Aman sentenced to a decade in prison because he wouldn't stop drinking and driving was out after eight months thanks to a series of programs designed to let people sentenced to non-violent offenses serve their time at home.
The argument against the mandatory minimums for driving under the influence is countered by the damage drunken drivers do.
When Nevada increased the penalty for third instance of driving under the influence to a minimum of one year in prison it was for a reason.
Drunken drivers were responsible for half of all fatalities in the state when the law was implemented. Nevada is a state where many of us spend a significant amount of time on the road. The prospect of sharing the road with an impaired driver doesn't help the odds of getting to a destination safely.
In response, the Legislature provided for a means to keep those people, who simply can't resist getting behind the wheel after drinking too much alcohol, off the roads.
That was to lock them up for a year, or years in the case of subsequent convictions for felony DUI.
There is a means under the law for those repeat offenders to seek treatment. But for the most egregious offenders, who are apparently undeterred by the specter of a short prison term, that term was extended.
For those inmates convicted of driving under the influence or driving under the influence causing death, who are allowed to live in their community as long as they are employed and follow the guidance of the state department of parole and probation.
The basis of our system of justice is that someone who commits a crime is required to pay, often with the loss of their liberty. Those prices are set by the Nevada Legislature after deliberation on the nature and severity of a crime and then modified by a judge depending on individual circumstances.
When a sentence is modified drastically outside of those legal circumstances, it it unfair not only to the victims of the crime, but to the rest of a community that thought it was safe, but now might not be too sure.