Originally Posted by
FBinNY
That's definitely true, but in many areas drivers involved in an accident leave out of a legitimate fear for their own safety. Mandatory sentence laws don't make for greater justice. I agree that if there's evidence to support a presumption that alcohol may be involved, then a driver who leaves and doesn't drive directly to a police station should be presumed to be DUI. But I don't that should apply without a basis in evidence.
In any case, I'm opposed to overly harsh laws or mandatory sentences, it gives DAs disproportionate power to overcharge then plea bargain from there.
I agree with you about naming this after a victim, as in your previous post. On my end, because it focuses way too much on the fact that he was a cyclist and hurts chances of passage. Although maybe you're more miffed about clawing for political gain using the name of a victim as a cheap emotional shot to do it?
I'm also generally against mandatory minimums, but in this case the mandatory minimum is three years, probably equal to or just over what the minimum is for the applicable drunk driving offense. That's the whole point of this legislation -- what good would it do if there was no minimum? If judges can (and would, based on what usually happens) degrade a sentence down below what might have been applied in the case of a DWI related death, it pulls the teeth out of this legislation, might as well not even have proposed it.
What's the politically feasible alternative to this proposed law? (Note: changing society, human nature, or structure of gov't is not "politically feasible"; I'm talking wording for a law which would make it a graver offense for leaving someone dead or dying on the side of the road in a hit and run situation, than calling it in and waiting at the scene even if under the influence of drugs or alcohol.)