E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCRANSTON, R.I. – A Rhode Island lawmaker is claiming a judge went too far when he revoked a teen’s driver license for the rest of his life because he wanted to send a hard-line message to others about reckless driving in the state.
Chief Magistrate William R. Guglietta, who presides at Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, sentenced 17-year-old Lyle Topa to the “most severe, most drastic penalty” the court could impose last week.
"I've had it,” said Guglietta, according to The Boston Herald. “The time has come for a change in our attitude towards our young people driving, and I hope this is the first step in accomplishing that goal.”
Topa crashed into a tree while driving in Charlestown on Oct. 23 with three friends. Police said the group of high school students had been at a party where alcohol was consumed before the accident. One passenger was in a coma for weeks.
In January, Topa, a senior at Chariho High School, pleaded guilty in court to several charges, including driving over the speed limit and not wearing a seat belt, according to NBC 10 News.
His lawyer, Kevin Hagan of Newport, declined an interview with msnbc.com. “I can’t comment,” Hagan told msnbc.com on Monday, adding “there is a reason I can’t comment, and I can’t comment on that.”
One Rhode Island lawmaker said the judge’s hard-line stance may have gone too far.
“It’s a little harsh,” state Sen. Robert Hedlund told The Boston Herald. “The kid might mature and actually be a responsible driver. I don’t know how you can take it away from a kid that age forever. What’s he going to do ... bike for the rest of his life?”
Guglietta said Topa can ask the court to have it reinstated.
To read more US news, follow msbc.com on Facebook and Twitter
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
The punishment should be severe. Driving is a privilege, not a right - it seems as though people have forgotten that.
In my hometown, while I was in high school there was a guy in the grade ahead of me who killed himself and severely injured his passenger while driving drunk after a party. And guess what they did? They built a shrine to him in the school and created a "Spirit Award" for him - turned him into a goddamn hero cause he was a big-deal soccer player. They still hand out the award today - 10 years later.
Driving is a Right Not a privilege. That's my opinion ! and I don't care if you disagree or not.
Edward
Driving is not a Right. And we don't care if you disagree!
Talk about misguided examples! Let's remember this retard as a cool guy for killing himself and injuring his friends!
Yeah, Edward you're a tool. Driving is a privilege not a right. And the fact you don't care if anyone disagrees is consistent with your belief. Not surprising. And when you kill someone driving like a jackass you'll probably exclaim you were just exercising your right as an American.
Sorry Edward---it's a privilege and not a right.
Good! It's about time we send a message to teens that their flagrant disregard to human life won't be tolerated.
Driving is a privilege. Why? Because you must pass tests and pay for a license to do it. Rights do not have these requirements. That is why voter literacy tests and poll taxes are prohibited.
The issue here isn't whether or not driving is a privilege or a right. That is a given: it's a privilege. Opinion has nothing to do with it when facts are involved. That's like saying my opinion is that the sky is green.
The real question here is whether or not the judge has the authority to revoke a license for life. There is a point system in every state. So depending on what the DUI laws and the DMV rules are in the teen's situation, the judge may have overstepped his bounds.
I think the punishment is fine. After all, he can still ask a court to reinstate it if he somehow manages to turn his life around as he gets older. In the meantime, I am glad he is not on the road.
Hey Edward, I sincerely hope you never get the privilege and a license to drive!!! You are dangerous on those skate boards we see you on, Bobbe.
Actually 'travelling' in your 'vessel' is a right'. 'Driving' in a 'vehicle' is a privilege. And you only every TRULY need a licence to profit commercially. Not saying people shouldn't have licences, just enlightening you guys. If you really understand the law to its deepest levels you'll know what I'm talking about.
However this judge is obviously too harsh. No point punishing the guy this much when he's most likely learned his lesson. And teenagers never think its going to happen to them, they wont get the message. Different solution needed.
They do the same thing in Germany, in some areas, after your first DUI.
Where is the Appeal. His lawyer Hagan told msnbc “there is a reason I can’t comment, and I can’t comment on that.” Sounds like the lawyer blew it. Such a draconian punishment would never be upheld (miss one day in filing an appeal and you are F**ked)
Edward: Driving is NOT a right, go to school.
1.) Is this sentence in compliance with sentencing guidelines?
2.) Is this sentence consistent with what other judges would impose on other drivers who did the same thing?
3.) Is this sentence consistent with what THIS judge has imposed on other drivers in the past who did the same thing?
What I'm getting at is, if this judge, in this case, let his own personal anger and exasperation affect the sentence he imposed on this kid, that's a little crazy.
Yes, the kid should be sentenced stiffly - he was very irresponsible and other people suffered because of it. But this sentence seems way out of proportion with others given for the same offense. Don't we have some right to expect the law to be self-consistent?
Actually, the judge probably put forth a gag order on everyone, threatening them with contempt if they even mentioned the gag order. And then he probably sealed that (illegal) order.
IMO, the judge went too far with this one. For a DWI, you lose you license for one year. You are eligible for jail time, but it is rarely given to first time offenders. There is no mention of a DWI conviction, or even that initial charges had been brought. I think cranky judge decided to go off on this kid. The kid should wait until he turns 18, take a safe driving course and request reinstatement.
indyreader, First, not all crimes have sentencing guidelines, and this is probably one of them that does not. Second, in the absence of strict guidelines, nothing that other judges, or even what he did previously, matters. A judge has VERY broad discretion.
I totally agree with the judges decision to ban this teen for life from driving. On another note, how many adults get DUI after DUI and never learn from their criminal behavior and keep drinking and driving. This punishment should apply to EVERYONE who drinks and drives. How many more innocent lives must be taken before this situation is taken seriously, let's apply this punishment to all who drink and drive, because obviously these drinkers don't seem to care who they kill because they want to drink and drive., once and for all.
What I meant to say was that adults should suffer the same punishment and not just teens.
I'm just happy that my entire life isn't judged on the crap I did when I was only 17..omg.
Im so sick of Judges acting like Dumb@!$%#s. Where did thsi quack get his degree from and how old is this judge!
When the judge said"I've had it" he was showing bias to this 17year old. If he has a good lawyer, the sentence will be thrown out. There are sentencing guidelines for the judges to follow.
I am not making excuses for the kid but he is exactly that. While I agree that DWI is serious and should be dealt with strictly this is over kill. It may even not be effective. No one died. Heck the article says one kid was in a coma for a while but no info about any permanent damages. Meanwhile a grown man over 30 in my region finally killed someone drunk while driving. The guy has almost 50 serious driving infractions pending in court for almost that many separate incidents. He actually had to kill someone before they got him off the road. Jailed, awaiting trial, no bail. Several of the cases against him are for OWI/DWI. The kid should get 6 months or a year of weekends in juvenile detention, financial restitution and a long suspension of his license. I have never seen a car that needs a license to be driven,so will this really send a message? Or will he just drive unlicensed and uninsured?
the kid should also be barred from getting a license until he is legally an adult (21).
but banned for life? that is going too far
That judge needs to read up on the laws..he's a fool..The laws are already set for driving offenses in all states by the states justice system and motor vehicle dept...he can't change that..if its three years by motor vehicle rules..that's what it has to be nothing more nothing less..its already set until the motor vehicle division and justice system changes it...not him alone!
Read about a drunk in my state..DWI 14 times..killed three people..sentence to prison for 18 years..but when he comes out he is allowed to drive again once he completes the rules ( AA classes-etc) and pays the fines.
Kevin, while judges may have discretion, they are not free to impose any sentence they choose just because they are pissed off. If the judge's action in this case is completely out of line with how he has ruled in similar cases or how other judges have ruled in similar cases, there is an argument for the impostion of cruel and unusual punishment.
Can we send the message to all the adults with road rage and soccer moms paying more attention to their phones than driving. Because they are more likely to kill me then a teen who doesn't put his seatbelt on and speeds will.
Most states have some form of no drop law. One DUI before 21 and you lose your license until you turn 21. It is usually enough to wake someone up from their idiotic habits. In this country, with its shear size, not having a license is grounds for failure. Many jobs require you to have access to your own transportation because of the job its self, or the location and hours might make it limited in its access to the public network. Removing this kid's driving PRIVILEGES for life is setting him up for failure in life.
The sentence doesn't make sense. He was 17. He did something stupid that could have gotten him an his friends killed, but nobody died. Should he have his license revoked? Sure, but not for life. Even attempted murderers get off after a few years. Let his license be revoked for 5-10 years.
I do believe that in most states, if someone dies in the crash and alcohol was involved, the license IS revoked for life. Life may be a bit harsh in this case but I think the judge should give him at least 10 years without a license in the hopes that by then, he is mature enough to handle the responsibility!
I agree that the kid should lose his license for a few years, but life is ridiculous.
As for the debate of privilege vs right, while technically it is a privilege by definition, it is not in actuality. You have to take a test that you pay for. You have to have insurance that you have to pay for. You have to buy a car that must be paid for. You have to have gas that you must pay for. Those items make it a privilege because you must front the bill for the ability to drive. The only issue with the whole process is, you have to have transportation in order to be a productive member of society. This pretty much means a car is a requirement, unless of course you live in a metropolis where public transportation is abundant. If not, you are SOL. Call it a privilege if you like, but it seems to be a requirement more than anything for those of us that live anywhere other than the major cities.
First it is really not life if he can request a change in the ruling in the future. "Guglietta said Topa can ask the court to have it reinstated."
Is it harsh you bet, but at least he is still alive to whine about it, and since he put a friend in a coma it was no mainor accident He could be doing jail time.
And while adults DUI might get you a few years supended license, this is a minor who apparently had been drinking - imho much worse as he had no business drinking to begin with.
While I think that the judge was too harsh on this kid, distractions while driving, racing, turning left in front of someone, ya know, things like that - that cause accidents - ARE THE REASON WHY EVERYONE'S INSURANCE RATES KEEP GOING UP! Yet, John Q Public is always soooo shocked when their rates increase....Pay attention people!
That's not really true. For example, Allstate filed for a 60% rate increase last year. They were approved for a 25% increase last year. In the last 3 years, rates have steadily climbed within the insurance industry.
The lack of training for youthful drivers makes sense, however, how would one explain all the adults that cause accidents? I would say bad habits....ie: talking/texting while driving, reading the newspaper while driving, putting on make up, eating a bowl of cereal, etc, etc...
Ok, so people get killed in DUI accidents and get there licenses back. This kid might be an idiot but, no one died. Confused...
He might be in your neighborhood and he might be in an impaired state again and he might impact your vehicle and injure someone you know or love, like yourself.
Do you still wish he could drive, now?
The article said someone was in a coma for three weeks. No mention of permanent brain damage or injury. Still this kid sounds lucky he didn't kill himself or others. Clearly a serious enough accident for a judge to want to mete out the harshest punishment. Though I think a permanent ban is excessive; 5-10 years would accomplish the same thing. Plus, the kid and his parents will be sued for personal injuries and the kid will be grilled in a deposition. Not a fun thing. Possibility of punitive damages means parents could pay out of pocket as well.
We should take away the license of anyone who kills whild DUI, or is caught twice. it's a priv, not a right, and if you have proven you don't take it seriously, bye bye license.
and a freaking asteroid could land on your house.
people love to come up with "might, maybe, could be, etc" as "proof" that something should or shouldn't be so
no logic or reason at all
Brian Peterson
The last I knew, MIGHT is not a crime, therefore you cannot arrest and punish someone because of what he MIGHT do.
I don't know that "for life" is a reasonable punishment, but it certainly does make a statement. I guess you really can get "grounded for life" although it takes a judge to impose it...
Yet, it is perfectly ok for a person to have six DUI's and get their's back in 6 months. I think our justice system is seriously screwed up.
These are the kind of people who should have their licenses removed for life, including those who committed manslaughter while DUI.
Hot in miami,
That is what I was saying in my earlier post, all who get a DUI should be banned from driving for the rest of their lives because they keep getting chance after chance and still they keep ignoring the law. Maybe if these permanent punishments were imposed, people would think twice before getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking and I can guarantee, you wont hear of people getting killed by drunk drivers.
Sorry hot in miami, my post was directed at Will3.
And if that judge didn't impose just as harsh a penalty for someone else like a DUI accident then his sentence could be turned over under judicial review.
Another out of control judge with a God like complex ! The young man does need to have is privilege revoked, but not for life. I say get the judge off the bench for life and see how he likes it when someone takes away his privilege. After all being a judge is a privilege, not a right.
No, it is not just a privilege, it is an elected or appointed officer of the court who serves the public. He is protecting us, all of us, and the young person himself.
No, that is not protecting. It is going too far. Give him another chance once he turns 25. By then, he should have some maturity.
Roger, "get the judge off the bench"?! for what?!
Oh please, the judge is not out of control with a God complex. He's trying to make a point. He even made a point of telling the little moron that he could ask the court to get it back.
nosleepma, lets just hope none of your "little angels" have any growing pains, whatsoever.
maybe for having the same kind of God complex the federal judges in SA had so SCOTUS sent it back and told them they overstepped their authority. Some people tend to become overbearing when they have too much power. Bet it gets overturned because it is out of line and will be judged cruel and unusual.
This is a mere civil magistrate and not a an actual judge in the criminal division. That said, his whim of a sentence by judicial fiat is ultra vires and clearly over the top, even for a diminutive state like RI with a checkered history of bizarre excesses in the political arena. The appeal process should bare this out and put this Napoleonic magistrate back in his proper place.
And the kid back on the highway, drunk and unbelted? I certainly hope not!
Of course you don't let the KID back on the highway, but don't you think he deserves another chance as an adult (and I don't mean 18 or 21, either. I have met very few 21 year olds that act like adults.)
The judge did tell him to apply to get it back so I have no doubt he will be driving again, hopefully after he turns 25 and has matured. From the remains of that car [google images, his name and poof], hopefully he is counting his blessings that he is even still alive and nobody else was killed.
I agree this is a bit much. Yes it was stupid and immature and everything else to drive after driving alcohol. Yes he needs to be punished. But I think of it this way. He is young and inexperienced. I'd much rather this Judge ban adults from driving after drinking and driving. Adults are older and have more experience. They are supposed to be older and wiser. Let's ban the people that haven't learned from their youthful mistakes.
I bet this guy if he has two working brain cells will learn from this prohibition in about ten or fifteen years.
This is lives and property, not pinball we are talking about.
I was expecting to read about a ton of horrible accidents, but only one? And he had separate speeding tickets and seatbelt ticket(s)? I wouldn't mind severe punishments for severe repeat offenders, I'm just not sure this kid is one of them. How many times have we read about people drunk driving and killing innocent people multiple times - yet, they are still driving! It doesn't sound like this kid did that.
"How many times have we read about people drunk driving and killing innocent people multiple times - yet, they are still driving! It doesn't sound like this kid did that."
So your thesis is we should wait until he does? As long as he and we are lucky, his behavior is OK?
Punishment has to fit the crime in this country. You can't punish for "might" Or should we the spring break places just jail your kids when they get here. I mean why should we wait they might do a lot of illegal things here since most of them are drunk most of the time even at 10:00am.
OUCH! For driving too fast & not wearing a seat belt? (I dont know if he was drinking-did I miss that in the article?) I agree with getting tough on drunk drivers but taking away his license for life seems a tad harsh for a teenager. (First time offender?) Not enough information......
I will not drink and drive. Period. Too much at stake. But I was a teenager once. And I drove drunk. Fortunately I never hurt anyone but myself.
I'm certain this kid has a ton of remorse and should suffer the consequences but that is way too severe. Some judges are just on a power trip.
My life is precious! I don't like people speeding, texting, drinking and driving, and driving recklessly because sometimes I'm out on the road. I value my life and everyone else should as well. When it comes to driving there shouldn't be any 2nd chances because my life is precious. Sympathize if you'd like but I'm sure as heck not going to because my life is precious.
And gee if you change lanes without signaling do we get to take your license? Because almost everybody does that.
Sounds a little harsh to me, but I guess it depends on the kid's attitude. I've had adult friends look me in the eye and say, "Geez, that stupid cop caught me 1 block before I got home. What bad luck!" Never mind that they were driving while intoxicated, rather, it was "bad luck." Those are the people who never learn their lesson about driving while drunk...and should have their licenses permanently removed. Now, if only we could keep people with suspended licenses from getting behind the wheel. Having their license suspended doesn't even slow some people down!
He'll appeal the judges sentence and it will be reversed. Ten years would be approporiate. By then maybe he will be more responsible. Woudn't hurt for him to ride a bike.
Right on for the judge to scare the shiz out of this immature perpetrator and let him think about what he did for a decade or more.
At least he might still be alive unlike that poor girl who was texting at night in Utah. Being dumb behind the wheel can be fatal to yourselves and others.
We don't need more laws, just enforcement and education.
"For life?" Not a reasonable sentence. Horrible act on the defendants part, but the penalty is too harsh. What do the other students (that were in the car) think?
Probably that they are damn lucky they are still alive.
Imagine the world if we were all punished a lifetime's worth for the things we did when we were younger. Brian, although I can respect your stance on drunk driving, because it is a major issue, the punishment is out of touch with reality. He was a first time offender, a lot of people actually learn from their mistakes. Guilty once, doesn't make you guilty forever....be careful with that.
Although I think this may be a little drastic, judges need to be firmer in their sentencing with people convicted of a DUI and other crimes. The thing I'm getting tired of seeing is people still driving with having five or ten DUI's in the past. The only problem is these same people will still drive on a suspended or revoked license. I propose that these people be sentenced to 250, 500, 1000 or more hours of community service, with the judge deciding where the community service is to be performed. This would be decided by the judge to make sure the guilty party can't choose an easy or posh job. If the guilty party doesn't show up, throw him/her in jail. Why is it that 10% of the people cause 90% of the problems in society?
This kid did not have 5 or 10 DUI's. It would definitely make sense for his driving privileges to be suspended for a defined period of time and for him to have to go to driver education classes. It would also be more meaningful for him to have to help care for the people injured in the accident or pay some amount of restitution.
This is just a judge who can't think of anything beside a hammer because all he sees is a nail. The justice system in this country is beyond ridiculous. A man was recently sentenced to 8 months in prison for child pornography, but the Feds just sentenced a man in the northeast to 3 years for selling fake maple syrup.
I've got news for this judge. If he has had it, then get off the bench because he will never come up with the ideal sanction that will prevent the next group of immortal teenagers from taking risks.
When sentences become unreasonable then they do more harm to the system than good. That judge had better give every other driver a similar sentence or this will be overturned. Then what does the kid learn?
This is a stunt and stupid too. It's cruel and unusual and thus against the constitution.
You obviously have no understanding of the US Constitution. You might try reading it at least once. I guarantee there is no right to drive.
Brian
When the judge said"I've had it" he was showing bias to this 17year old. If he has a good lawyer, the sentence will be thrown out. There are sentencing guidelines for the judges to follow.
Brian he didn't say anything about driving he said cruel and unusual and that is against the constitution. Unusual if that judge hasn't given similar sentences in most cases before then this will be overturned. You can't pat the 40 year old on the head and say behave then throw the book at the 15 year old. Seat belt in most states is $300, My last speeding $65 last dui I saw was 6 months suspended first offence. So basically reasonable sentence 6 months suspended $400 fine and costs. If that is what this judge has given others then this will be overturned.
I agree with the good judge in this case. But it needs to be more than just cracking down on young people. Those of all ages drive recklessly and under the influence. Personally I believe anyone under the age of 21 who gets a DUI or DWI should have their license revoked for no less than five years. Anyone who gets a second DUI or DWI should have their license revoked indefinitely.
There needs to be more severe penalties for driving without a license, too. It is ridiculous how much of a slap on the wrist driving on a revoked/suspended license can be. In most states driving with a revoked license is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty varying from 6-12 months and a fine varying from $100 to about $1000. Some states might be higher or lower. Despite this pretty much every case of driving on a revoked license usually just involves a fine and maybe a night in jail.
Driving involves operating a potentially deadly machine. This should never be taken lightly.
Only people under 21 who get a DUI? Why not try people of any age? There are adults who can have their 10th DUI and only get their license suspended for 6 months.
A six month suspension is fine for a first time offender over 21. But if you take the time to read my original post you will find that I advocate permanently revoking the license of anyone convicted of a second DUI/DWI.
Why give a better deal to a 21 year old he can kill people with his car too. Driving is not a right at 21 either.
Right, and 6-12 months is a slap on the wrist? This is one major problem about our criminal justice system. We think that someone needs to spend 25 to life to get the message about their behavior.
Hey Koatz how exactly is losing a privledge to drive Cruel and unusual?
Austin UNUSUAL different You can not impose different standards on citizens for the same offences.