Teen pleads innocent in drunken-driving death

Bill - I tend to agree with you but I must state my disagreement with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I do not believe that equal punishment is the same as equal protection. I think many (certainly not all) crimes do have mitigating factors. The end result may be the same on paper but the intent of the crime, the state of mind, &c. are different from case to case. If I steal a loaf of bread because I'm starving is that the same as if I steal a loaf of bread just for the hell of it? The storekeeper is still out a loaf of bread. In the case at hand, this person is clearly at fault and clearly does not seem to care. If I were a judge, I'd throw the book at her given the circumstances. If she were remorseful, cleaning up her life, helping the Lopez family, etc. would one not be more inclined to /not/ sentence the maximum?

Ms. Curlysue:

Yes, I thought you were referring to the youthful offender, not your own offspring.

benthinkin: while biology obviously dictates Krystal is someone's child, I find it a FAR stretch of the imagination to call the 2 people over 18 residing at the Hart residence adults, let alone parents or parental figures.

Curlysue may need to realize that although this person is not perfect like her child she is still someone else's child. After all you did not like comments about your child...

LOL LOL That WOULD be hilarious!! Miss Hart should get one on her back that says " NANANABOOHOO I can break the law over and over and nobody does anything"

Hey Curlysue, your entry implied that Krystal Hart got the tatoo, although now it seems you meant your daughter? Your last 4 or 5 entries are very confusing.

I forgot to mention, she got the tat on her side because, just like Jesus, he will be standing at her side forever. It's sad you have to say it's hilarious. His murderer left behind a 4 year old daughter without a father.

What is sad is the fact she got this tat along with other young adults as a memorial to a young pastor in her church who was murdered by a drunk driver 3 weeks ago. He always told the youth he worked with to "do the right thing". It's a beautiful tat!!!!

You are so funny!!!!! My daughter is a grown women, soon to get married, She's been living on her own for almost 5 years, and she will NEVER be in the same boat as this teenager, my daughter does not drink alcohol. Why comment on something you apparently know nothing about?

*PS she just got inked on her side two weeks ago D T R T which stands for "do the right thing"*

If true, hilarious.
Also, if true, don't you have to have parental permission to get a tat if you're under 18?

"Mom, can I get a tat? I've been real good this week!"
"I dunno, oh, I guess--you haven't been pinched for Vehicular homicide for a while."

PS she just got inked on her side two weeks ago D T R T which stands for "do the right thing"

benthinkin- maybe that was the wrong term. She still believes that she will get punishment if she breaks the law, so she's afraid to break the law. Is that better?

"and still fears breaking laws"
Shouldn't it really be about doing what's right because it is what's right.
in some cases fear of breaking the law can lead to breaking the law when people are not looking.

curlysue, I won't be around either, however, my children will and their children will. I'm not standing idly by and doing nothing. The decisions we make today will leave a ripple effect with the coming generations. People need to understand that. The greatest travesty for this country would be to have good people who know right from wrong to stand idly by and do nothing! It's our difference to make! Not the U.S. Governments! Not our children! It starts with us.

uhhh. Newsflash - she is being tried as an adult.

And as for this girl being in juvie, whats up with that? If your adult enough to have a license and operate a possible deadly weapon, you should be in adult court when you fail to follow the laws of driving. 17 is not a child! My daughter was living on her own going to college at 17, after finishing her senior year of high school in 3 months. And by the way, I chose not to allow my daughter to get a drivers license until she was 17. She is now a very responsible adult, and still fears breaking laws. This spoiled brat is now a spoiled adult, treat her as one. If 16 and 17 year olds are "too young" to be considered "adult" why on earth are we letting them drive deadly weapons?

AMEN! I understand what you all are saying about how the country is going down the craper! I maybe to olded school, but when my kid broke a rule she was punished. So she thought hard before she broke the rules for fear of punishment, which by the way was never physical, but privileges.
This girl breaks the rules of our state, kills someone, then is given rules by the judge. With only a signature and a promise to obey the rules. That lasted all of what 5 hours. Then she breaks the rules again, and again nothing happens to her, no punishment. Why should she follow ANY rules ever? No punishmant is ever given. We need judges with backbones and integrity.
I know that by the time my grandchilren have grandchildren, the USA will be a lawless free-for-all. It's pretty much that now! Today it's drunk drivers, tomorrow it will be theives, next year it will be murderers. I'm glad I won't be around to see it!

curlysue
If the people of this country held themselves and our govt. accountable and stopped slowly allowing it to change and compromise our constitution, much of the garbage going on in our culture would be alieviated! The Constitution was written based on core valued principles that are timeless. Principles are always rock solid and never change. It was meant to be able to adapt the future generations around these principles as society's advanced and changed. With the technology in place and changing so rapidly, our country has put the "horse in front of the cart"! We've lost our sense of community and brotherhood. We're now a media driven society who can no longer (the majority) filter through the real issues and base a decision on what's truly right or wrong. This country is disconnecting on a daily basis and it's compounding on a mass scale.

Actually Bill, there is more than one limit for OWI / BAC.
.
The 0.08 standard applies to first, second, and third OWI offenses.
Fourth and subsequent offenses remain subject to 0.02.

and copperguy did she not break the conditions the judge set for bail? I didn't think she was to drink again, yet she's at a party the same night, drinking. Sounds like she didn't follow the conditions to me, but your looking for the grey.

billnewbie THANK YOU! To many try to find grey in a black and white picture. If the law was used as our founders thought it would be when they built our country, WI wouldn't have so many drunks out driving!

If the courts give one person 2 years in jail with work release privileges for homicide while DUI and another 10 years in prison for the same and yet another 30 years that is not equal protection under the law as the 14th amendment requires. The purpose for that clause is specifically to prevent the courts and the government from treating persons differently according to their circumstances as some have advocated (such as the ability to hire expensive lawyers) and as is commonly practiced by the legal system throughout the land. The privilege of being rich is not the only circumstance that the courts are supposed to ignore. Being young or impressionable or reformable or good looking or ugly or unemployable or disrespectful are all circumstances that the courts are suppose to ignore and I think that most would agree are considered by the courts anyway.
The state sets the legal limit for blood alcohol content for all, and there is only one limit. Whether your content exceeds the limit by .0001% or 400% you have violated the law. There are no legally recognized degrees of intoxication beyond the single set limit. Offering leniency to one convict and not to others is in and of itself an injustice.
The bottom line is that people have died due to the wanton disregard of drunk drivers and the penalty should be certain if we are to have any deterring effect on those who would drink and drive and if justice is what we truly seek for both convicts and victims.

Heat: Thanks for the clarification. In my post, I was speaking specifically to whether a person could be held without bail as some seem to be suggesting. As you noted, judges can set a wide variety of "conditions" on the bail. I suppose that's saying that one could be denied bail if s/he refused to accept the conditions and sign the form. But, the only real obstacle to a person signing a bail is the amount of cash required (if any). And your cite from Shumate really sums it up succinctly.

darius, Yes, when this country was founded and the laws were put in place, we had intellects who were able to think through the issues and actually put laws in place that were fair and unilateral. Just as you said, over the past 200+ years, the self serving individuals, or the "modern age intellects" have slowly eroded the foundation that this country was founded on. Now, with the "new information" readily available for anyone at any age, people's minds are being poisoned by the garbage media out there because they've been trained to accept everything as truth and they don't even realize that it's happening to them. There is no sense of right or wrong. How can you have a sense for it when people don't know the difference?? A wake up call is needed. I believe this country is heading for another civil war. Only this time, we're not fighting with guns and cannons, we're fighting with the good media vs the bad media. If the good media doesn't win this one, the people educated with the bad media will be the one's with guns and knives etc. in their hands and lead to the fall of this great country.

curlysue
"Justice" is "truth". You can't have peace without justice! This culture we're living in, just as you say, has far too many "justices" out there. This is why laws were put in place. Every society that has prospered through history has a system of law to follow! Those laws are based on core valued principles. Those core valued principles have been compromised by the corrupt people in power making these laws! Everyone is coming up with their own new version of the truth. The foundation of this country was built on granite! Through the years, the granite has been chipped away and replaced with sand. What happens when you have a foundation built on sand???!!!! Actually, you're seeing it first hand in this country. You have lawlessness and selfishness. The "me-me" society is firmly in place and tearing down what's left of this once great country.

So our justice system IS biased. So much for EQUAL justice for all. That's what's wrong with the system. I'm sure the Lopez family doesn't give a crap if this is her first offence or her 3rd. The outcome is still the same. She killrd their loved one. She deserves to do the time.

If I'm sent to jail because I'm on my 3rd DUI, and your not because it's only your first. What should happen if your 2nd time you kill again? I'm sure that second victim's family would feel the same as I.

Or would it matter if I told you the victim of my stupidity was my own daughter? The same one I was rushing to the emergency room?
The victims are gone nonetheless, but the circumstances are immensely different.
Should all be treated the same?

I know it wouldn't matter to the victim, but the sad fact is, it's not as simple as we would like it to be.

And would it matter if my BAC was .08 and yours was .30?

I would still be held responsible for the tragic consequences of my unforgivable actions, but are these two examples the same? Hardly.

Not to be insensitive, but what if you killed someone after injuring three people previously and had an extensive record for violent offenses, and I had a spotless record but got into a fatal accident while rushing my injured daughter to the emergency room for a medical emergency after consuming too much wine at a family picnic?
Incredibly stupid on my part? Yes. But to the same level of societal irresponsibility? I don't think so.

And it doesn't matter if that apple is red, yellow, green it's still an apple!

Justice is not one size fits all? So why is it different if you go out and drive drunk and kill someone or if I go out drive drunk and kill someone. An apple is an apple.

That is very true in some, or maybe even most, situations. But justice is not "one size fits all", and we would be doing an injustice if we treat it as such.

The solution is there but not used. JAIL

Repeat offenders apparently have a problem with alcohol. Alcoholics will not stop drinking until they hit 'rock bottom'. Maybe a 6x4 cell, being away from family and friends, loosing your job, and not being able to have that drink would be 'rock bottom'. How will they ever hit their bottom if nothing ever happens to them?

Go have another drink Ralph.

Send her to the big house for 20 years.Those females will part a heart to the hart.

And not just substituting one set of "drawbacks" for another.

No system is perfect, but this is the best so far, even with it's drawbacks.
I obviously feel bad for anyone caught in the "drawback" of this or any other judicial process.
.
But, if you have the perfect solution we'd all be interested in hearing it.

How would you feel about that if one of those 'drawbacks' drove over the centerline and wiped out your loved one? How about we ask the Lopez family.

Even though "judicial discretion" has it's drawbacks, mandatory sentencing has many more.

cooperguy - "state law does provide for periods of incarceration for anything after first offense. The "Judicial Council" establishes guidelines within their district. Judges within the Districts are not bound by those guidelines." That's not a "good system". So if the judge hearing a drunk driving case, who is on cloud nine because he just had a grandchild, thinks this pretty young thing who looks so sweet and innocent, even though it's her 3rd offence, should have another chance, and decides not to follow the guidelines and doesn't give her the sentence deserved. She then learns I can keep doing this and nothing will happen to me. Did you read the article about the judge in Evansville?
Then there could be a judge who just had a fight with his wife, or whatever, who's hearing a DUI case for a guy who drives a Harley, all inked up, doesn't have a steady job, and so on, and even though it's only his 2nd offense sends him to jail for longer than the 'guidlines' suggest.
I know judges are suppose to be unbiased, but they don't 'have' to be, now do they?
"Judges within the Districts are not bound by those guidelines." They should be. Jail does 'straighten out' a few drunks. Even if only 3 out of a hunndred never reoffend, that's 3 less people out driving drunk today, gives you, me, and our loved ones a little better of a chance to make it home alive.

Actually, the bail / bond considerations are a little more extensive than just "whether the person is likely to show up in court."
.
A wide range of factors are considered.
.
The purposes of bail as a monetary condition of release are set forth in sec. 969.01(4),
Stats.:
(4) Considerations in Setting Conditions of Release. If bail is imposed, it [**793] shall
be only in the amount found necessary to assure the appearance of the defendant.
Conditions of release, other than monetary conditions, may be imposed for the purpose of
protecting members of the community from serious bodily harm or preventing
intimidation of witnesses. Proper considerations in determining whether to release the
defendant without bail, fixing a reasonable amount of bail or imposing other reasonable
conditions of release are: the ability of the [*709] arrested person to give bail, the
nature, number and gravity of the offenses and the potential penalty the defendant faces,
whether the alleged acts were violent in nature, the defendant's prior criminal record, if
any, the character, health, residence and reputation of the defendant, the character and
strength of the evidence which has been presented [***10] to the judge, whether the
defendant is currently on probation or parole, whether the defendant is already on bail or
subject to other release conditions in other pending cases, whether the defendant has been
bound over for trial after a preliminary examination, whether the defendant has in the
past forfeited bail or violated a condition of release or was a fugitive from justice at the
time of arrest, and the policy against unnecessary detention of the defendant's pending
trial.
In addition, a bail bond is a promise to indemnify the state against the cost of retrieving a
criminal defendant who has not appeared for trial. State v. Ascencio, 92 Wis. 2d 822, 829,
285 N.W.2d 910, 913 (Ct. App. 1979). In short, "[b]ail is a device which exists to insure
society's interest in having the accused answer to a criminal prosecution without unduly
restricting his [or her] liberty and without ignoring the accused's right to be presumed
innocent." State v. Shumate, 107 Wis. 2d 460, 467, 319 N.W.2d 834, 838 (1982) (citation
omitted).

Interesting discussion. Perhaps the Gazette could do an analysis of cases pending in Rock and some surrounding counties, to see how many 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., cases are pending. Maybe, too, how many people have been convicted of same over the past few years or so. In this way, we could get an idea of how much it would cost to incarcerate all of those people in prison for 5, 10 or more years. I think we could have some really meaningful discussion with those numbers.

Now, a couple of points...First, state law does provide for periods of incarceration for anything after first offense. The "Judicial Council" establishes guidelines within their district. This is calculated using a fairly simple chart, but with some very subjective factors. And, Judges within the Districts are not bound by those guidelines.

Second, people accused of committing crimes are not criminals until they are convicted. So, to say that criminals have more rights than victims just because they get out on bail during pendancy of their case is misguided. I have stated before on other forums that Judges HAVE TO let the accused out on bail. The only factor they can use to establish bail is whether the person is likely to show up in court. That's it. No consideration for danger to society, likelihood to re-offend while on bail, etc.. This is by state statute.

I have arrested people for 5th, 6th, even 8th offense OWI who have spent time in prison but still re-offend. I don't think those people are re-offending because they "got off easy."

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that people get very passionate about issues and lose their objectivity and reasonableness. Those of us who deal with offenses on a daily basis abhor those acts as much does anyone. Yet, our understanding of the system (and it really is a GOOD system), helps most of us to be a little more objective.

The system treats all accused as exactly that: accused. Makes no difference if it was a case reconstructed from evidence well after-the-fact, or whether the accused was caught, "red handed." Accused is accused; not convicted. If the second, fourth, fifth, and other amendments don't apply to people facing trial, then for whom were they written? Of course they are for the accused.

wHaTeR - Reformed or not - if you drink, get behind the wheel of a car and drive, you are a criminal. If you smash into someone killing them, you are a criminal, criminals need to be punished. Period. The reason they are not is the excuse of overcrowding. Some say it would do no good to put drunk drivers in with car thieves, bank robbers, murderers, even though they murdered someone. A solution would be a 'seperate' prison. One where the drunks could get "reformed". But in many eyes they don't deserve 'special treatment'. If you drive drunk you break the law, if you take someones life, you break the law, if you steal a car, you break the law, if you rob a bank, you break the law. DO YOU GET IT NOW?? A "reformed" drunk is not out drinking and driving, I'm married to one, and yes he paid for his criminal acts by being sent to jail, and he hasn't drank since. If you break the law, you are a criminal, you need to be punished. The ones to decided if a drunk driver, or a car thief, bank robber, murderer, goes to prison, needs to view drunk drivers as criminals, not just an oops, or as someone who made a bad decision 3, 4, 5, 6, times. I would much rather have my car stolen than loose someone I loved because someone is on their 2, 3, 4, oops I made a bad decision.

*Wow I guess I hit a nerve with some of you people. I guess throwing her in jail and have the "system" take care of her will do her a world of good. *

You know, at some point, punishment is just punishment. Prison does not exist soley to "help" people or "do them any good". Prison exists primarily as punishment to criminals and as deterrent to future criminals. It's really tiring to see this viewpoint, time and again, of "oh, punishing her won't do her any good". Confinement is not designed to do anyone any "good."

*This is a troubled kid who needs help. Will prison help her?*

Come on. Self-cutters are "troubled kids", runaways might be "troubled kids", anorexics are "troubled kids". Heck, grown men & women who drink by themselves at home every night are "troubled".

But kids who drive drunk and kill are not "troubled kids". Are each and everyone one of these underage drinkers at these parties "troubled"? I bet they're having plenty of fun, not moping and whining about their "troubles".

This girl needs to face the facts that what she did is unacceptable in our society and she needs to stand up and face the consequences of her actions. Her behavior after the accident is very disturbing and hopefully the judge/jury will take that into consideration during her trial.

I guess I misinterpreted your post to. Fry usually doesn't meas to feel the heat like you wanted it to sound. Bad choice of words in my opinion.

Your still insensitive if you have to explain what you meant then you really need to rethink what you said. A very insensitive use of words no matter how you spin it.

whybesad: After you incorrectly interpreted my 1st post; I reposted to explain that "fry" did not imply the death penalty. Once again you have incorrectly referred to my initial comment. Please have the decency to read my explanation before continuing to call me insensitive and use my statements to make your points.

Love it curlysue! And how is a "reformed" drunk driver not a "real" criminal. Especialy if they killed someone in their stupor? What, we need a special prison for people that kill people in drunk driving 'accident' because they are not a REAL criminal? LOL, wow.......

curlysue~
You make some awesome points. I can feel your pain too! It's not just the Wisconsin govt. it's the entire U.S. government. I'll take that even one step further. The problem we're facing in our society today is ourselves!
We the people can dictate the direction of this country. It's just a matter of which people will win this battle. It's the battle of the media war. Not to sound redundant, but, it's so true. The media has influenced our culture to the point that we may never get it back. We are a selfish society that is lacking people with enough courage and understanding to draw the line in the sand and say we've had enough. Problem is, our generations have become so withdrawn from what's really happening out there, that the battle is that much tougher. Can we get it done? ABSOLUTELY! It's going to require some people who courageously take the reigns in a leadership role and exemplify character and integrity and instill this mindset into our communities....EVERYDAY!

curlysue, the first offense is michigan is not a mandatory 9 months, but a maximum 93 days. the rest of your comments are silly, but at least theyre just opinions.
im guessin you wouldnt want to deal with a drunk driver who was reformed after many years locked up with malicious real criminals being released back into the public

Wow I guess I hit a nerve with some of you people. I guess throwing her in jail and have the "system" take care of her will do her a world of good. She obviously has problems far greater than a drinking problem. Don't get me wrong what she did was horrible and she should face the consequences of her actions I'm all for that. But, to say you want to "fry" her is just wrong and very insensitive. I'm all for the death penalty but, in certain cases and this isn't one of them. And thanks for the update on Wisconsin law. I know that we don't have the death penalty here but, that's a whole other topic. This is a troubled kid who needs help. Will prison help her? Who knows if it will.

and one more thing, if your going to kill someone while being drunk and behind the wheel of a car, make sure you didn't 'steal' the car, cuz that's a federal offence and you'll be sent to prison for that!

And don't hand the WI people the line of crap about overcrowding, I know a building available in 2010 that could house most of these drunk drivers! GM is giving the WI people just what they need. A place to put ALL these law breakers.

You know it's not just the parents fault or the girls fault. The main reason this girl and everyone else gets away with murder is the WI state government. How do people get away with 3,4,5,6 and more offences? The state government allows it. Plain and simple. So go ahead and drive drunk, kill people, post bail, and go back to the party. Don't feel bad for murdering someone, because the state government doesn't care so why should you. If the law makers gave a crap about the innocent victims killed there wouldn't be 3,4,5,6 plus offences! No one should be surprised that WI has the highest drunk driver offences, you only get a slap on the wrist for the first 10 or so offences, even if you kill someone. Like I've said before, if you don't like someone, get a bottle of vodka, sit behind the wheel and wait for them to get in their car, slam into them and all you have to do is say, "oops I made a mistake" post bail, then go to a party to celebrate getting away with murder. WI needs ALL new law makers, ones that give a crap about the innocent victims. FIRST offence in MI is mandatory 9 months. No 3,4,5,6 plus offences.

Here's the problem with our culture......'
NO LEADERSHIP! IT STARTS AT HOME! IT STARTS WITH US THE INDIVIDUALS! IT'S CALLED CONFRONTING REALITY AND DECIDING TO LEAD! IT'S CALLED LIVING THE WAY WE WERE INTENDED TO. TO LOVE AND SERVE OUR NEIGHBORS! TO LIVE A LIFE OF CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY AND HONOR AND DUTY. THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE!

mytake4you
It's not off subject. So many people come into these blogs and go back and forth about who's fault is who's! It's called passing the buck! The more the American people do that, the more power we give the government to come in and decide what's best for everyone. Go look at the communist countries and see how they got to be where they are! People think it can't happen here and they're dead wrong. Infact, we're heading that way if people don't start pulling their heads out of their rear ends. Everybody has their own agenda these days. Everybody has their own version of right and wrong these days. NEWS FLASH! There is no in between! It's one or the other. People who think otherwise are pretenders. Plain and simple.

kleej....you are waaaayyyy off subject and your post is hard to understand. i think freedoms are still out there i.e. illegal aliens are still free to cross our borders, cocaine, meth and heroin also (no fence, no troops). terrorists can still get in, even from canada, you can still have late term abortions, your free to NOT join the military (which should be a citizens DUTY), and you may get lucky and have the freedom to take guns away from law abiding citizens. so see, you still have your freedom

The breathalyzer refusal was his son. If you note it was the same day Dad got OWI #2. Both after this accident.

You know why the govt. has decided what's best when it comes to raising our children? Because this country's new age intellects are trading their freedom for security! Everytime things don't go their way, they go complaining to "uncle sam" because it doesn't fit their agenda. The govt. loves people like that because it gives them another bill to pass into law and tie up more American tax dollars so these govt. officials can create job security for themselves. When are people going to wake up and understand that the GOVT. WORKS FOR US! We're allowing these corrupt, self serving thugs to rob this country blind while good people are sitting back and watching it happen! If you're not willing to stand up and bring something to the table to help do something about this garbage, stop whining and go home! This is our country!

Thats interesting, Alicia, and confirms my previous comment that the "parents" are probably just as guilty for this killing as the one that did the actual driving.
*
NOW it will be a tragic life for the girl as well as the family of the person that was killed, ALL because of selfish "parents".
*
Too bad you can't lock up ALL the guilty parties for years and years.

I get you now ncpanfan. As for that high-and-mighty 9 year old, I'd freely invite her to spend a week or two in foster care. i guarantee you she'd be crying into her pillow and begging to go home in a few hours. If she wants the state to be her parent... well, it'd be a painful lesson.

Possibly a third DUI but he refused the breathalyser

OPPS before spelling critics get me was meant to say now instead of not.

It just looks like she is following her fathers foot steps. if you look at WCCA her father already has 2nd offense dui. Has an open case against him not for disorderly conduct and resisting or obstructing an officer. GREAT ROLL MODEL... Thats all I got to say. Look for your self.
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;...

Example : Picture this: Our neighbor recently "yelled" at her 9 year old daughter for misbehaving yet again. Her retort to her mom? "You can't yell at me. You aren't my boss. I will call and report you."

OK let me rephrase it then, thanks to the government sticking it's nose into disciplining issues SPANKING your child- yes spanking your child. While the government itself may not use those words, how many people and stories have you heard of people being reported for swatting their child on the butt when they were misbehaving? I have seen several.Recently saw an article where the 10 year old boys called the police to report that their father had spanked them, they investigated and found no marks so therefore the police told the children, parents can discipline you, just not leave marks. Those aren't the exact words so don't hang me for that one too. That is the point I was trying to make. What ever would make you think from my words that I was saying to beat a child? I was simply trying to state that in today's world there are so many different activists that pretty much anything one does is considered wrong by others. Criminals have more rights than victims. Our government is a failure (whatever happened to for the people) and our judicial system is a joke. There once was a time people were actually punished for crimes and therefore tried to stay out of trouble because they feared the laws and punishments.
I understand the laws were placed there to protect children from being abused but in so many cases the ones abusing are the ones using the system and it's wording to scare parents out of disciplining.

ncpanfan wrote; "thanks to the government preventing parents from disciplining"

I've never heard of the government making grounding, quality time, or yard work illegal. I have heard of beating and hard spanking to be illegal.

That is why I assume you meant hitting as a form of discipline. I don't know of any other type of discipline that you would want to give a child that the government would chastise you for.

NO Evansville I am not, I am merely stating that children these days have NO RESPECT because we aren't allowed to discipline!!! I don't advocate BEATING (closed fist) I am all for spanking but unfotunately there are so many people who say that is abuse and report it and then the kids do the same. I spanked my kids when needed and they have grown up to be respectful,well-mannered, thoughtful young adults.

I do not drink, I am always the designated driver and my kids have seen the good role model as you put it.

Why does one assume that when someone mentions discipline they are implying you should beat a child? NEVER once have I ever said that. Grew up in that situation, know all about it!

I have never beaten my children. I have strived to give them the happy childhood that I was denied. I love my children and sometimes it has been tough love, with discipline (and no not always a spanking- for the most part they were punished in other ways, but those punishments were stuck to, not just empty words (ex. you are grounded for a week, but oh yeah you can go here and there or do this or that).
That being said I do agree with you that she needs to step up and be responsible and her parents should quit bailing her out so she can run off and do it again - tough love!

*First of all, can anyone recall a time when everyone took responsiblity for their actions? I can't.*

Here comes more of the same ol' moral equivocation and changing the subject.

*There will always be people who do stupid and irresponsible things and then try to get out of the consequences.*

And??????

*The second thing that I read was about younger generations. I am so sick of hearing about how bad the younger generations are making things.*

Yeah, young people should just be able to get as drunk as they like, illegally, and then slaughter innocent people.

* It's kind of funny that the people who rip on the younger generations always forget who raised these kids --- *

This is a good point but irrelevant. I didn't raise this girl in particular, nor did I raise any of the other youthful miscreants.

The boomers and their lax attitude towards just about everything can be indicted along with this drunk driving hooligan, I suppose. The solution would be to return to some severe law & order, but most people want the "get out of jail free" card when the screw up, too, so I doubt any progress will ever be made.

If the "parents" "were out of town for the weekend", one wonders what the purpose of that was.
*
They left her home alone?????????
*
It appears they belong in a cell for as long as she is.
*
Yes, I know the "law" doesn't work that way, but would proper parenting have prevented this killing?
*

ncpanfan... What? You can still spank your kids in WI as log as you use and open hand, spank on the buttocks, and don't cause injury.
Are you advocating that if this girl had been hit with a closed fist more often she wouldn't have this problem?
The most effective discipline is ROLE MODELING. Meaning that you act responsibly in front of your children, that you show moderation in drink and manners, and spend TIME teaching your children.
If you truly provide a good home and love for your children, and they "report you", fine, let them. After a week or two in the Juvenile detention facility they'll want to come home so bad.
Discipline and effective parenting should not include beating your child to the point of injury. If the only way you can control your child is to beat them when they do something wrong, and neglect the TIME and purposeful living it takes to raise a child, your child is going to turn out much worse than if you did nothing at all.
That said, these parents should have turned this girl over to the authorities and TRULY let her take responsibility... let her pay for her own lawyer and stay in jail during the trial and letting her out on bail. If they had done this, she wouldn't have been out drinking again in the first place.
I also would have banned her from driving the first time she was caught drinking and request that she get a job and pay me back for the increased insurance rates.

w8nc
AMEN!

When I stated that "I hope they throw her in the pan and let her fry," I was not referring to the electric chair. I was saying that she deserves to feel the heat and I hope they make her. I want them to punish her in a way that mommy and daddy cant bail her out of. If I was talking about the electric chair I would have said "give her the chair".

Your right...Ccap says it all. That girl should have been removed from the home years ago, more than likely.

W8: While part of what you say makes sense you can't forget that thanks to the government preventing parents from disciplining we therefore have more kids getting in trouble. I know that some parents don't parent and try to be friends with their kids but some people do try to be responsible parents and these days that is hard to do because all you hear is I am gonna report you if you punish me, etc... Yes I know that generations of children have done things to get in trouble but you hear much more of it now than we did back then. That is probably because we knew there were consequences to our actions and that if we got in trouble at school, etc... not only did we get punished there but we got punished again when we got home!

I love some of these comments. My comment is not directly related to the story, but the comments made about the story. I especially like the comments about personal accountability and our world going down the tubes. First of all, can anyone recall a time when everyone took responsiblity for their actions? I can't. There will always be people who do stupid and irresponsible things and then try to get out of the consequences. The second thing that I read was about younger generations. I am so sick of hearing about how bad the younger generations are making things. It's kind of funny that the people who rip on the younger generations always forget who raised these kids --- the generation before them. And that generation who raised the young generation is a product of the one before them.

From the looks of CCAP this is a family in turmoil.

All I can come up with on this is that her parents were "absentee" parents. Either they don't care about her at all, or they are low IQ people and shouldn't have been raising children in the first place. Now I will wait for someone to blog that they know the parents personally and they did the best they knew how...blah-blah-blah..yea right.

I think she should read all of the comments and postings just to let her know how people feel about her stupidity. Maybe if more people spoke there minds, and lets face it, she has been tried and convicted by all of us, then she might just have a clue what she should get for her actions based soley on the blog!!

I knew someone would come along and post, sincerely, what I did in jest. Didn't take long:

*People are pretty hard on this kid. She's 17 years old. She made a horrible mistake and had bad judgement to get into a car after she was drinking. *

Just one mistake? Let's take a quick count:
1) Drinking when under 21
2) Smoking weed
3) Leaving weed pipe in car
4) Drinking while drunk
5) Driving while stoned
6) Hitting another vehicle
7) Killing occupant of vehicle
8) Being so incredibly stupid as to go drinking almost directly after being released into juvie court.
9) Violating bail conditions
10) Getting caught at a drinking party
11) Giving false name after getting caught at party

I'm sure I'm missing some. This "kid" has long ago crossed the line from "Aw, shucks, we just took a sip of your whiskey dad, honest" to being a murderer, plain and simple, and shows no remorse at all by stupidly going out and breaking the half of the same laws again and again.

You know when this accident happened I did feel somewhat sorry for this girl & her parents. Yes it was a horrible tragedy & she did something really really stupid but after all she is just a kid & kids do do stupid things sometimes. But then I read this & it's like she has learned absolutely nothing from this. I agree 100% with those of you who also blame the parents. I can understand them bailing her out the first time, she had possibly never been in serious trouble before & everybody was pretty much in shock & just grateful that she was not seriously injured I'm sure
. But the second time? No way!!! Maybe if this little spoiled princess spent a couple of nights behind bars she'd learn something from this. But if mommy & daddy keep bailing her out, oh well.

snarly, i agree with you about the minor thing, she probably walk on this, and it makes me sick. they gave my 16 year old nephew a 4 year prison term, he is 18 now, he was sent on probation revocation, but yet they will let these drunk drivers, go again and again. then when someone dies they want to blame the parents, or they say she or he is misunderstood, they had a rough life, well i got news for them, life is rough.these re-offenders are nothing but a factory of excuses. this girl should get the max.

This is the "ME" generation. It's all about ME. What the me generation has done is blame everyone else for there problems, and can not take responsibility for there actions. Nothing ever seems to be "there" fault, it is always someone elses, that is why there is no remorse for what they do. You can tell this by the over crowding in the jails. Constant repeat offenders going back to jail again and again. There actions were because of someone else, and the courts letting them go with a light sentance still will never make them accountable for any of there actions.
I personally think that when the parents bail out there kids as in this instance, then if they can not control there child, and keep a better eye on them, they be held accountable for doing exactly what this girl is being charged with "bail jumping". The same goes for repeat drunk drivers, who ever bailed them out when they were called, if they are arrested again less than 24 hours later for driving drunk again, as we have recently seen in the paper, then the person who bailed them out should be held accountable. After all, when they are getting them out on bail, arn't they signing that they will be responsible for them.

I would guess this was a legal move by the defense attorney to stahl the trial from moving forward quickly so that he is able to get all of his ducks in a row.
.
If Attorney Jim Martin were to be asked outside of the realm of a courtroom if he believed Krystal to actually be innocent of the charges, my money on him saying "no."
.
It is his job to enter pleas such as not guilty and ask for independent testing of her blood sample to find discrepensies and loop-holes. Does it mean if it were my family member she had KILLED I'd be ok with it? Absolutely not. But, this is the beast of a legal system the US has created.

I'm a little confused how using the term innocent vs not guilty is reporting an "alternate version" of the news when the two have essentially identical meanings. I just don't see where this is a serious breach of a newspaper's accountability to it's readers.

This is a dual-edged sword.