Answer

Florida State Court Case

The case selected for this study is that of Lopez v. DHSMV, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1b (Fla. 5th Cir. Ct. 2019). In this case, the defendant was detained for reckless driving under the influence of alcohol. The trial court partially denied her motion to quash all evidence gathered after an off-duty correctional officer from another jurisdiction arrested her, and she was charged. This case was settled after trial in the criminal justice process that followed criminal justice phases. First, police officer conducted criminal investigation to obtain sufficient evidence for supporting the arrest. This was followed by the prosecution in which the suspect was taken before a district attorney and charged for reckless driving while under the influence of alcohol. The prosecution then filled a charging sheet commonly known as information where a preliminary hearing was conducted to establish whether correctional officers had sufficient evidence to warrant arrest. During the hearing, the defendant together with her attorney was accorded an opportunity to dispute the charges levelled against her. After that, the defendant was taken before a court where she took a plea. She pleaded not guilty and as a result, she was detained for several days. In the trial phase, the defendant and the prosecutor were given chances to present and argue out their evidence before the jury. After scrutinizing evidences from each side and listening to arguments, the judge convicted Lopez for reckless driving with alcohol. She was found guilty and sentenced by placed in an institution based correctional facility. However, the defendant through her attorney filled an appeal in appellate court but the appellate court confirms the previous ruling.

The defendant received institutional based sentencing that according to Durose and Langan (2003) refers to the process of convicted persons in secure correctional facility such as jail or prison. Having been found guilty of reckless driving with alcohol, Lopez was placed in a jail where her movements were restricted. The reasoning for intuitional based sentencing was to prevent her from re-offending as she could be constantly supervised and advised on the benefits of adhering to laws while in Florida.

Retribution is the purpose of punishment that supports Lopez’s sentence. Retribution refers to a punishment inflicted in an individual who has harmed others and thus merits being punished (Bregant, Shaw, & Kinzler, 2016). It implies that persons who have committed any form of crime must be punished. As in the case of Lopez, she drove recklessly with alcohol and must be punished to prevent and reduce future effects of crime she committed. Through retribution, there is high chances that in case abuse takes place, future offense will be reduced significantly as opposed to situations where penalties are not imposed. Bregant, Shaw and Kinzler (2016) contended that for abuse to reduce future offence, the unhappiness and pain inflicted on the offender must overshadowed by the avoidance of obnoxiousness to other people in the probable future. Therefore, retribution was a moral action against people who drive recklessly with alcohol since it initiates greatest happiness to many individuals.

In conclusion, sentencing Lopez was just because effects of reckless driving with alcohol can be detrimental to greatest number of people. Indeed, reckless driving is a felony criminal offense. This implies that when one is convicted, it will based on his or her criminal history.  Similarly, under the Florida vehicle code 23103, reckless driving a felony charge that carries sentencing for 5-90 days or a fine of $145- $1000 or both.