The Punishment Did Not Fit The Crime

By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible Contributor

In criminal law, the essence of retribution can be summed up in one sentence; "Let the punishment fit the crime." It's an ancient principle that dates back hundreds of years and the principle still holds true today. Severity of a crime and the punishment it deserves can certainly be debated in almost every criminal scenario, however, there is no excuse for the punishment that Donte Stallworth received after pleading guilty to DUI manslaughter last month.

In a highly publicized and controversial ruling, Stallworth was sentenced to 30 days in prison for killing a pedestrian while driving intoxicated in Miami, Florida. Stallworth's blood alcohol level was well above Florida's legal limit of .08 and Stallworth openly admitted to consuming a variety of alcoholic beverages hours before the accident took place. Stallworth claimed that 59 year old Mario Reyes had been walking outside of the designated cross-walk when the collision occurred, but Florida's strict DUI manslaughter laws provide that a defendant can be found guilty if his/her intoxication while driving caused or contributed to the death of the victim.

Even if we assume that Reyes may have contributed to his own fate by choosing not to cross the street at the designated cross-walk, Stallworth's unspeakable decision to operate his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol certainly was a factor in Reyes' death. There is no doubt it was a contributing factor. More importantly, Stallworth admitted he was a contributing factor.

So how come the sentence was so lenient?

Stallworth's admission to committing the DUI manslaughter is equivalent to a conviction. He chose to plead guilty and accept responsibility for his actions rather than roll the dice with a jury. While his plea is commendable, it doesn't hide the fact that a person's life was lost due to the Stallworth's lack of judgment. DUI manslaughter in the state of Florida carries a sentence of up to 15 years if convicted.

Stallworth admitted guilt. He acknowledged he was at fault in the death of Mario Reyes. A 30 day sentence for this crime is borderline ludicrous. And if you think that's bad, Stallworth only served 24 days and was released earlier today.

I understand that Stallworth was cooperative throughout the investigation. It's clear that Reyes' family wanted to move on from this ordeal and there's no question that Stallworth will have to live with this tragedy for the rest of his life. But I see a much larger problem with this situation.

Criminal justice serves two main purposes. Retribution and deterrence. Criminals should be punished for their actions and the sentences laid down by Judges should also serve to prevent the criminal and those alike from engaging in similar conduct. Imposing a 30 day prison sentence on a high profile NFL star for committing the crime of DUI manslaughter accomplishes neither purpose. 30 days in prison for DUI manslaughter is flat out insufficient and downright unjust. Additionally, what kind of deterrence was the Judge shooting for when he sentenced Stallworth? A light sentence like this does nothing to scare or deter future offenders. It also leads the public to believe that money and prestige can buy a favorable outcome.

The Judge who sentenced Stallworth in this case had an opportunity to make a point. He had a large platform and a national audience paying very close attention to this story. He had the ability to prove to the public that harsh consequences await those who drink and drive. He also had the ability to show that status in society and large bank accounts mean nothing in the court of law. But rather than deliver a sentence that would accurately reflect the crimes of Stallworth and send out a clear message to those who feel the need to drink and drive in the state of Florida, the Judge here felt 30 days would suffice. To call this a mistake would be an understatement of epic proportions.

Roger Goodell has decided to suspend Stallworth indefinitely and I hope the commissioner sees and understands the heinous crime that was committed here. This isn't the first time the NFL has seen this situation and I can't say whether it will be the last, but Goodell has a great opportunity to inflict a punishment that might actually deter current and future players from acting the way Stallworth did.

As for our fair and equitable criminal justice system, I only hope that Judges won't make the same mistake as this one did here.

THE FINE HEARD ROUND THE WORLD

By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible

During last year's Superbowl media frenzy, Brian Urlacher waltzed up to a podium for an ordinary press conference. Since Urlacher and his Chicago Bears team were practicing throughout media week at the Superbowl, it was only natural that he refresh himself with a cool beverage in between practices. Urlacher also exchanged that helmet of his for a cap he owned. The cap he donned was a Vitamin Water cap and the beverage was the same. This is what the NFL would call a "fashion no-no."

Unlike Gatorade, Burger King, Snickers, Pepsi, Samsung, Visa, etc., Vitamin Water is not an official sponsor of the NFL. Therefore, it has no place on the NFL stage and other corporate sponsors stand to lose millions when players sport other logos. OK, understandable. Players cannot wear unofficially licensed gear at NFL events. A simple warning sounds reasonable. Maybe a small fine would be legitimate.

The NFL took a slightly different route. Roger Goodell decided that Mr. Urlacher's actions were the equivalent of a hundred times the amount that Justin Smith, defensive end for the Cincinnati Bengals, received for pleading guilty to a DUI in 2004.

Urlacher was slammed with a $100,000 fine for wearing the Vitamin Water hat and players must now think twice before attending a certified NFL event in that Gucci leisure suit. From a logical standpoint, wearing an unofficially licensed article of clothing doesn't even compare to a criminal offense. Urlacher most likely wore the hat to freely advertise the drink during media week, but to fine him 100K - that's not justice, it's first degree robbery.

Seriously though, when a player acts outside of the interests of the league, or commits a crime that would tarnish the league's image, fines are an easy way to punish offenders. Everyone knows that most fines are insignificant to players that rake in millions each year, but the fine still has to be justified. How does the NFL justify a $100,000 fine on Urlacher for wearing an unofficially licensed hat? Simple. They can't.

Urlacher wore the hat in a press conference during media week of the Superbowl. So yes, the spotlight is a bit brighter during the Superbowl. However, by hitting Urlacher with a major fine that hit news wires immediately and become a relatively large story, Vitamin Water got an enormous amount of publicity. The NFL actually bolstered Urlacher's original intention - to get Vitamin Water some face-time during the Superbowl!

The NFL today is a business. Corporate sponsors run the show and money is the only thing that talks. Original named stadiums are almost extinct and have been replaced by the likes of Gillette Stadium, Lincoln Financial Field, Bank of America Stadium and Monster Park (this one sounds more like an amusement park than a stadium). The fine that Urlacher received was completely ridiculous. Players should be fined that amount when violating the law, not for violating some NFL bylaw inspired by huge conglomerates.

NFL players, I leave you with one piece of legal advice - to protect your hard earned assets, lose the Prada shades in the post game press conference. Start banking with Bank of America instead of Chase. Fly Southwest because we all know Delta isn't official. Trade in that LG for a Samsung and leave that American Express at home, the NFL only accepts VISA. If it's a Coke that you crave, make it a Pepsi and please, whatever you do, trade in that BMW for a General Motors vehicle, just to be safe.