The Judicial Branch strikes again

This article reminded me of what we've been learning about in class this week/last week, since it relates to the power of judges. The basic story is that, on the night of my 17th birthday (coincidentally), a woman was driving with a BAC of .156, and hit and killed a biker with her car. She could have gotten away with only four years in jail (what a bargain, right?) but instead, is going to be locked up for 10 1/2 years. Why? She thought it was funny. And the judge thought it wasn't. Of course, saying that you had"taken out" a "tree hugger, a bicyclist, a Frenchman and a gay guy all in one shot" in a phone call to a friend is probably not a phone call that is gonna help your case. Was this judge being an activist judge instead of just interpreting the law? I don't think so, since the article makes it seem that 11 1/2 years is the maximum sentence she could have received, and it was up to his discretion to determine how much of that he wants her to serve. But it still seems kind of subjective. This guy has her life in his hands. Six and a half years (10.5-4 for all the people wondering how I got that) can make a big difference is someone's life. Alot of stuff can happen in six.5 years, especially when you're 27. Then again, she killed someone. While driving drunk. And didn't care about it.

Another way this article reminded me about the Judicial branch was in the charges she was convicted of. "Two months ago of negligent homicide and two counts of aggravated DUI." Two counts of each? She only killed one person, but maybe it's different because he was on a bike. I'm not sure. Maybe someone with some legal knowledge can explain how that worked out to be like that?