone as if they had done something that they have not done.

It just doesn't sit right.

I think the article said that he did injure another person in the last incident.

However, I agree on the life sentence BS...but I think I'd give him 6 months in jail, 6 months in rehab, perhaps. Maybe not jail at all--I'm pretty hard pressed to support a jail sentence since I learned about the rape stats. Taking away his DL should have been a no-brainer way before this though.

[james1906]

Yeahhh.... Don't most people die if they get to around .40?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Effects_at_different_levels

The fact that the guy was able to start a vehicle and somewhat drive it is amazing.

[Dr.3D]

Maybe not, but if he didn't kill or hurt anyone, I think a life sentence is way overboard. Otherwise, permanently take away his license, throw him in jail for 6 months...

Otherwise, it seems to me that the judge sentenced him just as if he had killed someone. For some reason, this really bothers me. I don't like convicting and sentencing someone as if they had done something that they have not done.

It just doesn't sit right.

Seems like the judicial system has been getting more and more screwed up as time has passed. I can remember when life in prison meant just that. Now it's something like 25 years and with good behavior, a person with a life sentence can get out in perhaps 10 years.

At one time, a murderer would be put to death... but now.... they get the same sentence as a non-violent drug dealer. It's no wonder murder has become so prevalent. Seems a person gets the same sentence if he kills somebody as he would had he just perpetrated a lesser crime. In their minds, I can see why they would murder someone rather than be caught and sentenced for the lesser crime, the murder doesn't make the sentence any harsher.

[Wesker1982]

Should DUI/DWI even be illegal?

I had an uncle who by today's standards would be considered an alcoholic. In a lifetime of drinking, and driving home from the honky-tonks and bars, he never had an incident of property damage or injury to another individual.

Now, the subject of this thread, I wonder, in 8 prior incidences, how many of these involved damage or injury and how much prior time had he spent in jail or prison because of these.

So, what actually constitutes a crime?

It is sad to know there are "libertarians" that support this guy getting life in prison. How about he gets in trouble for when he actually hurt somebody? Punish him for what he has actually done not what he might have done or might do.

Has anyone here ever pulled a gun on a drunk driver? Just curious. :p

I highly recommend reading this article before flaming me:
Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli25.html

[james1906]

It is sad to know there are "libertarians" that support this guy getting life in prison. How about he gets in trouble for when he actually hurt somebody? Punish him for what he has actually done not what he might have done or might do.

Has anyone here ever pulled a gun on a drunk driver? Just curious. :p

I highly recommend reading this article before flaming me:
Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli25.html

Did you not read the article?

[Danke]

They should just cut off his hands or poke out his eyeballs instead.

[Kludge]

They should just cut off his hands or poke out his eyeballs instead.

I kind of like this... Maybe secretly exile the person to Canada, too.

[LibertyEagle]

Did you not read the article?

The article says he injured someone. It doesn't give specifics.

[steve005]

The question of whether or not we ought to have draconian laws prohibiting drunk driving in this country hinges on another critical, yet all-too-often neglected question: Do drunk-driving laws actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving and thus make our roads and highways safer? If we answer this question in the affirmative, and determine to our satisfaction that drunk-driving laws do actually reduce drunk driving and make our roads safer, then we might be justified in thinking that the laws are useful and protect the public. If, on the other hand, we determine that drunk-driving laws do not actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving or make our roads safer, then we would do well to ask ourselves whether we need these laws at all. What would be the use, after all, of fining, imprisoning and terrorizing American drivers, if this ruthless police action does not have the effect of making our roads safer places?

It is my contention in this article that drunk-driving laws do not actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving. Hence, it is absolutely absurd for the state to waste billions of dollars each year hunting down drunk-drivers, trying them in courts, fining them astronomical amounts of money, and incarcerating them, when the state could effectively make America’s roads and highways just as safe by loosening up state licensing laws for taxi cabs and limousines.

In order for me to be able to make my case, I must first make some initial observations about drunk driving. First, it is important to note that when a man gets behind the wheel of an automobile while drunk he is taking a risk. His decision to drive drunk might result in him getting into a gruesome accident that takes his own life, the life of another driver, or other persons adjacent to him, or an accident that injures or seriously maims himself or other people. Should any of these scenarios actually occur, the drunk driver faces serious penalties – he could die in the accident, become permanently crippled or disfigured, or face charges for vehicular assault or murder if he hurts other people. These potential penalties for drunk driving exist even in the absence of stiff drunk-driving laws enacted by the state. In other words, even if there were no laws prohibiting drunk driving in this country, people who chose to drive drunk, and caused serious injury to others, would still face serious legal consequences for their actions – in addition to the possible injuries and death that they might cause themselves.

The case for ruthless laws punishing drunk driving rests on the assumption that these inherent and omnipresent penalties for drunk driving, (like death, disfigurement or a life sentence in prison), will not act as an effective deterrent. Drunk drivers, it is held, will discount the possibility of getting into a fiery crash that will kill them or send them to prison, (because of their "impaired judgment," to use the preferred nomenclature), which means that the state must step in and create additional penalties for drunk driving that will discourage the act even further. The state, then, swoops in with harsh penalties for driving while drunk or alcohol impaired, in the hope, (it is claimed, at least), of making our roads and highways safer by reducing the number of impaired drivers on the road.

(I should note in passing that the state’s claims to be trying to make our roads safer by outlawing and persecuting drunk drivers should be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least. Approximately 1 million Americans are killed every 25 years on America’s socialized road system, and the state has done virtually nothing in the way of reforming these death traps – besides focusing its attention on drunk drivers. The socialist planners of America’s roads apparently only care if drunk drivers kill people, and don’t care a whit if drivers are killed through their own negligence, mismanagement and typical socialistic incompetence [PDF].)

It all sounds so reasonable: because of their "impaired judgment," drunk drivers discount the danger of dying or hurting other people, so the state must implement harsh laws that discourage drunk driving even more. The problem with this idea, however, is that the state’s penalties for drunk driving are extremely lenient when compared to what could possibly occur as a natural consequence of drunk driving – like, death, disfigurement or a lifetime in prison. As such, it is naïve at best to think that the state’s relatively mild form of punishment could possibly dissuade a man from driving drunk, when not even the risk of death was able to discourage him from doing so.

In other words, what the state and other logic-eschewing groups would like for us to believe is the following:

When a man is drunk, his "impaired judgment" makes him discount the possibility of getting into a horrible accident that might kill or injure him or someone else. As a result of discounting this risk, he is likely to go ahead and drive drunk anyway.


This same drunken man, who thinks he can cheat death on the highway, will suddenly see the light, shut off his engine, and walk home if the state merely threatens him with a stint in jail if he drives.

If we look at these propositions without letting emotion cloud our judgment, is it not obvious that if a man thinks he can drive home and avoid killing himself or hurting other people (because of his "impaired judgment"), he is likely to think the very same thing about avoiding the relatively mild punishments of the police? What could possibly make us think that threatening a man with a lighter punishment than could result as a natural consequence of his actions will dissuade him from doing something, when the threat of the more severe natural punishments does not? Is this not similar to what occurs when the police attempt to deter "base jumping" in national parks by threatening to fine those who jump? If a man thinks he can avoid the natural and severe potential punishment of jumping off a cliff, (i.e., squashing himself on the rocks thousands of feet below), what could possibly make us think that the threat of a $500 fine will stop him?

My argument can be summed up with the following proposition:

If a man is intoxicated to the extent that he is a danger to himself and other drivers, and he believes that he is capable of avoiding killing himself or injuring others on the road, then he is just as likely to believe that he can avoid getting caught by the police.


I agree with this

[steve005]

and since when do we punish pp for what they might do?

[Icymudpuppy]

I'm wondering why his driver's license wasn't revoked a few times ago. It seems like that would be a more appropriate sentence. Unless I missed somewhere that he killed or maimed someone.

Forget revoking a driver's license. That's like taking a gangbanger's concealed permit away without taking away his gun. The guy should have his car impounded, and not be allowed to ever register a car again if he decides to buy one.

[amy31416]

They should just cut off his hands or poke out his eyeballs instead.

I'm leaning towards eyeballs, you can still drive with stumps.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I say deport him to Denmark... they're the biggest lushes in Europe...

Nah, how about the guy sues the government for the shittiest public transportation in the western world...

Nah, how about this guy has a sickness... a sickness that can't be control running around with booze available at almost every single block corner.

Given the cost to incarcerate and this guy lives the next 25 years in prison, times the average cost of $40-50K per year over the next 25 years, don't you think it would be better to pay for rehab and have him do some public service or help other with his affliction?

Prison is not the answer... especially when We The People have to pay for growing the Prison Industrial Complex and more laws on top of laws, on top of more judiciary branch employees at all levels.

Don't feed the government

[Galileo Galilei]

Did he ever get in a car accident? If not, he is safer than many, if not most drivers.

[johnrocks]

Seems a bit harsh, I remember the first time I ever heard about the "three strikes and your out" rule, a man got life for a bounced check.

The punishment should fit the crime,imo.

[Kludge]

Seems a bit harsh, I remember the first time I ever heard about the "three strikes and your out" rule, a man got life for a bounced check.

The punishment should fit the crime,imo.

Have you heard of.... Alvin Greene? :D

Fairness saves us money!

YouTube - Alvin Greene's first official speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSJ6P1gS4Ys)

[Wesker1982]

Did you not read the article?

Yeah I did. He is getting life in prison for DWI, not for hurting anyone.


when the judge found out the defendant had eight prior DWI convictions across several different counties in Texas, he ordered up a life sentence for Stovall.


The ninth conviction was the breaking point for one Texas judge who earlier this week sentenced a habitual drunken driver to life in prison.

Ninth conviction of what? DWI/DUI.

[Golding]

Hopefully he gets some rehab in jail.

[Pauls' Revere]

Two questions:

Where is the jury?

How can past convictions be admitted to send a man to prison for life? I thought, perhaps incorrectly, under rules of evidence that past convictions could not be admitted as evidence or used to determine sentencing.

Maybe he pled guilty?

As far as I know, past and repeated behavior has been taken into account numerous times I'm sure.

[Wesker1982]

Hopefully he gets some rehab in jail.

probably just raped and shanked

but thats justice, RIGHT?

[james1906]

Yeah I did. He is getting life in prison for DWI, not for hurting anyone.



He got in an accident and injured someone.

[Wesker1982]

He got in an accident and injured someone.

yeah I KNOW. his life sentence is not for hurting somebody. it is for getting caught driving drunk 9 times.

Edit:

For those who missed the thread title: Texas man gets life in prison for DWI

[Golding]

probably just raped and shanked

but thats justice, RIGHT?Eh, you could say that about any crime that earns any amount of time in jail. The raping and shanking is a hypothetical. Depends on the jail.

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe not, but if he didn't kill or hurt anyone, I think a life sentence is way overboard. Otherwise, permanently take away his license, throw him in jail for 6 months...

Otherwise, it seems to me that the judge sentenced him just as if he had killed someone. For some reason, this really bothers me. I don't like convicting and sentencing someone as if they had done something that they have not done.

It just doesn't sit right.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

Something is not sitting right with me on this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Effects_at_different_levels

The fact that the guy was able to start a vehicle and somewhat drive it is amazing.

Which is why the choppers of mine I built back in the day were kickstart only.

It was like a rudimentary alcohol breath analyzer interlock.

If I got too wasted to ride, I was too wasted to get any of them started.;)

[Imperial]

Why not just revoke his license?

[pcosmar]

That's what I'm thinking as well.

Something is not sitting right with me on this.



Which is why the choppers of mine I built back in the day were kickstart only.

It was like a rudimentary alcohol breath analyzer interlock.

If I got too wasted to ride, I was too wasted to get any of them started.;)

lol,
That describes this one,

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3361/3292535953_6c85a1f9b5_z.jpg?zz=1

But guess what, All it takes is a lying cop to bust you anyway.
been there,, did that.
:(

[Anti Federalist]

lol,
That describes this one,

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3361/3292535953_6c85a1f9b5_z.jpg?zz=1

But guess what, All it takes is a lying cop to bust you anyway.
been there,, did that.
:(

Awesome ride Pete, I can't quite tell from the picture, Trumpy, BSA or (maybe) a Norton?

I built a '69 Trumpy, a '71 Sportster, and was in process of building a Panhead scoot. I have got not a single photo of the three I built, sadly, the few I had were destroyed in a ex wife fight, right about the time I sold them.

The Trumpy looked a lot like this though:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/outlaw-chopper-profile-1.jpg

[james1906]

Why not just revoke his license?

Yep, that'll stop him!

[daviddee]

...

[libertybrewcity]

I'm wondering why his driver's license wasn't revoked a few times ago. It seems like that would be a more appropriate sentence. Unless I missed somewhere that he killed or maimed someone.

It probably was, but that wouldn't stop him. I'm surprised he hasn't killed someone.

The punishment sounds harsh but I wonder how else you would stop this kind of irresponsible and potentially dangerous behavior.

[aGameOfThrones]

There are bad drivers who continually get into accidents without alcohol. What do you do with them?


Firing Squad??? At the very least, right???

[aGameOfThrones]

It is sad to know there are "libertarians" that support this guy getting life in prison. How about he gets in trouble for when he actually hurt somebody? Punish him for what he has actually done not what he might have done or might do.

Has anyone here ever pulled a gun on a drunk driver? Just curious. :p

I highly recommend reading this article before flaming me:
Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli25.html


Firing Squad sounds better. He might kill someone, that's all I need to make a decision. :rolleyes:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Eliminate public roads and subsidizing urban sprawl on the backs of urban taxpayers.

[Working Poor]

In Turkey he would be dead they give death penality for 2nd offence

[Icymudpuppy]

The article specifically has mentioned that he had injured someone in his latest arrest.


weaved through several lanes of traffic and hit another vehicle, injuring the driver.

It doesn't go into details of his previous arrests, but 8 convictions? He surely has had his license revoked as every state in the union has that as a standard penalty for DUI/DWI, which is the first part of every DUI sentence. Prison time, fines, etc are added to it. Obviously, this guy doesn't care about driving without a license, or he wouldn't have been driving at all. TAKE AWAY HIS CAR! Plus, don't you think that ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH A DEADLY WEAPON as he did is certainly justifiable for a long prison sentence, and don't you think that his weapon (His car) should be taken away? Especially when he has used the weapon in a reckless and threatening manner repeatedly. Indeed serially?

YouTube - Unsafe Driving = Disaster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfuwbqzEy4)

[QueenB4Liberty]

The article specifically has mentioned that he had injured someone in his latest arrest.



It doesn't go into details of his previous arrests, but 8 convictions? He surely has had his license revoked as every state in the union has that as a standard penalty for DUI/DWI, which is the first part of every DUI sentence. Prison time, fines, etc are added to it. Obviously, this guy doesn't care about driving without a license, or he wouldn't have been driving at all. TAKE AWAY HIS CAR! Plus, don't you think that ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH A DEADLY WEAPON as he did is certainly justifiable for a long prison sentence, and don't you think that his weapon (His car) should be taken away? Especially when he has used the weapon in a reckless and threatening manner repeatedly. Indeed serially?

YouTube - Unsafe Driving = Disaster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfuwbqzEy4)


Right, so it isn't like he "didn't even hurt anyone or their property" which is the only real justification for the argument against punishing drunk driving. He's being punished for hurting someone after he's already had 8 previous convictions. I'd like to know more about the case in particular though.