I was incensed when I read a couple of days ago that Robert Van Dyke's attorney was asking the judge to overturn the jury verdict finding Van Dyke guilty of a seventh DUI conviction, especially after he served 5 years for a prior automobile
There is nothing that enrages me more than to see how lenient courts seem to be with drunk drivers, except for stupid lawyers who seem to have nothing better to do than wasting more of your tax dollars by dragging court cases into eternity.homicide conviction--probably while under the influence of alcohol.
Are attorneys supposed to be that stupid, or are they just supposed to represent their clients in any way their clients ask them to? Or is such a request normal?
In my opinion, the jury was correct in convicting Van Dyke, despite the silly claim by his attorney that swerving in traffic and being clearly intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle "are not illegal".
There is nothing that has enraged me more over the years as to see how lenient courts seem to have been with drunk drivers, except for stupid lawyers who seem to have nothing better to do than wasting more of your tax dollars by dragging court cases into eternity.
But the point now is: what should Van Dyke's sentence be? Is it okay to just throw him in prison and let him waste away for thirty years? Or is that not enough?