January 24, 2008
Laughter costs crook 6-1/2 years
Every so often I hear about a judge cutting loose on a criminal defendant, actually punishing the crook's conduct, taking into account things like the seriousness of the offense, as well as something often ridiculed by the defense bar as being of no importance: a lack of remorse on the part of the criminal.
This particular case is a perfect comeuppance for a particularly revolting sociopath.
TUCSON, Ariz. — A judge sentenced a woman to nearly the maximum prison term for negligent homicide after hearing a recorded jail conversation in which she made light of the bicyclist she killed.
Melissa Arrington, 27, was convicted two months ago of negligent homicide and two counts of aggravated DUI in connection with the December 2006 death of Paul L'Ecuyer.
Who's laughing now, you pathetic, drunken,
heartless pig?
She could have gotten as few as four years behind bars, but Superior Court Judge Michael Cruikshank sentenced her Tuesday to 10 1/2 years — one year shy of the maximum.Cruikshank said he found a telephone conversation between Arrington and an unknown male friend, a week after L'Ecuyer was killed, to be "breathtaking in its inhumanity."
During the conversation, the man told Arrington that an acquaintance believed she should get a medal and a "f**king parade" because she had "taken out" a "tree hugger, a bicyclist, a Frenchman and a gay guy all in one shot."
Arrington laughed. When the man said he knew it was a terrible thing to say, she responded, "No, it's not."
Assistant Public Defender Michael Rosenbluth told the judge his client has never been "cold, callous or flippant" about L'Ecuyer's death and has always felt remorseful.
Arrington said words couldn't express how she feels, and that once she's out of prison, she hopes to share her story with Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
L'Ecuyer, 45, was riding his bike the night of Dec. 1, 2006 when Arrington swerved off the road, hit him and then continued for 800 feet before stopping, according to Deputy Pima County Attorney Jonathan Mosher.
Arrington's blood-alcohol content was .156 percent, nearly double Arizona's .08 legal limit. She had been driving on a suspended license for a prior DUI.
A couple of points: It's noteworthy that Arrington had a prior DUI and was driving on a suspended license.
When it comes to DUI, past behavior is a great indicator of future performance. And it's just classic that Arrington not only did it again, but on a license suspended for drunken driving.
It's almost enough to make you think we ought to get serious about DUI-related offenses, probation violations and driving on suspended licenses.
And you'd be right. In Ventura County we used to treat all this quite seriously, with substantial jail sentences for defendants who were caught driving on suspended drivers' licenses after DUI convictions, as well as additional time for violating terms of probation like, "abstain from alcohol," and "do not operate a motor vehicle with alcohol in your system."
No longer.
For reasons that escape me, the very idea of imposing an additional sanction on criminal defendants for violating the terms of their probations has become laughable, a source of derision from the public defenders and much unhappy eye-rolling and harrumphing from impatient judges.
While it's impossible to say with any certainty that Arrington could have been prevented from killing the cyclist who ended up sprawled, lifeless, in the bed of her pick-up truck, I think it's a given that 30, 60 or 90 days spent in the county jail for violating DUI probations provides the rest of us a welcome respite from the alcohol-induced mayhem perpetrated by other drunks.
My hat's off to Judge Cruikshank, who went 6.5 years beyond the low-term and nearly maxxed her out.
That was one expensive laugh, eh?
Posted by Mike Lief at January 24, 2008 03:32 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
Thanks for the post. This struck home as "Bicycling" magazine just had an article on people who've been maimed and killed by drivers. The callousness of the drivers - mostly drinkers - was revolting. I am delighted to hear that the judge took this seriously whatever the reason.
I hope Arrington rots.
Posted by: BlogDog at January 27, 2008 05:28 PM