I understand he made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. But THIS mistake cost someone their life.

I do not think he is a horrible man. However, IMO-I believe that he committed homicide. Yes, it was not premediated or planned. But homicide is homicide whether it is by a drunk driver or a gun crazed maniac. An individual lost their life. I think the punishment should reflect the seriousness of the crime.

In Cook County, a man received three years in prison for stealing five bottles of shampoo from a Walgreens.

So, I have been struggling with this a lot, as a friend of Doug's, I do feel like he was beyond lucky with what he was sentenced with. There is a part of me that had it come to me as a relief, but also a part of me that felt, "is this really okay?". I am very thankful that the family has been as forgiving as they are, but that certainly doesnt make it okay. It's a huge struggle. I know Doug driving drunk was a huge mistake on his part and he will have this on him the rest of his life...which is nowhere near as worse as it has been for the family of the victim. It's an all around sad story, it shouldnt have happened. Doug is a really good person, who happened to do something very foolish.

to everyone who thinks this has something to deal with the hockey rink selling beer, it is two different things, so shut up and deal with it. leave the rink out of stuff that makes no sense.

It's touching that the victim's family forgives Mr. Wassmann as should we all. However, allowing him to largely escape the consequences of his crime is quite another thing. Not only does it minimize the worth of Ms. Sievers' life, it reinforces the perception among Wisconsin's drinking drivers that the first offence (that is when they actually catch them the first time) will not be devastating even if someone is killed. A year in Huber jail and then probation for the very unlikely event that someone may die is very little deterrent for those who routinely drive after alcohol consumption. Don’t they nearly all believe they can handle a car after drinking until they prove to themselves that they cannot or until they’ve been caught enough times that the consequences are too high to risk? Perhaps Mr. Wassmann is shaken to his soul and will never repeat his folly, or perhaps some time may pass until he rationalizes his actions into an unfortunate series of events that really weren’t his fault, that he was the victim of dumb luck and that he really can handle a vehicle after having “a few”. In short, the court has left the impression that Ms. Sievers is dead due to “dumb luck” and the almost innocent “mistake” of Mr. Wassmann that he chose to drive inebriated in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Due to this sentence, we can expect more inebriates to take that risk and when they are charged the first time to follow the example of Mr. Wassmann’s contrition expecting proportionately similar results.

If I was sitting at a public campground and had a "couple extra", and a drunk driver comes barreling through the park and kills me, what did my blood alcohol have to do with it? Unless she wandered into the road or did something blatant, what does her condition have to do with it. Would this guy have done time if it was a Nun who was broke down in her 93 Buick LeSabre and was praying for help? It reminds me of stories where women get raped because they dress like they are "looking for something" and are treated like they should have expected it. I understand that putting this guy in jail will only make society safer when this guy drives drunk, I'm guessing he just drew the drunk driving short straw, that will catch up to a drunk driver now and then. It also sends the wrong message to other drunk drivers, " Hey, kill someone and get a virtual free pass. " I think at the least they should make this guy carry signs for a year like those people dressed up as Uncle Sam for those tax preparation services. Instead have him walk around the busiest intersections in Green Bay with his name, her name and what he did. Until people are afraid to drive drunk, they will continue to do this, if you don't care about this issue, wait until someone you know is wiped out for no reason.

Regardless, he caused a fatality because he chose to drive after being drunk. Yes, she was drunk. That does not justify demeaning that woman's life and not giving appropriate jail time to the person who caused that death. She did not deserve to die. IMO-he should be in prison.

Hardly a gross miscarriage of justice. We simply don't have the facts in this case. With the family being so forgiving it sounds like this woman had something to do with the accident. Did she stumble into the road? She was driving drunk as well--I don't think it's right to condemn this guy without all the facts.....

A gross miscarriage of justice!

Beer at the hockey rink? Why sure I'll have about a dozen or so. Thanks.

what a bunch of hand wringers you people are. what ever happened to the good old west types? does the gov. have to hold all our colective hands? let him alone or confrount him your selfs; we do not nees more big brother in our lives!

he KILLED a person. one year shows no responsibility on the part of the system. sure he is sorry, real sorry. but he ain't the victim here. now lets talk about beer at the hockey rink.

There was no jury trial. This was a no contest plea.
.
janesvillemom, whether you agree with the length of sentence or not, he is being held responsible. This was vehicular homicide, which has never been recognized as a crime commensurate with intentional first-degree homicide ("murder"). It is instead a form of manslaughter.

More info:
Wassmann failed field sobriety tests and a forensic blood draw showed his blood alcohol content was .176 percent approximately two hours after the crash.

Wassmann later told police he had been drinking at Red Robin in Oshkosh, a friend's house and the ICU tavern in Neenah.
*
He should NOT have been driving!!! He made the choice to do something that endangers the lives of himself and others and he should be held responsible.

What kind of message does this send to other people who drink and drive. Drunk driving problem in WI - no its about responsibility or the lack of

I googled her name and found an article on an Appleton newspaper site. She had gotten out of the car. Was there a jury trial? Still too many unanswered questions. It takes a good man like her Father not to condemn the man who took his daughter's life.

No worries... :D

It took me awhile before I understood the difference between civil and criminal hearings. Hopefully someone else will gain insight into the legal process.

phlurky - congrats on finding the WCCA site. Now, learn how to interpret the information therein.

The traffic violation charges (2007TR...) that you point out are from the accident which took Ms. Siever's life. There were likely filed very shortly after the accident based on police work at the scene and providing the district attorney with the facts thus collected. Had you bothered to click the links, both charges were dismissed; the site explicitly states "These charges were not proven and have no legal effect. Douglas W Wassmann is presumed innocent."

The almost certain reason for not prosecuting these charges was because the more serious charge (2008CF...) was brought to trial, that being the felony case of homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle for which Mr. Wassmann pled no contest. This is a typical practice for prosecution: roll up or drop the lesser charges while concentrating on the serious one(s). This is the case brought by The People of Wisconsin, you and I, against Mr. Wassmann. It is from this case that he received the sentence of ten years extended supervision and one year in prison.

The most recent case (2008CV...) was the civil case brought by Ms. Sievers' family against Mr. Wassmann. It is from this case that the $18,000 judgement was rendered. Since the defendant pled no contest, it is likely the two cases were heard concurrently which is why both the criminal and civil judgements against the defendant were reported in the same article.

In other words, this was his first and only trip through the legal system for OWI. Note I did not say nor can any of us speculate if he has driven under the influence other times and not been caught.

Does anyone know if she was in or out of the car? It just says she was stopped along side of the highway. Did she get out to throw up and was bending over into traffic? Was there a car in the left lane so he couldn't move over to that lane? As someone who has sat on a jury for a trial where there was a death due to a driving "accident" you have to proove WITHOUT A RESASONAL DOUBT that the "accident" was due to the driver being drunk. I am VERY against drinking and driving and as much as I would like to slam this guy for killing this woman I would need more information before passing any judgements on him.

Yes, I would say that the victim's family has taken a downright Christian stance (whether or not they are). I commend their compassion in such a difficult and unfortunate circumstance.

The difference between homicide and murder is significant: it is INTENT. There was no pre-meditation on the part of the defendant to kill someone. Even if one posits that DUI often yields this outcome, certainly the defendant would not have intended this outcome. (Likely the only intent of the victim and the defendant was to arrive home safely.)

To make the point of INTENT clear, I shall use a not-so emotionally charged example: stealing a loaf of bread because one's family is starving versus stealing a loaf of bread because one is bored. Technically, both acts have the same outcome: the shopkeeper has lost a loaf of bread; the person who stole the bread is a thief. If caught and convicted, should the same sentence apply to both thieves? I should rather hope that all of us agree that the circumstance and intent do in fact matter.

Precisely because of the uncountable sets of circumstance, motive / intent, and opportunity, our legal system often differentiates crimes and their subsequent punishment. This is also why judges generally have considerable discretion when rendering judgement.

This is an out right shame.

Under Wisconsin law, vehicular homicide is a homicide by negligent or intoxicated use of a vehicle.
*
Sounds like murder to me. Homicide, murder, what's the difference?*
*
I have zero tolerance for drunk driving no matter what the "mitigating circumstances". The woman was pulled over to the side of the road...she could have been there adjusting a child's car seat or talking on her cell phone. She was also guilty of drunk driving, but wasn't driving when she was hit, so her intoxication is irrelevant to the case. (In my opinion, and no, I don't know all the facts, so my opinion could be different if I knew more than the articles I read).
*
The family of the victim is very forgiving... I have a lot of respect for them.

A quote from the article: "he must pay the victim's family $18,000."
.
$18,000
.
I'm too disgusted to further comment about this "price" we put on a human life.
.
I will just say a prayer for all involved.

janesvillemom: what part don't you understand? sievres was also legally drunk, how can you call it murder. maybe she fell asleep while parked, or she passed out this is not a MURDER

Disclaimer: I know none of those involved. The woman who was unfortunately killed had also been drinking and driving. Accidents happen; as we all know, driving under the influence exponentially increases the odds of an accident.

"Sievers's family felt no ill will after the judge's decision.

"The victim's father, Randy VanHeuklon, said, "Diana probably shouldn't have stopped there in the first place, and had he not been drinking it would have been considered just another accident, and we believe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and we didn't want to condemn him for that."

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=9...

The article states the victim was also legally intoxicated, that almost certainly had something to do with the sentence. There are a lot of different possible scenarios in this situation. The judge is there to make a judgement with all the available facts...most of which we do not have.

Really? You have all the facts of the case at your disposal? It would appear there was either some exculpatory evidence or mitigating circumstances to receive this sentence. He pled no contest which is often in practice the same as entering a guilty plea.

A quick Google search yields other articles that state each year of probation, the defendant is required to perform 200 hours of community service as well and he must pay the victim's family $18,000.

I would agree that none of this is adequate consolation for the loss of a loved one.

Another one gets away with murder.