A sentence of 15 years to a 22 year old defendant is, in point of fact, a lifetime. Had Andrew Guadioso found himself in a different courtroom, especially one with a headline seeking District Attorney like Nassau County, Long Island’s Kathleen Rice, he might have been staring at a murder charge, and 15 years would look like a sweet deal.
Guadioso, you see, drove under the influence of drugs, causing the accident that killed Army Sgt. Thomas E. Towers Jr., a two-tour veteran of the war in Iraq. From the Orlando Sentinel :
A nasty crash. A hero victim. Drugs. All the makings of a heinous crime demanding the harshest of punishments to vindicate public outrage. But not this time.He could have been sentenced to 15 years in prison for the fatal wreck March 14, 2008. Investigators alleged he was traveling on County Road 452 north of Eustis at more than 80 mph in the rain with traces of street drugs in his blood when he veered left of center and smashed almost head-on into the soldier’s car.
This sentence is extraordinary at every level, accepted by not only Judge Singeltary and Guadioso, but by Thomas Towers, Sr., who lost his son. It would be perfectly understandable for a father to demand that the person responsible for the death of his son go to prison. It would relatively understandable for him to want that person to be drawn and quartered. But Thomas Towers, Sr., came to appreciate that this unusual alternative may better serve his son’s memory, and prevent Guadioso from ever putting anyone else at risk again.For causing the accident . . . Andrew Gaudioso was ordered to send the Eustis soldier’s family a postcard every week for 15 years.
“He said he thinks of my son every day but, excuse me, I don’t really believe that,” said Towers’ father, Thomas E. Towers Sr. “At first I thought I wanted prison [for Gaudioso]. Then I thought it would be better to force him some way to remember — at least once a week — what he did. I think this does that.”
The unusual sentence, imposed this month by Circuit Judge G. Richard Singeltary, does not specify what Gaudioso should write on the postcard, which must be presented to his Lake County probation officer with the 28 cents postage paid. If he fails to send the weekly postcards, Gaudioso could be sent to prison for 15 years.
With a father’s support, one might expect this alternative sentence to be universally embraced. Not so. The Sentinel article includes the voice of a very interesting naysayer, none other than the dapper blawger and George Washington Lawprof, Jonathan Turley.
While his argument may well relate better to sentencing shoplifting defendants to stand on street corners with humiliating signs, it’s rather incomprehensible that Turley would speak out against this sentence and in favor of putting this 22 year old in prison for 15 years for an “accident.”Creative sentences like Gaudioso’s are a growing trend in American courtrooms, said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional-law expert at George Washington University and a critic of the practice, which often uses shame as punishment.
Turley said so-called creative punishments threaten to reverse centuries of progress in U.S. courtrooms, where justice has evolved from pre-colonial practices of public pillories, scarlet letters and tar-and-feathering to a system of thoughtful, consistent sentences designed to punish offenders and protect the public.
“There is ample embarrassment in any criminal conviction. But there is a sharp difference between shame from a punishment and shame as the punishment,” Turley said. “These sentences have a corrosive effect on the legal system.”
It’s not that Turley’s generic issue with shaming punishments lacks merit. There is no guidance for a judge inclined to impose an alternative sentence, leaving them to vindicate their personal sensibilities and biases, and too often imposing a punishment that carries shame for all involved, the court included.
But let’s not confuse the generic problems of alternative “shaming” punishments with an example like this, a sentence that hardly falls into the category of making a defendant stand on a street corner in a chicken suit. The term of imprisonment that would alternatively have been imposed on Guadioso for his “accident,” fifteen years, is outrageous. Just because some tough on crime yahoos in Tallahassee came up with this to bolster their re-election campaign amongst a bunch of rednecks doesn’t dignify it. Does Turley believe that putting Guadioso in prison for 15 years would eliminate the “corrosive effect on the legal system” he fears?
In this case, the alternative sentence of sending a weekly postcard does not strike me as within the nature of shaming at all. Rather, it’s a matter of remembering that a life was lost for lack of care. Whether the level of care was criminal is no longer in issue, but the relationship between the alternative sentence and the act seems quite strong and rational. This sentence enhances confidence in the legal system.
While I share Turley’s concern about judges imposing shaming sentences that appear more to reflect a judge’s moralistic or political views than anything remotely connected to the legitimate bases for sentencing, I similarly support alternative sentences that are well-grounded in those legitimate bases and spare a defendant from absurd traditional sentences. It’s truly hard to imagine that Turley would favor putting Guadioso in prison for fifteen years, which makes it even more difficult to imagine that he believes that this sentence, a weekly postcard, would have a “corrosive effect on the legal system.”
Update: Fail. Fail, fail, fail. From the St. Pete Times:
And wondered: What would the killer write?
Every day, he dragged himself down the dusty path to get the mail. He flipped through fliers and bills, searching for that small slice of justice.
But three weeks had passed since the sentencing, and Towers still hadn’t received a postcard.
Writer’s block? Finally, a card arrived/
Towers cradled the card in both hands, ran his thumbs across the slick conchs. “Andrew Gaudioso,” said block letters across the back. “Mr. and Mrs. Towers,” the shaky print said. “I’m very sorry.”
He read the words over and over. Closed his eyes. Then read them again.
“Is that it?” he finally asked, flinging down the card. “You’ve got to be kidding me. That’s all there is?”
He sank back into the sofa. Dina watched his shoulders slump, his head drop. “Wait, Dad,” she said, “Here’s another one.”
The second postcard was labeled “The Legend of the Sand Dollar.” Towers studied it, took in the symbolic cross, the hidden doves of peace. Then he turned it over.
The card was blank.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Were it my son killed, I don’t think I’d have been happy with postcards. I’d have preferred a jail sentence.
But, as it wasn’t my son and the decedent’s father was happy with the sentence, it’s not for me to say.
I can say, though, that were I the driver, I’d be infinitely happier with the postcard sentence than spending any time in jail. I don’t really see a shame factor in that sentence. Who, beyond the father, the malefactor, and his parole officer is going to remember this after two weeks?
Frankly, I’d like to see rather more shame involved in criminal sentencing. Perhaps it’s only an artifact of TV, but it sure seems as though criminal charges and some jail time are highly desirable results, things that add to ‘street cred’.
I’ll second what John said and also add that Guadioso should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle capable of speeds in excess of 19mph. (20mph is the magic speed at which bad things can happen with negligent drivers.)
Aside from your somewhat parochial view of sentencing, the people punished by only allowing Gaudioso to drive at 19 mph and below are in the cars traveling behind him.
If his top speed is limited to 19mph he can drive on the sidewalk in most states. He’s limited to electric scooters and some mopeds.
I’m pushing for eternal revocation of driver’s licenses for people who kill others due to their negligence. I figure if enough people think it’s a good idea, maybe someday my harebrained scheme will become law.
The only detail I haven’t fully worked out is how that would transfer between states.
Oy. Got your tinfoil hat on today, Shawn? You keep pushing there, pal.
Maybe I just don’t understand, because it hasn’t happened to me, but if someone killed someone I love, I can think of few things more upsetting than getting a postcard from the killer every week. That’s something the serial killers do on Criminal Minds. Still, if it works for these people…
My mind is blown by the idea we should punish people who kill people with their cars by making them drive on the sidewalk.
Who beyond the father, the malefactor and his parole officer needs to remember this after two weeks? Would you remember this after two weeks even if he had been sent to the chair?
The goal of punishment is not to be memorable to outsiders. The shame element comes from remembering that you killed someone and that someone had a family and telling that family something every week for 780 weeks.
And, of course, if he doesn’t do the postcard he goes straight to jail for violating the terms of his probation.
That was my first reaction too. That seems to just pour salt into the wound of losing your son.
I don’t imagine it can be fun to write a postcard like that (unless you’re a serial killer and you’re mocking someone) but it can’t be fun to get it either.
There’s no point in trying to imagine how you would feel. It doesn’t count until it’s for real.
The ability to kill someone with a 20lb scooter is much less than it is to kill someone with a 4,000lb car, even if the driver is negligent. The point is that the offender no longer gets to operate a vehicle capable of killing someone through his negligence.
WRT to the tinfoil hats, they are high fashion these days. 🙂
Ahhh, once again I am reminded that so many folks see retribution as the most important sentencing consideration. Sure, specific deterrence has a role in this too, but lifelong bans only generalize that which is supposed to be specific.
He’s from Texas, but we like him anyway.
“The term of imprisonment that would alternatively have been imposed on Guadioso for his “accident,” fifteen years, is outrageous. “
What is outrageous about this sentence? It sounds about right for someone who kills someone else under influence.
Yup, and there are some folks who think jaywalkers should get the death penalty.
I don’t think there’s any more shame involved in the postcard requirement than in the rest of the sentence. Gaudioso is on probation for 15 years, which means a lot more restrictions and requirements than just sending a weekly postcard, including no drugs or alcohol. The administrative penalty for a first offense DUI/Manslaughter conviction in Florida is permanent driver’s license revocation. There’s no right to apply for a hardship license in the first 5 years. If he doesn’t feel some shame while he’s riding a bicycle to see his probation officer every week, it might be because of the brain damage he had in the accident.
There is a difference between killing (murdering)someone while driving under the influence and jaywalking. Obivously, I think jaywalking should not be punished via death penality (actually, it is at worst a fine).
However, he killed someone while under the influence. That should mean a harsh penality, ie 15 years.
There’s no difference between inappropriately harsh sentences, Jim. You’re relying on the death of a person in a car accident. That’s not the crime. That’s the outcome. The crime is driving while intoxicated. It’s pure luck that distinguishes the guy who makes it home fine to drive another day and the guy who kills someone else. Is 15 years the price of a moment’s bad luck?
While I’d actually like to see laws more in line with Sweden’s (lifelong suspension for DWI/DUI), I realize that the US is not Sweden.
How about requiring everyone convicted of felony DWI/DUI to purchase and equip his/her vehicle with pink tires? Certainly there’s some shame there, but more, it alerts other drivers that they need to exercise a bit more caution around that vehicle. A five-year term of pink tires seems adequate…
Yes absolutly. Outcomes of a crime very often determine the sentence of the crime. And that is the way it should be.
Also, I disagree with the notion that the death of the person is not the crime. That is most certainly the crime.
The problem with ideas like this are the unintended consequences. Can’t drive? Who feed his family because he can’t get to work? Pink tires? What about the spouse or children who also drive the car? What about the cop who assumes he’s at fault in some later accident, or getting stopped for fun when the cop needs some overtime or to fill his quota?
Well then, your disagreement is duly noted. On the bright side, it’s also irrelevant.
Actions have consequences, even unforeseen consequences. Yeah, it’s tough on other family members–so is a breathalizer interlock. More susceptible to police abuse? As it seems random already, an increase in the probability doesn’t seem terribly onerous to me. (Granted, I do not drink and drive.)
Now, perhaps my view is also colored by the fact that I live in a part of Florida that seems to take DUI seriously. Daily, I see men and women from the 20s to their 50s biking around town. These are not exercise nuts. They’re people who’ve had their licenses pulled. They’re healthier for the exercise; I’m healthier because they no longer represent much of a threat to my well-being.
I would definitely appreciate some advanced warning that the car in front of me or behind me might have some ‘issues’ with sober driving. Just the same way I am happy to note that the driverless car in front of me is most likely a driver, shrunken with age, who may not be the safest driver out there. I make similar assumption about the pick-ups with 8′ tires.
I’m a pretty good driver. I don’t want my life wasted because some other driver doesn’t take DUI laws seriously.
There’s nothing like good old-fashioned self-interest as a basis for policy. Hey, if it’s good for you, isn’t that all that really matters?
Actually, I’m more generous and community-spirited than that. I assume that if something enhances my safety, as a cautious driver, it will enhance the safety of other drivers, cautious or not. Consider it enlightened self-interest.
Consider, too, the concepts of ‘defensive driving’ and ‘situational awareness’.
I never would have thought otherwise. All appeals to safety are based on community spirit and enlightened self-interest.
While it is easy to sit back and imagine what a “good” punishment is, having the facts in front of you along with a 22 year old young man will bring you to think of many things.
1. How will this young man defend himself in prison? (he is 5’5″/135)
2. How can the State seek to send a person to prison for a crime that they can questionably prove?
3. Why is it that the general public automatically believes someone is guilty just because they were arrested?
4. How is it that the investigating officer created his own method of calculating speed?
5. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
6. How is this kid even alive? (He was in a coma for 4 months and was originally pronounced dead on the scene)
These questions and many others went through my head the first time that I met Mr. Gaudioso as my client. As a defense attorney it is not always easy protecting the rights of the accused. Every day I wonder what if this was one of my family members or me. I have been on all sides of the triangle as a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, and now a defense attorney. Nothing is ever easy. I work hard for my clients and hope that I can always think outside of the box.
I assume this is a stock comment you’ve been posting around the internet on stories involving your client, as it doesn’t appear to relate well to anything written about this case here. Unfortunately, it leaves the appearance that you’re reading comprehension requires some improvement.
Nonetheless, you did a spectacular job for your client, arriving at a very imaginative sentence that kept a young man from being put away for a very long time. One question, though. What’s going on with the postcards? Is he going to risk violating his probation by blowing the deal?