Oklahoma District Court Judge Mike Norman is using an unusual form of punishment for a convicted DUI offender involved in a fatal accident. Tyler Alred, age 17, was convicted for manslaughter for causing the death of his friend John Dum in a crash that happened in August of this year.
His sentence? Ten years of attendance at the church of his choice.
Tyler was 16 at the time of the crash, and had been drinking before getting behind the wheel of his truck. John was ejected from the vehicle and killed instantly. Tyler’s BAC was under the 0.08 legal limit, but because he was a minor, his drinking was illegal.
Judge Norman has issued the unusual sentence before, mostly for child support cases, but never for a manslaughter charge. He stands behind his decision based on the fact the Tyler was young and had a clean record prior to the crash. Also, the sentence had the support of the victim’s family. Tyler must also wear an ankle bracelet that monitors alcohol consumption and get counseling, graduate from high school and welding school, attend victim-impact panels and speak at events about the consequences of drinking and driving.
The sentencing raises questions of constitutionality and fairness, as well as sentencing discretion. Even Judge Norman agrees the sentence wouldn’t uphold a challenge. But he issued it because both sides were in agreement, and he knew it wouldn’t be appealed.
Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the judicial discretion in this case is out of bounds. But Norman holds firm to his ruling.
Should judges exercise this level of sentencing discretion, allowing the system to provide checks and balances through appeals? Many argue that sentences such as electronic and alcohol monitoring violate civil rights, and that treatment-based programs that allow diversion from incarceration are equally soft on crime and even inappropriate. Mandatory sentencing guidelines would change the sentence, yet most in the judicial community agree that the judge is in the best position, case by case, to determine appropriate sentencing.
What do you think? Should judicial discretion—and the desires of the victim’s family—outweigh mandatory sentencing guidelines?
