A two time DWI ex Congress/Govenor gets 100 days for running a stop sign drunk. Killeing the other driver. He was lucky to have a conservative judge. Worked well for him being a republican. A jury found this man guilty. Hard To believe 100 days. His defence was he had a diabetic reaction. Yes that can happen with a 1.7 blood level twice the .80 . He was drunk and the jury didn't buy it. How the hell does a judge get off givieng 100 days.
100 Days In Jail For Murder
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
DJV:
I often agree with your posts but, not sure on this one. I've tried to be consistent on this board (and for that matter, in my life) whether or not it supports my belief system but I do not like to base my conclusions on the media's spin and sensational headlines. Again, they look for eye grabbing sound bites that the morons of this country can use to support their own positions. My point is there may very well have been a valid reason for the imposition by the judge of what appears to be a very light sentence for a death case.
We were not in the courtroom, did not hear the evidence, did not hear the mitigating factors and therefore shouldn't jump to conclusions that the verdict and sentence showed favoritism based on political beliefs. Although it does smell of political bias, I cant yet condemn the judge for this sentence. Am I snickering when I read that article, yeah but I gotta give the judge the benefit of the doubt untill I hear otherwise.
Ed
I often agree with your posts but, not sure on this one. I've tried to be consistent on this board (and for that matter, in my life) whether or not it supports my belief system but I do not like to base my conclusions on the media's spin and sensational headlines. Again, they look for eye grabbing sound bites that the morons of this country can use to support their own positions. My point is there may very well have been a valid reason for the imposition by the judge of what appears to be a very light sentence for a death case.
We were not in the courtroom, did not hear the evidence, did not hear the mitigating factors and therefore shouldn't jump to conclusions that the verdict and sentence showed favoritism based on political beliefs. Although it does smell of political bias, I cant yet condemn the judge for this sentence. Am I snickering when I read that article, yeah but I gotta give the judge the benefit of the doubt untill I hear otherwise.
Ed
1.7 was his blood level 2 hours after the accedent. Thats more then just a tad over .80. I agree it should have been left at 1. But the man did not learn very well since it was his second DWI.
djv, haven't followed the case closely, but i believe the charge janklow pled guilty to was some form of reduced-culpability manslaughter. the state did not allege that the accident was alcohol related. if they had he would have been charged with a more serious offense, and almost certainly would have received a heavier sentence. i believe the only allegations of misconduct were speeding and running a stop sign.
Lets just suppose that the motorcyclist had been speeding through a stop sign and ran over this scumbag's granddaughter.
Do you think HE would have gotten only 100 days? If you do, you are truly living in a fantasy land with Michael J.
Do you think HE would have gotten only 100 days? If you do, you are truly living in a fantasy land with Michael J.
I used to live in that state so I've followed this case with some interest. I was never given the impression that alcohol was a factor. Neither the paper I worked for nor the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported him having alcohol in his system as far as I know (then again I am in Texas now but I've tried to keep tabs on it). According to the Argus timeline, "Highway Patrol officials say there is no evidence of alcohol or drugs involved." Where did you hear booze was involved?
I voted against this guy in the last election, but I can honestly say that people who supported either party, at least in my experience, really seemed to like him. After all, he was state gov. for 16 years. He seemed to cross party lines for the people of the state and really cared about the good of SD.
He does deserve punishment for what he did and I think he got that. If alcohol had been involved, like loophole said, I would just about guarantee that he would've gotten a tougher sentence.
I voted against this guy in the last election, but I can honestly say that people who supported either party, at least in my experience, really seemed to like him. After all, he was state gov. for 16 years. He seemed to cross party lines for the people of the state and really cared about the good of SD.
He does deserve punishment for what he did and I think he got that. If alcohol had been involved, like loophole said, I would just about guarantee that he would've gotten a tougher sentence.
well ocelot, in the fantasy world that i live in every day, i have handled several cases of vehicular homicide where the defendants received no active sentence at all. i can recall two that involved motorcyclists. i'm fairly certain that i have never had a client have to serve an active sentence in such a case where no alcohol was involved. remember, the law distinguishes between intentional and accidental killings.
just my personal experience; you may know more than i do, with all my flights into fantasy.
just my personal experience; you may know more than i do, with all my flights into fantasy.
In correct info. He was not drunk. He did in his past have a DUI because it was right at .80. So it was not part of this at all. However he had two other speeding tickets before this happen. He ran a stop sign at high speed. Hit a killed another man. He was knowen to like to drive fast. So this was some degree of manslaugther. Im still wondering how you get 100 days. In fact they now say after 30 days he can spend just nights in the jail.
Of course a civil suite is in the makings. Cant blame those folks.
Of course a civil suite is in the makings. Cant blame those folks.
