I swear I'm not making that up.
So a judge in Nova Scotia finally decided that he'd had enough. On Feb 12, Provincial Court Judge Frank Hoskins sentenced Naugle to eight and a half years in prison and banned him from driving for life. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy - can you imagine how many times this fucknut was out driving drunk when the police didn't catch him? Good riddance to bad rubbish, and all that.
Well, Mr. Naugle has decided that he wants to appeal the judgment. Because it's so harsh, you see. After all, he's been given a consecutive sentence in addition to the maximum sentence of five years.
Poor, poor Mr. Naugle. It's just SO UNFAIR.
11 comments:
I think you know my views on drunk driving.
Terry Naugle can fuck himself with a claymore. If he's reluctant to do so, I would be happy to do the honors.
Crucifixion would be too harsh, Drowning in grain alcohol would be poetic, but also excessive, the six years and nine months maximum this degenerate drunk is getting after double credit for time served?
Not really sufficient.
I just wonder how many times this moron washed blood from his vehicle and made repairs in the morning, telling himself he must have hit an animal.
I wonder how many unsolved vehicular homicides there are in and around Nova Scotia?
He was already legally barred from driving at the time he sideswiped the SUV, he chose to keep access to a vehicle, and he chose to keep drinking.
Crucifixion and drowning would be too harsh, but a couple more steps in that general direction would not be out of place.
Pretty sure I've shared my opinion before--drunk drivers should be tried for attempted murder, whether they hit anyone or not.
Lock the bastard up for life.
Carl Elaine, which type of claymore? the anti-personnel mine or the huge fucking sword? Either one works for my more savage bits, but I am curious.
Michelle, i am with you there, depraved indifference about covers it.
Err... not that that this is necessarily that much better, but Mr. Naugle has been convicted for impaired driving 22 times, not 68. The 68 refers to his total number of convictions. The CBC article doesn't say how serious the non-impaired-driving convictions are--for all I know, 22 of them are for public urination before he got into the car (speaking of which, I don't know how Canadian law works, but the article doesn't specify how many of those convictions are rated--somebody in NC, for instance, who has one incident in which he drove while impaired with an expired tag, no insurance and made an illegal turn that triggered the DWI stop in the first place might technically have four convictions if he plead "straight-up" even though those counts would likely be consolidated for judgment and in any case would only count as one net conviction for the purposes of his criminal record).
I once represented a woman with more than 98 prior convictions--i.e. separate charges from separate incidents resolved on separate courtdates--almost all of them for huffing toxic vapors. I had her on her very first felony ever (breaking into a car, IIRC), and her record was maxed-out and she went to prison for it. Sad, really.
I won't rehash my views on DWI law, which are far more liberal than anyone who's commented so far. I will, however, point out that Mr. Naugle, for all his very obvious faults, probably has or had a momma who loves him, a dog who adored him, a boss who thought he was an alright guy when he's sober, maybe has a few people who know him only as "Pa" or "Dad," and, but for the mysterious forces that govern this universe, whether supernatural or the spontaneous and eventual result of the intersection of math and first-minute-of-time physical conditions in the early universe, could be any one of us, or any one of our loved ones.
Sorry, I can't get all up in someone's face about exercising his right to appeal a sentence. (Particularly when he had the good sense to plead guilty to what he'd actually done.) Sentencing laws are generally convoluted little beings, that are fairly easy to misapply, and it may well be that consecutive sentences are illegal in this case.
Example: You get caught selling some drugs. You've violated the law that prohibits selling drugs; you've violated the law that prohibits possessing the drugs; AND you've violated the law that prohibits possession for sale. You can get convicted of all three, but (at least in California), you'll only get punished for the one that carries that longest term. Whether this dude can actually get consecutive terms for driving while impaired, driving while prohibited and leaving the scene of an accident is a matter of Nova Scotia law.
People who get behind the wheel drunk (especially when they're not supposed to be driving at all due to prior drunk driving convictions) are doing something really stupid and really illegal, and deserve to be sent to prison for it. But that doesn't take away their right to appeal a possibly illegal prison term.
I'm not as militant as Carol Elaine, mfheadcase and Michelle, and not as liberal as Eric.
Eric, thanks for the clarification on the convictions, although I don't think 22 convictions is anything to brag about.
Nor did Mr. Naugle make the rolls of the 'tards because he exercised his right to appeal under Canadian law. The rule of law is critical to living in a civilized state, even if the crime is one that most people agree is egregiously stupid.
No, Mr. Naugle made the cut because of the incredible chutzpah required for someone to be convicted of drunk driving 22 times and then come out publicly and say he thinks his prison term is just TOO HARSH.
But nzforme may be right, and she makes a point I wish I'd noticed: it's quite possible Naugle's punishment is too harsh under Canadian law. I'm not in a position to say, being not-a-Canadian lawyer, but it may be that some of Naugle's sentences were required to be put in abeyance or consolidated (much as, in NC, you can't be sentenced for Larceny and Possession Of Stolen Goods for the same transaction--if a judge sentenced you for possessing the stolen goods you stole, it would be an improper--and too harsh--sentence). There are all sorts of other possibilities--including the possibility the judge exceeded a maximum sentence under whatever sentencing guidelines they have up there.
And then there's the whole question of whether the news has the story right to start with. They might, but if they did, it would be a rare instance, frankly. Is Naugle saying his sentence is "too harsh" or is he saying it's "improper under Canadian sentencing guidelines"? Is he raising some other issue--perhaps the real issue is some sort of Canadian equivalent of due process violations after a judge erred during a sentencing hearing. Naugle plead guilty--is it possible he had a plea bargain that limited his exposure to custody but that was disregarded by the judge? Maybe the situation is exactly what the article says, and maybe it's not, but hey, he's a drunk driver, so whatever the facts or law might be, fuck him, right?
Maybe the situation is exactly what the article says, and maybe it's not, but hey, he's a drunk driver, so whatever the facts or law might be, fuck him, right?
Seriously? You've been coming here for how long, you've been my on-line friend for how long, and you honestly think that's the way I look at things? Because my past opinions have so clearly indicated that I view the world in terms of black and white, with no possibility for nuance or shades of gray, and no regard for the rule of law? Seriously?
Wow.
Regardless of the facts of the case, or Canadian law, nzforme made the critical point: "People who get behind the wheel drunk (especially when they're not supposed to be driving at all due to prior drunk driving convictions) are doing something really stupid."
Janiece, I wrote a very long reply.
And I just selected all of it and started typing over it.
I feel derelict in many moral duties in doing so. But I also feel like my reply would cause you and several people in the comment thread who I think the universe of some anger and/or grief, and life is far too short to antagonize people you like.
With that, I apologize for any injury I've already caused you or anyone else, and with a tip o' the imaginary Stetson beg your pardons and ride out of this particular thread.
mfheadcase, I was thinking the big sword, but the mine works too.
nzforme, Naugle has every right to appeal his sentence, especially if his sentence is not in accordance with Nova Scotia law. However, the man is clearly a menace to society - it really is amazing that he's not killed anyone. Maybe a nice long stint in jail will wake him the fuck up. His next conviction could well be for vehicular manslaughter.
I totally understand that Naugle may very well be a terribly ill man (I am of the belief that alcoholism is an illness - various addictions have struck members of my immediate and extended family and I have seen what it can do, my own sister's death under the wheels of a drunk driver aside) but if he keeps drinking and keeps driving, even when he has been banned from driving for life, I can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for him.
Naugle has gotten far too many chances to change his ways. He has fucked up every chance he's been given. He deserves no further consideration.
Post a Comment