As I'm sure everyone is now aware, Donte Stallworth, wide receiver for the Cleveland Browns, pled out to a DUI-manslaughter charge in Miami, FL, getting 30 days in jail + 2 years house arrest + eight years probation + 1000 hours of community service + some deal with the deceased's family.
And everyone's pissed.
Why? Well, the general sentement seems to be that he was DUI (which is inexcusable) and he killed someone (which, though unintentional, is also inexcusable). As a result of this, I think people believed that he should have gotten much, much more time in the slammer.
Specifically, I would point to this piece from a blog called the "Bleacher Report". There, the writer notes numerous other people who got much more severe sentences for convictions under the DUI Manslaughter statute. It decries the fact that "average Joe's" like a 17 year old who (1) was illegally operating a motor vehicle with any BAC (which, unfortunately for a 17 y/o is a worse crime than the same thing for an older person), and (2) killed 2 people, was screwed over, while Stallworth got off, presumably, because of his fame. While apparently, Espinoza's sentence was especially harsh the fact remains that Stallworth's time in prison will be measured in days and not months.
However, in my humble opinion, the Miami DA handled this perfectly, as did Stallworth. The first thing for my non-lawyer friends who are reading this blog is that an important part of many laws, and this law is not an exception, is that there must be actual causation to connect the wrongful action (DUI) with the result (the death). The relevant statute here is Florida Statute section 316.193(3)3, and it requires that the action cause the death.
So there lies the caveat. You can be upset that he was DUI, but did he actually cause the death? From all indications, it appears that the victim jaywalking on the MacArthur Causeway, a 6-lane divided road in Miami "trying to catch a bus". That says to me he ran out in front of traffic. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, there were witness reports that Stallworth wasn't driving that fast and that the victim, more or less stepped right out in front of him. The speed limit was 40 MPH, at least, in the area where the victim was hit.
So, was Stallworth wrong to drive drunk? Sure was, and he admitted it. But if a plea doesn't get done, we have a long trial where we find out just how careless the victim was at 7 AM in the morning, after the night shift, running across a 6-lane highway, only to be hit by a guy, who very likely would have been unable to stop in the first place.
This would have been bad for Stallworth, because he's stuck trying to defend himself against a crime that he has already been convicted of in the public eye. This would have been bad for the victim's family, because who wants the media talking about how careless your son/brother/grandson was, and how it was really his own fault that he died - that anyone, no matter how sober, might have hit and killed you boy. And this would have been bad for a DA, where Stallworth has already been convicted by the public, even though it isn't clear his DUI was the cause of the death. If the DA loses, he's a schmuck.
So, ultimately, Stallworth got his. Was it as bad as some other people's sentences? No. But it also was far from clear that Stallworth was the reason the other person died. He didn't swerve into oncoming traffic. He didn't drive up on the sidewalk. He was pretty much driving the speed limit, when a guy wandered into the middle of a divided highway.
Ultimately, its sad, but the result was just.
Now, people are citing the fact that Vick got years in prison as support that Stallworth was under-punished. My retort is this: Vick was over-punished. 10,000 dog's lives are not worth a single human life. I love dogs. I love Annie, my parents' 5-year-old, beautiful, loving golden retriever. I love my girlfriend parent's dog, Berklee, who is a skinny mut of unknown age, who is so full of energy and life. Not one of those animal's lives is as important as any human beings life, and this is a fact.
Mike Vick killed a bunch of dogs, or caused them to be killed. This action is gross and detestable and appalling. And there are other things influencing their sentences: (1) As noted before, it isn't clear Stallworth committed the crime he was accused of, (2) It is quite clear that Vick did all this on purpose. However, Vick was convicted under a law which was basically created to help the AG of the US nab mobsters. Remember how they got Al Capone because of tax fraud? Yeah, same kind of idea.
Ultimately, Donte Stallworth risked the lives of a lot of people, and unfortunately, someone ended up dead. That particular death may not have been his fault, but what's to say that if he doesn't hit that guy, he doesn't run the next stoplight and kill 3 people instead of 1? His behavior was inexcusable, and he has been punished substantially.
Mike Vick risked no human being's life. He shouldn't have been doing what he was doing. But in my opinion, risking the lives of other human beings, through DUI or any other dangerous behavior (I'm looking right at you Plax...you know you were lucky that no one got hurt from your dumbassery) is far worse than killing any animal, maliciously or otherwise. I fail to see how our society can tolerate DUI and spousal abuse with slaps on the wrist, and yet sentence someone like Vick to prison for years because he killed some dogs.
So, this leads me to my final point, which relates to the NFL's handling of these issues. I am of the opinion that the NFL needs to take a hard-line stance on criminal activity by its players when that activity threatens human life. I think that suspending Stallworth indefinitely was completely appropriate. I think that suspending Vick was fine as well. Where the injustice lies is in the NFL's refusal to act on people like Chris Henry who repeatedly and unabashedly risk other people's lives. How do I mean? Well, just look at Henry's criminal record:
1-30-06: Carrying unlicensed concelead weapon, then threatens someone with it, all while wearing his Bengals jersey.
6-3-06: DUI.
11-6-07: Assaults a valet.
4-2-08: Throws a beer bottle through someone's window, and then punches them in the head.
So, I leave you with this: who is the most deserving of punishment of the group? Stallworth, who drove drunk once, but probably just got unlucky when some poor character ran out in front of his car? Vick for killing dogs? Or Henry for his repeated DUIs and his possession of an illegal firearm? Oh yeah, did I mention that Henry has also had some issues giving alcohol to underage girls?
No comments:
Post a Comment