Was Debi Cummings sentence fair, light, or harsh?

http://www.pnj.com/article/20130307/NEWS01/303070018/Gulf-Breeze-teen-sentenced-to-year-in-jail

Circuit Judge Marci Goodman on Wednesday severely scolded, and sentenced to a year in jail, a Gulf Breeze woman who drunkenly plowed into a bicyclist, then left him in the road.

Debi Cummings, 20, of Gulf Breeze hit cyclist Nicholas Medina in the early-morning hours of May 20 on Gulf Breeze Parkway. He was severely injured but has recovered.

Then, on July 25, while free on bond, Cummings was arrested again for driving drunk on Gulf Breeze Parkway. She has been in jail since then.

1 year in jail, 5 years probation, and $10k+ court fines. I actually thought this was reasonable, though the PNJ comments seem to suggest people expected much more.

She's 20 years old.
They need to arrest whoever gave her the alcohol as well.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Hopefully Mr. Medina has hired a good personal injury lawyer to go after the little beast who ran him down. She may not have much, but her insurance comnpany could get whacked good.

I expect that when he opens his door in the mornings there is a milling mass of lawyers as far as the eye can see.

A sentence is not the solution.....it is part of the problem......ignition interlock systems now!

2seaoat wrote:A sentence is not the solution.....it is part of the problem......ignition interlock systems now!

Seaoat, I believe this thread is about whether the girls sentence was fair or not, not about a preventative measure.

Seaoat, I believe this thread is about whether the girls sentence was fair or not, not about a preventative measure.

Then you miss my point.....the question was asked was the sentence reasonable, and my answer is that asking that very question is the root cause in my opinion for the continued failure of after the fact remedies. DUIs are a source of huge profits for the current system put in place.....a couple thousand in fines, overtime for testimony in court, more occupants for private prisons, more probation officers, judges, lawyers, prosecutors, baliffs, LEO, and evaluators..........the gravy train continues as they march to issue a sentence.....without asking the fundamental question.......does a sentence have any impact on impaired drivers driving vehicles? Was her last sentence successful? And how will a new one solve her problem, other than having taxpayers pay for her room and board for some period of time. We either solve a problem, or we ignore the problem and continue a fantasy which makes enormous profits for those who perpetrate the continued fraud on families who have lost loved ones or are about to lose loved ones........the sentence is irrelevant.

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat, I believe this thread is about whether the girls sentence was fair or not, not about a preventative measure.

Then you miss my point.....the question was asked was the sentence reasonable, and my answer is that asking that very question is the root cause in my opinion for the continued failure of after the fact remedies. DUIs are a source of huge profits for the current system put in place.....a couple thousand in fines, overtime for testimony in court, more occupants for private prisons, more probation officers, judges, lawyers, prosecutors, baliffs, LEO, and evaluators..........the gravy train continues as they march to issue a sentence.....without asking the fundamental question.......does a sentence have any impact on impaired drivers driving vehicles? Was her last sentence successful? And how will a new one solve her problem, other than having taxpayers pay for her room and board for some period of time. We either solve a problem, or we ignore the problem and continue a fantasy which makes enormous profits for those who perpetrate the continued fraud on families who have lost loved ones or are about to lose loved ones........the sentence is irrelevant.

The sentence is most assuredly NOT IRRELEVANT. She will hopefully at this late date in her life LEARN from this tragedy and ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for her actions in the future...apparently her parents failed to get through to her. It happens. I personally feel that the sentence was too light, but now that a guilty verdict has been rendered, it's going to hit her and her stupid parents in the pocketbook. She left the victim to die, and her parents tried to cover the whole thing up, like putting icing on a fallen cake. Your solution would punish all drivers for the recklessness of a few. These devices aren't foolproof; mouthwash can set them off.

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat, I believe this thread is about whether the girls sentence was fair or not, not about a preventative measure.

Then you miss my point.....the question was asked was the sentence reasonable, and my answer is that asking that very question is the root cause in my opinion for the continued failure of after the fact remedies. DUIs are a source of huge profits for the current system put in place.....a couple thousand in fines, overtime for testimony in court, more occupants for private prisons, more probation officers, judges, lawyers, prosecutors, baliffs, LEO, and evaluators..........the gravy train continues as they march to issue a sentence.....without asking the fundamental question.......does a sentence have any impact on impaired drivers driving vehicles? Was her last sentence successful? And how will a new one solve her problem, other than having taxpayers pay for her room and board for some period of time. We either solve a problem, or we ignore the problem and continue a fantasy which makes enormous profits for those who perpetrate the continued fraud on families who have lost loved ones or are about to lose loved ones........the sentence is irrelevant.

I believe you are the one missing the point. The question was is the sentence fair or not. Nothing about it being prevented. It did happen so we are discussing after the fact, not what coulda, woulda or shoulda. Every time that a DUI is brought up you seem to dig up these same old bones. Problem is, we do not have your legislation on the books yet to prevent this from happening and as such we should be discussing exactly what we are and that is what sort of punishment should fit the crime. So there is nothing IRRELEVANT about the question in this context.

Floridatexan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat, I believe this thread is about whether the girls sentence was fair or not, not about a preventative measure.

Then you miss my point.....the question was asked was the sentence reasonable, and my answer is that asking that very question is the root cause in my opinion for the continued failure of after the fact remedies. DUIs are a source of huge profits for the current system put in place.....a couple thousand in fines, overtime for testimony in court, more occupants for private prisons, more probation officers, judges, lawyers, prosecutors, baliffs, LEO, and evaluators..........the gravy train continues as they march to issue a sentence.....without asking the fundamental question.......does a sentence have any impact on impaired drivers driving vehicles? Was her last sentence successful? And how will a new one solve her problem, other than having taxpayers pay for her room and board for some period of time. We either solve a problem, or we ignore the problem and continue a fantasy which makes enormous profits for those who perpetrate the continued fraud on families who have lost loved ones or are about to lose loved ones........the sentence is irrelevant.

The sentence is most assuredly NOT IRRELEVANT. She will hopefully at this late date in her life LEARN from this tragedy and ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for her actions in the future...apparently her parents failed to get through to her. It happens. I personally feel that the sentence was too light, but now that a guilty verdict has been rendered, it's going to hit her and her stupid parents in the pocketbook. She left the victim to die, and her parents tried to cover the whole thing up, like putting icing on a fallen cake. Your solution would punish all drivers for the recklessness of a few. These devices aren't foolproof; mouthwash can set them off.

Very true and anyone with just a smidgen of electronics knowledge can very easily bypass them.

boards of FL wrote:http://www.pnj.com/article/20130307/NEWS01/303070018/Gulf-Breeze-teen-sentenced-to-year-in-jail

Circuit Judge Marci Goodman on Wednesday severely scolded, and sentenced to a year in jail, a Gulf Breeze woman who drunkenly plowed into a bicyclist, then left him in the road.

Debi Cummings, 20, of Gulf Breeze hit cyclist Nicholas Medina in the early-morning hours of May 20 on Gulf Breeze Parkway. He was severely injured but has recovered.

Then, on July 25, while free on bond, Cummings was arrested again for driving drunk on Gulf Breeze Parkway. She has been in jail since then.

Too light...

These devices aren't foolproof; mouthwash can set them off.


Yep, and people have drown in their cars after driving in a lake because they could not get their seat belt off fast enough.......let us now revoke mandatory seat belts because of that stellar logic, and better yet......if you drive and you have an accident where your body hits the windshield because we now have no seat belt requirement........you should face a five year minimum sentence in the state penitentiary.........of course the mouthwash may be scope and the lake may be titticaca........but the stench is the same.....
Ignition Interlock systems are working all over the country stopping high risk folks from driving(of course it must be that they are a bunch of stinky mouths), but I guess the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

boards of FL wrote:1 year in jail, 5 years probation, and $10k+ court fines. I actually thought this was reasonable, though the PNJ comments seem to suggest people expected much more.

I think she should have gotten more jail time because she had a DUI w/ injury and then did it again while under bond.

2seaoat wrote:These devices aren't foolproof; mouthwash can set them off.


Yep, and people have drown in their cars after driving in a lake because they could not get their seat belt off fast enough.......let us now revoke mandatory seat belts because of that stellar logic, and better yet......if you drive and you have an accident where your body hits the windshield because we now have no seat belt requirement........you should face a five year minimum sentence in the state penitentiary.........of course the mouthwash may be scope and the lake may be titticaca........but the stench is the same.....
Ignition Interlock systems are working all over the country stopping high risk folks from driving(of course it must be that they are a bunch of stinky mouths), but I guess the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Mary Jo Kopeckne died in a car accident where liberal Ted Kennedy wasn't even man enough to save her after she gave it up to him one night.

i think "the biggest loser" would have been a more appropriate sentence

For me, there are to many unknowns to really make a determination.

Will her one year in prison include her time served from last July 25th last year?

She pled no contest for the subsequent DUI arrest which is included in this sentencing.

$10,000 in court costs, plus her own attorney will be another $5 grand at least and she has to pay restitution the person she injured. Her mother assisted her by taking her to a McDonalds before she turned herself in negating the DUI charge.

She'll also have five years probation and is mandated to enter into an in-patient rehab facility upon release from prison. If that's not included in her medical insurance, which means we all pay, that will be about $40,000 for a 28 day program.

She'll have a tough time finding a decent job but with all the rewards she'll get from the Progressives, she'll have food stamps, welfare, Section 8 housing, free cell phone, high speed Internet and free health insurance.

She'll have a tough time for a while but then she'll be a Progressive voter picking only between the candidate promising to give her more and not require she work.

All in all, probably as fair a sentence as could be expected.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Leave it to Markle to politicize a local news topic....

THANK YOU! What did I say which is not true?

Mary Jo Kopeckne died in a car accident where liberal Ted Kennedy wasn't even man enough to save her after she gave it up to him one night.



He should have been prosecuted and a grand jury should have had an opportunity to indict. He would have been given a fair trial, and maybe acquitted, but when folks do not indict......that is the achilles heal in American Justice. A simple plea to a lesser charge without taking a bill to the grand jury was wrong.

2seaoat wrote:Mary Jo Kopeckne died in a car accident where liberal Ted Kennedy wasn't even man enough to save her after she gave it up to him one night.



He should have been prosecuted and a grand jury should have had an opportunity to indict. He would have been given a fair trial, and maybe acquitted, but when folks do not indict......that is the achilles heal in American Justice. A simple plea to a lesser charge without taking a bill to the grand jury was wrong.

What would he be indicted for? Failure to save someone? The achillies heel in the justice system is you can indict someone by presenting a one sided version and the person has to defend themselves incurring thousand of dollars in legal fees and there is no recourse for the person falsely indicted.

gulfbeachbandit wrote:She's 20 years old.
They need to arrest whoever gave her the alcohol as well.

For once, I agree with you.

Markle wrote:For me, there are to many unknowns to really make a determination.

Will her one year in prison include her time served from last July 25th last year?

She pled no contest for the subsequent DUI arrest which is included in this sentencing.

$10,000 in court costs, plus her own attorney will be another $5 grand at least and she has to pay restitution the person she injured. Her mother assisted her by taking her to a McDonalds before she turned herself in negating the DUI charge.

She'll also have five years probation and is mandated to enter into an in-patient rehab facility upon release from prison. If that's not included in her medical insurance, which means we all pay, that will be about $40,000 for a 28 day program.

She'll have a tough time finding a decent job but with all the rewards she'll get from the Progressives, she'll have food stamps, welfare, Section 8 housing, free cell phone, high speed Internet and free health insurance.

She'll have a tough time for a while but then she'll be a Progressive voter picking only between the candidate promising to give her more and not require she work.

All in all, probably as fair a sentence as could be expected.

All in all, I must say, the questions that you raise about the circumstances of the sentence are spot on. You lost me on everything after that though.

Do we have to kill someone before they get the message drinking and driving is a no-no? In my opinion, if you hurt someone drinking and driving then you go out and drink and drive again before you answered to the first one. You're just not getting it. You need to spend some time thinking about it.

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Mary Jo Kopeckne died in a car accident where liberal Ted Kennedy wasn't even man enough to save her after she gave it up to him one night.



He should have been prosecuted and a grand jury should have had an opportunity to indict. He would have been given a fair trial, and maybe acquitted, but when folks do not indict......that is the achilles heal in American Justice. A simple plea to a lesser charge without taking a bill to the grand jury was wrong.

What would he be indicted for? Failure to save someone? The achillies heel in the justice system is you can indict someone by presenting a one sided version and the person has to defend themselves incurring thousand of dollars in legal fees and there is no recourse for the person falsely indicted.

What would Ted (hic) Kennedy have been indicted for?

I don't know...DUI resulting in a fatality. Leaving the scene of an accident resulting in a fatality. Given the seriousness of the crash, I'm sure there would have been a dozen more if the guilty parties name wasn't Kennedy.




Ted (Hic) Kennedy's wife was pregnant at the time and there were rumors that so was Mary Jo but a thorough autopsy was not done to determine how she died, if she had sex and if she was pregnant.[