Maximum prison term for Philo man's fifth DUI conviction
URBANA — A Philo man convicted in July of driving under the influence for the fifth time was sentenced Wednesday to 33 years in prison.
"It's a miracle you didn't kill somebody. It's a miracle you didn't kill yourself. You are absolutely a danger to the public," Judge Richard Klaus told Shawn Bahrs.
Bahrs, 47, was arrested Feb. 7 for aggravated driving under the influence, aggravated fleeing and eluding a peace officer, and driving with a revoked license after a witness saw him, obviously intoxicated, drive off from the Philo business district, head north on Illinois 130, and lead police on a pursuit through north Urbana that ended when he crashed his van.
Testimony at his jury trial was that numerous people were forced off the highway during the late morning incident, that Bahrs disobeyed about eight traffic control signs during the pursuit, and that he drove his van directly at a sheriff's deputy who had a weapon drawn before it all came to an end.
Bahrs fired his court-appointed public defender at Wednesday morning's sentencing hearing and represented himself. He remained shackled throughout the hearing, which lasted about an hour.
Assistant State's Attorney Andrea Bergstrom asked for the maximum 30 years for Bahrs, who was eligible for Class X sentencing because of his prior convictions. Bahrs reminded the judge that no one was hurt that day except him. He said he had no recall of what happened.
"(The state) is treating me like I was the Manson of DUIs. I was the only one hurt. I was the one who lost a business. I'm the victim," Bahrs said.
Klaus sentenced Bahrs to 30 years on the aggravated DUI plus another three years for the aggravated fleeing and eluding, finding that Bahrs posed a significant danger to the public.
Bahrs received credit for 213 days already served in jail. He is eligible for day-for-day good time in prison.
Yes, his comment about being the victim is laughable, but his broader point may be valid.
He committed a crime with the potential, but not the actuality, of hurting someone. He could have killed the cop with his car. But for their own driving skills, he could have crashed into the cars he forced off the road. Except that one wasn't there, he could have run over a child playing in the road.
But he didn't.
He may be being punished, not for the horrific nature of his crime, but for the horrific nature of what we imagine his crime might have been.
Actual murders can receive less time than this potential killer.
I want to leave some room in the sentencing guidelines in case he actually does kill someone.
Can we agree that more terrible crimes should prompt longer sentences than less terrible crimes? And can we agree that killing someone is a more terrible crime than not killing someone? If so, then surely we agree that killing someone should carry a longer sentence than not killing someone.
If we sentence 33 years for not killing, as we did in this case, then I think we no longer have available to us a useful sentence for actually killing someone, short of life in prison. And I don't think we usually sentence life for DUI homicide.
Imagine that, during his drunken race from Philo to Urbana, he had caused a crash and someone had died. What sentence would have received? I suppose that he would have received the same 33 year sentence, and I find that equivalence unacceptable.
In most cases, killing someone is an act of passion, or is a once-in-a-lifetime event. Notwithstanding the occasional mass-murderer or psychotic criminal, most murders are committed by someone the victim knows.
The DUI driver, however, makes several choices which may lead directly to the death of one or more complete strangers.
The DUI driver chooses to drink. Yes, there are addiction issues and such, but the driver CHOOSES to drink. Then the DUI driver chooses to get into a 1.5 -> 2 ton missile and attempt to navigate it on the road. The DUI driver CHOOSES to put the lives of complete strangers in jeopardy any time s/he commits the offense.
If you want to reserve severe punishment for severe crimes, then the *multiple* DUI driver deserves just such punishment. According to most DUI experts, the DUI driver commits the offense several times for every time s/he is caught. A severe punishment for such sociopathic behavior is appropriate and may serve as a deterrent for the person who might otherwise get into a car after drinking.
Had it been his first offense, he may well not have received 33 years if someone died as you suggest in your last paragraph. And that may have been equitable. How does society deal with an individual who has utter and complete disregard for the law? With five DUIs, he hasn't had a license for years most likely. This case isn't about deterrent or even punishment. This individual is a menace to society and had to be removed from it for a very long time. I'm more concerned that he will still be a young enough man when he gets out in 17 years to do the same thing again.
Following your logic, if he attempted to shoot someone five times and due to his poor aim missed each time, he should be charged and leniently sentenced for attempted murder. Afterall, its not like he killed anyone or anything. Then when he practices his aim a little more and finally does kill somebody we can act as if we had no idea this was going to happen.
So basically your line in the sand separates a DUI that results in a death and a DUI that does not result in a death. What if this had happened in YOUR neighborhood? What if YOU were a member of the Esworthy Family and buried your two beautiful daughters as the result of a drunken driver now caught for only the THIRD time?
I have absolutely no use for anyone ANYONE who mixes alcohol and any type of transportation, firearms, etc. Life isn't fair and sometimes the law and sentencing isn't either. The judge dropped the hammer...works for me.
Want to stay out of jail? Don't break the law....simple as that! You can't fix stupid but you can incarcerate it!
I don't draw any line. What I was suggesting was that it would not surprise me if an individual with no criminal record who is convicted of killing someone while driving intoxicated could get fewer years in prison than this guy. Right, wrong or otherwise, I make no judgment.
I am suggesting the same thing that you are. In this guy's case, stupid must be removed from society. The longer the better for all of us.
It's also a choice, say, to read a map on a rural road and run over a couple of cyclists. Yet the law says it's an accident. I'm not suggesting that a 5-time offender doesn't deserve to be punished, but side by side the laws seem unequal. This guy's not a victim--he should be off the streets. So should the map reader who kills someone.
That's probably because it WAS an accident. I'm guessing you knew the cyclists and therefore you think that the system has failed if the driver doesn't do whatever amount of time you would prefer. That's nice. I wonder if you would be so eager to apply the same standard if you or someone you cared about accidentally ran someone over. The legal system does not exist to cater to your desire for mob rule. Sometimes accidents happen. What happened to those cyclists was a tragedy, but I think it would just as tragic if your spiteful wish came true and someone was sent to prison for an honest accident.
Day-for-day for good behavior sounds like 15 years to me. Let's assume it'll be a bit longer than that. Shawn might need a few months to calm down.
That first beer of 2026 will sure taste sweet. I hope his release is announced so we can all remember to fly our pods with extra care.
In the meantime, sell your Anheuser InBev stock. It's about to drop.
Adams makes a good point. Cops and prosecutors like to magnify the situation with what "could" have happened. Why don't they apply the same standard to their own. The cop who shot the unarmed teenager a couple of years ago could have missed and shot an innocent person making dinner in their kitchen. The female cop who drove drunk could have killed several people by driving the wrong way on the interstate. It is a dangerous thing to start prosecuting people because of what might have happened.
" It is a dangerous thing to start prosecuting people because of what might have happened.
." In many cases, that is exactly what they should be prosecuted for. I shoot at someone and miss so all I should be charged with is maybe unlawful discharge? I made a deliberate effort to try to kill someone. This guy is dangerous. He may not have delibeately tried to kill someone but his persistent pattern of behavior (he was only caught 5 times, there were certainly other instances of DUI) makes him even more dangerous than the person with the gun. He has clearly and persistently demonstrated that he cannot comply with the most basic rules of society. In this situation, there is only one solution: He must be removed from society.
I don't argue with that but I think it is a slippery slope. If your reasoning is sound, then I want to see hundreds of cops, politicians and public officials in prison. When the government make someone a registered sex offender for peeing in an alley, or confiscates a farm because someone grew themselves some pot, the result could be an upset public and a revolution that costs thousands of lives. They should all be in prison next to this guy.
This sentence will be overturned upon appeal....no judge in his right mind would have handed out that many years, and any judge in his right mind will adjust this to a proper sentence. How about focusing on treatment, and taking away his license for good? Oh, that's right.....there is just too much money involved in the prison complex...he's worth more a number than a citizen.....
he was already driving on a revoked license so do you think he's not going to drive if it's taken away for good and it's seems to me with the amount of chances he's had he has had ample time to get treatment and hasn't. the fact that he see's himself as the victim probably says more about him being selfish than thinking about what he could do to someone else.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.