What would you say if you knew someone had killed 60,000 people? Would you call it a felony of the worst kind, times 60,000? If you totaled up the value of all those lives in criminal court, what would you say they're worth?
Billions? Trillions?
Or, how about a measly $321 million in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor?!?! When considering that the murderer is the second-largest drug maker in the U.S.—Merck—and its deadly drug Vioxx, then you'll probably understand why they were allowed to walk--money.
As for those with relatively no moeny, lets begin with the violent and random crime of car-jacking. After all, who has not worried one time or another about a stranger opening the door of their car while they are waiting for a light to flash green? In the movies it is not unlikely to see one of the characters being murdered during a car-jacking. However, the reality is that in America you are 1,180 times more likely to die in your car from the wheels of a drunk driver than you are at the hands of a stranger trying to take your car away from you. ①③ For every one person killed as a result of a carjacking by stranger 28 children ages ranging from newborn to 16 will die as the result of a drunk driver. This means over 1,100 people including 28 children (those 16 and younger) in your community must die at the hands of a drunk driver before statistically it will be likely to have even one of its citizens die as a result of a carjacking. (Of course there are factors to prove the likelihood that the victim will be you: Being male, black, living in the inner-city and making less than $50,000 a year are some of them, according to demographic and statistical data.) The above comparisons are from information gathered by our own governmental agencies.
Billions? Trillions?
Or, how about a measly $321 million in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor?!?! When considering that the murderer is the second-largest drug maker in the U.S.—Merck—and its deadly drug Vioxx, then you'll probably understand why they were allowed to walk--money.
As for those with relatively no moeny, lets begin with the violent and random crime of car-jacking. After all, who has not worried one time or another about a stranger opening the door of their car while they are waiting for a light to flash green? In the movies it is not unlikely to see one of the characters being murdered during a car-jacking. However, the reality is that in America you are 1,180 times more likely to die in your car from the wheels of a drunk driver than you are at the hands of a stranger trying to take your car away from you. ①③ For every one person killed as a result of a carjacking by stranger 28 children ages ranging from newborn to 16 will die as the result of a drunk driver. This means over 1,100 people including 28 children (those 16 and younger) in your community must die at the hands of a drunk driver before statistically it will be likely to have even one of its citizens die as a result of a carjacking. (Of course there are factors to prove the likelihood that the victim will be you: Being male, black, living in the inner-city and making less than $50,000 a year are some of them, according to demographic and statistical data.) The above comparisons are from information gathered by our own governmental agencies.
Comparing DUI’s and carjackings seems quite unfair for many reasons. The reality is DUI’s are not actively aggressive crimes, often they are committed with the best of intentions. Crimes of casual desperation. A car-jacking on the other hand is an aggressive maneuver, though also often a crime of active desperation. Statistically however, DUI’s are actually violent crimes, just not often aggressive. “Violent” is a label our justice system interjects into historically lower-class crimes that appear to have physically aggressive components. With a “violent crime” label, the justice system historically has ignored the physical harm not caused in most “violent” crimes. DUI-punishments however, have been based on individual facts known by the authorities. It is only recently that DUI’s have started being prosecuted more seriously.
California's minimum for a “first time” DUI, after the initial arrest, is a fine, classes, community service and temporary suspension of driving privileges, but California's mandatory minimum sentence for a “first time” carjacking with firearm (with no shots fired and no injuries) is a not so temporary 13 years loss of freedom, and therefore life.
The 13 years will most likely be given along with 2 strikes: One for the carjacking and one for the" assault with a deadly weapon". Due to the strikes a mandatory minimum of 85% sentence completion is required before parole eligibility. As for drunk driving, well, to most it's not threatening and is seen as "natural" since the majority of us have done it. Like a gang member growing up in a gang-infested neighborhood, drinking and driving home has been common amongst Americans, therefore contemporary laws pretty much have implied that it was OK to put those infants and children at risk of death, along with each other - as well as the minority who've never chosen to drink and drive - just to get our head-change, or to get oneself somewhere after achieving sufficient impairment.
