I've lost two friends in separate incidents to drunk drivers, who both walked away from the crash. Drunk driving is a tough one. It takes premeditation to NOT drive drunk; in other words, taking responsibility to make sure you're taken care of beforehand, or just drinking with friends at home. Not taking those precautions isn't the same as premeditation to drive drunk, because by the time it comes to make that decision, your judgment is already impaired.
I'm not necessarily in favor draconian rules for drunk drivers. Some people here think they should be dragged out behind the chemical shed and shot. And believe me, I've thought that way sometimes, especially after my second friend was killed while driving home to his wife and kids from a late-night shift he was covering for someone else. But emotional reactions don't make for good policies. I believe the penalties, whatever they are, need to be firm but, more importantly, CONSISTENTLY applied.
The guy who killed my friend was on his fourth DUI. Really? That's the problem right there.
The same punishment as anyone else. If it costs him more because he had more to lose, so be it.
It almost sounds like your suggesting that the rich or popular should get to pay for their crimes with money or public humiliation instead of facing legal consequences.
Which crimes/violations should get what punishment? Society/elections/legislators handle those decisions.
You lost the moral high ground when you defended Richardson's actions, or tried to bring some sort of moral equivalence as to why what your guy did is so much better than what Floyd did.
You lost credibility when you said speeding at 80mph is the same as 143mph.
Yeah, I know, you're trolling. Whoopie.