I'm used now to seeing strong sentences for drunken drivers who kill. The days of short jail terms or even two years sentences are over for the worst drunken driving cases.

Today, Frances Dingle of Macomb County, a 48-year-old woman, was sentenced to 22.5 to 25 years in prison for four counts of second-degree murder. She was drunk when her van slammed into a carload of teenagers in 2009.

But I wonder about the sentence. There's a two-thirds rule that requires the bottom part (minimum term) be no more than 2/3s of the maximum term. For instance, for a 15-year manslaughter charge, the highest possible sentence is 10-to-15 years. The idea is that the prison system needs some kind of incentive to keep prisoners in line.

But in many cases there are specifics that dictate the sentences being altered or adjusted, such as prior felonies making one a habitual offender.

I don't know what happened with this case to make have that odd sentence. I mean, one could argue that a defendant with a 22.5 to 25 year sentence could just be as unruly as possible, knowing that they only have to serve 2.5 years on their bottom term, especially because they may feel like parole is not likely the first time around.

Anyone have any thoughts?