In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« TV Guide News Report
Possible Lucky Break for Lane Garrison in Court
Lane Garrison by Alexandra Wyman/WireImage.com
Former Prison Break star Lane Garrison may serve only 90 days in jail for the December DUI car crash that resulted in the death of 17-year-old Vahagn Setian.
Garrison was not sentenced at today’s Los Angeles County court hearing, but “remanded... to the Department of Corrections for diagnostics,” Judge Eldon Fox decreed. In May, Garrison pleaded guilty to all charges.
Setian’s father, the two other teenage victims who were in the car, and psychologists were among the witnesses who testified today. Garrison also testified on his own behalf.
Jane Robison, spokesperson for the L.A. County District Attorney’s office explains to TV Guide: Garrison’s “being sent to corrections [jail] for 90 days, for evaluation, to see if he’s suitable for probation.
"In 90 days the prison officials will evaluate him, and the State Department will issue a report. [Judge Fox] will take that under advisement and he will be sentenced in October. The D.A. is still recommending four years, but yes, it is possible that he could go before the judge, be deemed remorseful and suitable for probation, and not serve additional prison time — there is a
possibility that [Garrison] will not serve time beyond the 90 days.” — Reporting by N.F. Mendoza
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Aug 2, 2007 3:23 PM
|
|
What he did was despicable . . . but I am one for giving a man a second chance, especially when he is very remorseful for what he did. As far as I know, this was the only incident like this, and I think that, unlike certain starlets who don't care, Garrison will learn from this and work it for the better. All the more power to him, and as long as he has learned from his mistakes, jail time might not be needed. In a world where we sentence rapists and murderers who are not remorseful to "life sentences", we must also take pity and understand that he is very sorry for his actions. Does that justify what he did? No, but remorse in a world without remorse is a very courageous and powerful thing to have.
|
|
Aug 2, 2007 4:29 PM
|
benxtaron - very well said!
I agree totally. He took full responsibility for his actions and I believe that he will accept whatever punishment is given to him.
I think that he could better serve his punishment by continuing with the Public Service Announcements that he is currently doing for television. I would think that as sincere as he seems he would make an excellent spokesperson against drinking and driving. A person of his stature might actually be able to get through to todays youth.
|
|
Aug 2, 2007 5:16 PM
|
Very well said benxtaron! And Ranger99 I agree with your statement about him getting through to todays youth. Maybe even some other Hollywood youth.
When I think about Paris Hilton (who said all the right things but was so obviously not emotionally convincing and then goes off to a beach resort as soon as she is released) and Lindsey Lohan (who is in total denial) it makes me sick.
90 days does seem awfully short but his remorse seems very sincere and if he can keep doing the service announcements and maybe even visit some schools or juvenille halls that would be really great.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 8:21 AM
|
I agree with all of the other posts, it's nice to see someone in young Hollywood taking responsibilty and showing sincere remorse.
If he is able to help others by the PSA's and possibly visiting juvenille halls and schools then maybe it is better that he only serve the 90 day's, however another part of me sees this as unfair because if it were any other non-Hollywood type they would probably be going away for the four years.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 10:03 AM
|
Big deal that he is remorseful.....SO WHAT??? As one of the victims' father has said, "He's an actor. He is acting."
What he is is a killer and a drunk driver and there is no way that a 90-day stint in "corrections [jail]" can ever justify or compensate for getting behind the wheel after doing drugs and drinking and getting into an accident where other people were killed or injured.
He took a life and caused untold grief to the victim's family and loved one. Nope, 90 days, possible probation and all the PSAs in the world just won't cut it.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 10:30 AM
|
What he is is a killer and a drunk driver
So I take it that you have never made the mistake of drinking too much and getting behind the wheel?
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 12:47 PM
|
So I take it that you have never made the mistake of drinking too much and getting behind the wheel?
Are we to take it that you feel this excuses murdering one of the high school kids you just met after a couple hours of drinking and drugging with them?
Believe it or not, not everybody has driven while drunk. For one thing, not everybody drinks. And not everybody who drinks drives drunk. Some people are actually responsible that way. To imply otherwise is disgusting and demeans the people left dead by the drunk drivers who kill them.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 1:13 PM
|
diablorobotico -
You never answered my quesion!
And as I stated I do not condone his actions but I do not necessarily feel that our prison system is the best recourse for our best interests. Do you think that the penalty that Lane could get would deter more people from drinking and driving, or could it possibly save more lives by letting him speak to our youth on the disasters that can happen so quickly when a person does make the mistake of drinking while driving?
I for one would rather see lives saved then destroy one life out of a sense of justice!
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 1:50 PM
|
Ranger99 - yes, I have driven after drinking BUT I have never caused an accident or another person's death or injury. However, if I did, no matter how "remorseful" I would be, I would go to jail for a hell of a lot longer than 90 days followed by probation. And because I am not a "star" (btw - I had never even heard of this killer before he killed and injured his passengers - a couple of episodes of a mediocre TV show does NOT a star make) - I would not have the opportunity to make a PSA, nor would I get a lenient sentence.
And just remember that when he got caught after his accident where he killed and injured his passengers, who he'd just met and then partied with, he denied that he was drunk. No, he claimed that he'd had just one drink while at the party but later, party-goers could verify that he had had a LOT more to drink than that. And he was also found to have drugs in his system.
So - he is a drug user, a heavy drinker, a liar and a killer.
Sure, he's remorseful He's full of remorse for getting caught. He should get a lot more than 90 days. Just ask his victims' families.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 2:10 PM
|
DRUNK DRIVER = DEAD PEOPLE.
DEAD PEOPLE = JAIL FOR A LONG TIME.
90 days is absolute, total, unmitigated BULLS*** for killing someone.
PERIOD.
No, I've never driven drunk. In point of fact, I don't drink, and never have. I DO, however, go out with my drunken friends to make sure that nobody else drives drunk. I also go out and GET my drunken friends when they call me and say, "I wasn't planning to drink, but now I'm drunk."
I've probably spent $40,000 in gas money driving drunks around so other people don't get killed.
Why do I do it? Because two very dear friends of mine were killed by a drunk driver the night I graduated from HS.
The Bast*** spent less than a year behind bars; came out, and killed himself and 3 other people.
DRUNK DRIVERS BELONG IN JAIL--whether they've killed anybody yet or not.
The attitude of "oh, haven't you ever and just didn't get caught" is how half the people who die on our streets every year GET KILLED. Because irresponsible bastards with no regard for anyone but themselves GET IN A CAR DRUNK THINKING THEY WON'T GET CAUGHT.
You know, if I had three wishes, one of them would be that for the rest of human existence every person who got behind the wheel of a vehicle after drinking/drugging would die of massive stroke the instant they attempted to start that vehicle.
I don't care whether Lane Garrison's remorse is real or not. HE KILLED A 17 YEAR OLD KID WHILE DRIVING DRUNK. He needs to be in jail at least that long.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 2:51 PM
|
bossysheryl - $40k in gas to drive around your drunken friends = 14,545 gallons of gas @ $2.75/gallon = 174,545 miles traveled @ 12 miles/gallon = 2,909 hours of driving @ 60 miles/hour.
So you mean to tell me you have spent 2,909 hours driving your drunken friends around? PLEASE!
I do feel for your loss but I do not agree with your opinions on punishment.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 4:25 PM
|
TVForever, you seem to be saying the fact that you did not kill someone when you drank and drove makes you better than Garrison. It doesn't. It just means you are very lucky.
Just like Bossysheryl, I've driven my share of drunks around, although I can't claim I've spent $40,000 on it. Like her, too, I lost a high school friend to a drunk driver. Still, after many years working with cops and prosecutors, I can see why Garrison - and, I hasten to add, some non-celebrity offenders - go through the psychological testing before sentencing is pronounced.
Punishment is only one part of the determination when sentencing an offender. In order to properly serve justice, the judge must take into account remorse, the likelihood that the offender will offend again and whether jail or prison is the best deterrent. As others have said, Garrison is an actor, so I'm sure the psychological testing will try to see past the possible "act" and find out if remorse is one of Garrison's legitimate feelings.
So, let the testing begin. It's not guaranteeing Garrison a free ride, only a correct sentence. The real punishment for Garrison is that all his life he'll know he killed someone because he did something stupid.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 5:51 PM
|
So, let the testing begin. It's not guaranteeing Garrison a free ride, only a correct sentence. The real punishment for Garrison is that all his life he'll know he killed someone because he did something stupid.
Thank you katcon for explaining my feelings in a way that I was not capable of doing! I was trying to explain my sense of justice versus those who would prefer a hanging or burning at the stake!
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 6:03 PM
|
Only 2909 hours? Yeah, that estimate's way off. Because most of the driving has been at between 30 and 40 mph, thru neighborhoods, picking them up and dropping them off. Hours spend wrangling them at the bars I won't count.
It's probably way more than $40,000 based on your math. Because I spent most of the hours in my 20's when I wasn't teaching HS or involved in one of my "sponsored activities" driving my particular drunken fools around, so they didn't kill themselves or anybody else--we went out 5 nights a week most weeks. And I spent at least 3 out of every 4 Friday and Saturday nights driving them around in my early 30's, plus assorted weekday partying. I still spend at least 1 full weekend and 3-4 other nights a month driving my particular fools around.
But someone please explain to me why "remorse" should be a factor in what's basically a premeditated murder? This guy got in his car KNOWING he was planning to get drunk, drove his car to a party and got drunk as planned, then got back in his car AND DROVE IT. You can't claim that his judgement was impaired when he drove the murder weapon to the party! How should anyone feeling bad AFTER someone's dead have any effect on the consequences of causing that death--when the whole thing could have been avoided by use of a cab or limo service?!?!?
I felt EXTREMELY bad after the fact when I broke my great-aunt's Waterford vase when I tripped over her cat. I still had to PAY for it--and that was an actual ACCIDENT, not a foreseeable consequence of some action of mine.
|
|
Aug 3, 2007 6:50 PM
|
|
|
