Noted, but you did ask me "What reckless decisions did he make?". The jury found him guilty of two counts of vehicular assault (reckless), and the judge said he made a series of reckless decisions. So there's your answer.
In your stupid hypothetical example, you did say "People die in unavoidable car wrecks all the time should we jail all the survivors involved?" You can see how I might interpret that as you asserting the crash we are discussing was avoidable.
I agree that the sentence is excessive. But I contend 2 years, which is all he would have served if the sentence is commuted is WAY to light for killing 4 people with the charges he was convicted of.
Furthermore, let's talk about WHY legislatures create mandatory minimum laws. They do it because the public gets fed up with soft on crime judges using their discretion to hand down light sentences.
Let's say the driver killed those 4 people and was convicted of the same 27 counts. Now let's say the judge had discretion and sentenced the guy to 2 years. The same people crying about the sentence being too harsh would be howling that 2 years is too soft. Remember, your initial question left us with the choice, should he get 110 years or 2 years. If those were my only choices, sorry it's 110 years from me.