The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The NFL Today

Re: The NFL Today

Brent — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:17:17 -0000

I can only answer similarly to how I answered stacy originally. I think the answer in cases like this is probably but we are on much shakier moral ground because the operative issue no longer hinges on quantifiable harm but the increased risk of harm. How do we measure that increased risk and what is the moral/immoral threshold? If something I do increases the risk of an innocent's persons death by .001 percent, have I crossed that threshold?

As I said above, I do think that you can make a case on that basis but I would also say the case depends upon just how I assess that increased risk and that will vary a lot in individual circumstances regardless of the objective parameters or statistical evidence.

In the case of Stallworth, I think everyone agrees that he deserves some punishment. I think the difference is over how severely he should be treated and some people seem to want to make that decision on the basis of the outcome. I, however, am not inclined to do that.

Re: The NFL Today

Jennifer D. — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:36:11 -0000

Okay, I get the distinction that Stacy and Brent are making. How about this analogy instead? I live in the hills and I shoot my rifle every night into the valley for years. No one ever gets killed or even shot. Is that an immoral act? Isn't endangering the lives of others immoral, even if no one ends up getting hurt in the end?

Re: The NFL Today

tom c — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:40:33 -0000

30 days in jail wasn't the whole punishment for the record. There is two years of house arrest, 8 years probation, 1000 hours of community service, a lifetime suspension of driving priveliges, and he has to go back and play for the Cleveland Browns.

Re: The NFL Today

keith — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:39:14 -0000

Isn't that what happened with Hulk Hogans kid? He got 8 months in jail, and his friend was not killed but severly injured to the point of being in a nursing home for the rest of his life. He was never charged with DUI, but reckless driving and they did find alcohol in his system.

But to your question, absolutley the punishiment should be less severe. There are choices everyone makes, and it is our choice to get into a car with someone who is drunk, therefore that person shares in the responsibility. The person who is walking down the street has no say in the matter.

Re: The NFL Today

eric k — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:34:00 -0000

Not sure if I want to wade into the middle of this, but...

I saw a report on CNN a few years ago about a study, at The University of Utah IIRC. They used simulators to test people's driving ability under 3 scenarios. A baseline group, a group that was at the legal limit (.08) and a group that was talking on Cell Phones. The results were there were no differences between the baseline and the legally drunk group. The Cell phone group were far worse.

And experts say the hands free laws are meaningless, it isn't holding the phone that is the issue, it is the concentrating on the phone converstation that causes the problem.

I can speak from experience, my wonderfully maintained '94 Range Rover that I will likely never be able to find a replacement for in such good condition (yeah I'm still ticked 5 years later, blue book doesn't take into account how hard it is to find something!) was totalled because a woman driving a Jeep Cherokee and talking on a Cell phone turned left right into me when her turn lane had a solid green yield light not the green arrow which she apparantly thought she did. She was so obvlivious to what was going on she never even hit the brakes, just drove right into me as my front end was crushed like an accordion.

Re: The NFL Today

Byrk — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:26:37 -0000

CHOSE to drive drunk; his actions resulted in the death of another human (yes, he WAS at fault, as admitted to by him and proven by his willingness to pay the victim's family).

They were able to get him to admit that and save themselves a long and costly trial trying to prove it instead. If they failed, he would have gotten off with even less punishment. There's a difference between getting a defendant to admit to something in a plea bargain and being able to prove the same thing in a court of law.

is that way more often than not, those extenuating circumstances don't exist. THIS case shows that:

But not always, and it has to be proven. You can't speculate in court on what the average DUI case involves, or what usually happens in these cases. I also question your methodology for proving it's "way more often than not" How many times when a DA goes for a conviction by trial do they succeed in a case like this? How much of that "way more often than not" is based on people plea dealing a lenient sentence? How much is based on the methodology if BAC > 0.09 alcohol is 100% at fault?

Re: The NFL Today

Craig — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:15:29 -0000

Thirdsies on that, obviously. There is fault to be assigned here to the victim, as unpleasant as it is to point that out.

Re: The NFL Today

Brent — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:14:07 -0000

the problem with these rebuttals [yours and brent's] is they assume the best-case scenario for the drunk driver

No. I am assuming nothing. You are assuming a causal link in this circumstance and it is not clear that that is appropriate. Do you mean that you believe that Stallworth should be punished on the basis of some statistical evidence?

if there was a fatality resulting from the accident, the DUI driver usually is at fault. these claims are supported by police investigations. check the record.

Check what record? Do you mean that you have done a statistical analysis by reading through the arrest records and dispensations of a large sample of cases that reveal that drunk driving is "usually" at fault in cases where a driver was drinking? I have seen plenty of evidence demonstrating correlation but very little demonstrating causation. I have also seen evidence that show that, although farm more fatal automobile accidents occur in cases where no one is drunk, there is a slightly higher incident of per drunk driver than per sober driver. This sort of evidence would probably be enough to justify laws against drunk driving but I don't see how they could justify treating all cases of drunk driving as the same.

However, I would be happy to see the record of which you speak.

Re: The NFL Today

Stacy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:06:20 -0000

Co-sign on everything above. This is what I've been trying to get at in a round-about way. A .1 BAC is not close to the same thing for everybody. Now obviously, we must have laws, but all drunk drivers are not created equal. People find that very offensive, but it is the truth.

Re: The NFL Today

Stacy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:03:21 -0000

Another hypothetical:

If someone decides to get in a car with me after we have both been drinking at the bar for hours, and I get in an accident and my buddy dies, shouldn't my punishment be much less severe than if I were to kill a random stranger walking down the sidewalk? I ask this as someone whose uncle died while riding drunk in a car with his equally drunk friend. They were both 17. Should my mother's family have held his friend responsible for their son's death?

Re: The NFL Today

Adam — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:59:28 -0000

There are obviously several mitigating factors here:

Driving 50 in a 40 - That's about what I usually drive, and I get people behind me angry that I'm not going faster.

A jaywalking pedestrian - I'm sure if he hit someone walking on the shoulder, or the sidewalk, the penalty would have been far worse.

No reckless driving - If there were, it would have been mentioned. Yes, some people upthread have correctly said that it's reckless to drive at .1 no matter what. But it's also reckless to talk on the phone while driving. Or to turn around and look at your kids while driving. Or to look down for a split second to pick up something on the floorboard you dropped. Unless you want to advocate the same draconian policies for people driving recklessly in those situations, keep in mind you're not being consistent about penalties for what happens when you drive recklessly just because one of them is "omg drunk driving".

Also, my guess is that as a young professional athlete who obviously doesn't make the best decisions, he probably drinks and parties on a regular basis. That .126 is not going to affect him nearly as much as it will your average cubicle worker to whom 8 beers sounds like a massive indulgence. I've never understood why a DUI is based on a strict blood ratio instead of the actual degree of impairment, but those are the laws.

Finally, full cooperation - a lot of people in his situation would have immediately fled the scene and tried to cover it up somehow. He immediately called the police and reported it, and has accepted full responsibility. That matters more than you think in dealing with prosecutors, whose job is made a lot easier with those kinds of defendents.

Re: The NFL Today

Stacy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:59:27 -0000

"what i HAVE said - without a decent response - is that way more often than not, those extenuating circumstances don't exist."

The reason you haven't gotten a decent response to that is probably due to the fact that no one is disputing it. No one is arguing that more often than not, the drunk driver is at fault. Clearly, that's the case. But just because that's the case doesn't mean that it is always the case.

Re: The NFL Today

michael — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:58:55 -0000

Different states, different laws, not much connection at all.

perhaps the better question is whether there's a connection within the NFL sentencing. how will Goodell treat the two?

i say both get multiple game suspensions, based on Goodell's record as Commish.

Re: The NFL Today

Stacy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:50:40 -0000

Jennifer,

If you feel like your comparisons are legitimate at all, I'm not really sure what we have to discuss. If you drive drunk your entire life without hurting someone, then, um...you are not hurting anyone. Unlike the situations you described.

And I certainly don't see how this is insensitive to the guy Stallworth hit. The guy is dead, yes, but we're not talking about him anymore. I simply asked a question which I thought might be some interesting food-for-thought.

Re: The NFL Today

Brent — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:48:34 -0000

This is actually meant as a reply to Jennifer. The problem with your hypotheticals is that the immorality can be located precisely in the harm they cause. The issue that Stacy is raising is not whether or not one is caught. It is whether an act that causes no harm can reasonably be considered immoral. Your hypotheticals don't address that question at all.

Re: The NFL Today

Byrk — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:47:08 -0000

That being said, it is probably impossible to conclude that someone's drinking had NOTHING to do with an accident.

The relevant question is does the DA have to prove that his drinking was the cause of the accident or not to get a conviction? At least from a quick reading of the Florida penal code the DA would need to prove that the intoxication was the cause of the accident.

your logic fails to account for the fact that being over the legal limit is itself a crime.

Not really, since the punishments for a first conviction DUI are far less than for vehicular manslaughter. How many people go to jail for more than a single night for a DUI?

For a first conviction DUI in Florida the imprisonment is.

First Conviction: Not more than 6 months. With BAL of .15 or higher or minor in the vehicle: Not more than 9 months.

http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/duilaws.html

For a first DUI he would have received a more lenient sentence than what he got now. He would have had less probation, 1 year of license suspension and a max 6 months imprisonment instead of 30 days + 2 years house arrest.

Re: The NFL Today

Brent — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:44:44 -0000

Perhaps, but for me, your question demonstrates the extent to which questions of morality are on such shaky ground when they are divorced from the issue of direct outcome. Its difficult to argue, I think, that an act is obviously immoral when it doesn't hurt anyone but one could argue that by driving drunk one is making that behavior more normative and thus increasing the likelihood of harm coming to someone else indirectly. Alternatively one could argue that the immorality is based upon on one's disregard for the increased risk presented by the activity in itself.

Re: The NFL Today

michael — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:44:08 -0000

the problem with these rebuttals [yours and brent's] is they assume the best-case scenario for the drunk driver (they are drunk, but not impaired; they weren't at fault; they are a first time offender, etc), when the research on DUIs simply doesn't support these rosy scenarios.

the profile for the DUI offender is likely not someone who was just drinking and driving this one time. if they were involved in the accident, it is almost always the case they were at fault. if there was a fatality resulting from the accident, the DUI driver usually is at fault. these claims are supported by police investigations. check the record.

i'm not saying DUI drivers are immoral. i'm saying they are STUPID and SELFISH. they're refusal to follow the law imperils the lives of others.

no one has said extenuating circunstances should be dismissed. what i HAVE said - without a decent response - is that way more often than not, those extenuating circumstances don't exist. THIS case shows that: a man who could have afforded to pay someone else to drive him, CHOSE to drive drunk; his actions resulted in the death of another human (yes, he WAS at fault, as admitted to by him and proven by his willingness to pay the victim's family).

and the claim that punishment is not meant to deter is just flat out wrong. time and again, sentencing records show judges saying just that - criminal sentencing is intended to deter future crime by the defendant in that particular case AND other who might be considering committing similar acts.

Re: The NFL Today

LCrawfty — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:43:21 -0000

I find throwing hypotheticals out like this insensitive to the person who was killed as a result of what Donte did.

Re: The NFL Today

Jennifer D. — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:40:51 -0000

So ... if I stole from my employer all my life but never got caught, I would not have done anything immoral? If I molested little boys for decades but never got caught, I'd be all right with heaven?

I use these particular analogies for a reason -- people just do not take drunk driving seriously enough as a crime. Every time you get behind the wheel drunk, you are guilty of reckless endangerment.

Re: The NFL Today

Brent — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:26:01 -0000

your logic fails to account for the fact that being over the legal limit is itself a crime.

So is driving over the speed limit. Your line of argument seems to want to draw a specific conclusion of causation from Stallworth's blood alcohol level to the pedestrian's death and it is not clear that that is appropriate in this case. Indeed there is some evidence to believe that the court, having heard all the evidence, decided that it wasn't.

Stallworth broke the law. if he had chosen NOT to drive drunk then, he would not be where he is now.

Or he could have chosen to drive cold dead sober and ended up in exactly the same situation which is a scenario that also takes place all the time.

From a personal perspective, I live in Vegas and Miami Beach and, in both cities, go many places on my bike, so you can imagine that I am not a big fan of drunk driving. But I am just as wary of the public policy approach that tries to address all crimes through a lens of moral opprobrium.

Re: The NFL Today

rikyrah — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:25:38 -0000

you are right...there is no racial angle. this is a class angle. a privilege angle. the color that counts in all of this is GREEN. if he wasn't OF USE to the NFL, he'd be going to jail. it helps that he killed an old Latino guy. If it had been a White anything.....well....I have my suspicions.

Re: The NFL Today

rikyrah — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:23:17 -0000

30 days for KILLING SOMEONE WHILE DRUNK?

Sigh.

This is ridiculous. If his name was Pookie, we know what the sentence would be, and it wouldn't be no damn 30 days.

Re: The NFL Today

eric k — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:23:02 -0000

This is what I don;t get, did the Vikings just wake up and realize those guys both suck?

There have been lots of QBs available who were better options than Favre, Jeff Garcia was a FA for one obvious example.

Re: The NFL Today

Stacy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:22:48 -0000

Well, I think it does make a bit of difference. For the longest time, in almost every state, the legal limit was .1 BAC. This has since changed due to organizations such as MADD obtainiing much more clout in the past couple of decades. I just find it interesting, that in nearly every DUI resulting in a fatality, you almost NEVER see someone with a BAH that's lower than about a .12. Now obviously, we're arguing small amounts here, but I do find it interesting.