I want to add that there's no other solution for this problem than cars which will only turn on with a breathalizer test. Following which, if you get out of your seat, you have to do it again. This is the realistic and logical and rational level of safety which needs to be attained in order to be able to not have a guilty consience about these things. The current situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable. If it is what the law says, the law must be changed immediately. Choosing to get intoxicated means choosing negligence. That is so unbelievably ridiculous.
Agreed, but his intent was not to kill, but rather to become intoxicated and go home. The death that occurred along the way, while tragic was not intentional. Having said that, the penalties for manslaughter and/or drunk driving in this country are a joke. Here's the new system as I see it: First DUI, no fatality/major injury: license suspended for 5 years with no appeal. First DUI with fatality/major injury: license suspended permanently with no appeal and five years imprisonment. Second DUI, no fatality/major injury: license suspended permanently with no appeal and five years imprisonment. Second DUI with fatality/major injury: Life sentence. Third DUI, no fatality/major injury: Life sentence. Third DUI with fatality/major injury: Death sentence.* Fourth DUI, any circumstances (assumed paroled after third offense without fatality/major injury): Death penalty.* * Yes, you deserve to die: you obviously do not care that your actions are threatening the lives of innocent citizens, therefore you are a danger to society that cannot be tolerated.
Drunk driving is so tough because the definition of drunk is so arbitrary. Alcohol doesn't affect everyone equally. Some people are impaired significantly after only 2 drinks, and some after much more. But their blood alcohol doesn't reflect impairment. How do you show someone was recklessly drunk? Or how impairred they really were? I think a person who drives drunk and kills someone is a criminal. But I think someone who drives recklessly or aggressively and hits someone is too right? If you run a stop sign, is that eually as bad? What if you hit someone speeding? Or going through an intersection fast even if you have the right away - trying to beat a light? It's not easy. But I think I wouldn't go as far to say any of these is murder. The penalty needs to be stiff enough to prevent people from doing it. But it can't be worse then other manslaughter charges.
I think there needs to be two levels of alcohol level when it comes to DUI. Kind of like how there's speeding, and then another level of speeding(varies by state) where you can be charged with reckless driving as a felony. Getting caught driving after a few beers is not the same as driving while totally wasted. The former isn't any more dangerous than driving sleepy or driving while pissed off. The latter should get your ass in jail. I agree with this.
His intent was to put himself in a state in which he could kill people unintentionally. While that is not a direct intent to kill, it is definitely an intent to be open to killing by mistake. True that the law doesn't see that as murder. But I think it should. I like your suggestions although I'm not sure about the death sentence. For a fourth time offender, a lifetime of prison without alcohol is better punishment than the death penalty. One thing is for sure. Drinking and driving even without fatality should barr you from driving for life with appeals almost never allowed. Something like 0.1% of cases. I do understand that being drunk is arbitrary. This is exactly why the line should be drawn at drinking/not drinking. Rather than drunk/not drunk. The inconvenience it causes for everyone else is worth the number of tragedies that would be avoided. If you can afford to get trashed on a night out, can afford a car, can afford gas and only rarely drive when having a drink, then clearly you can afford a freaking cab or bus on that rare occasion.
The guy who killed Malik Sealy has been arrested for drunk driving multiple times since his release from prison. It's only been because of good luck that he hasn't killed again.
I don't know what the statistics are but I know several people who have gotten DUI's without reoffending again.
This argument is exactly the line that the prosecutor used. The problem with this though is that you could argue a lot of things would amount to that. Me going target shooting could be argued that I was in a state where I could kill someone unintentionally since I am using a lethal weapon where there is some possibility of a lethal accident. In my own opinion this is muddying what is meant by "intent" in a crime. Yes he intended to put himself into an inebriated state and behaved recklessly but I doubt he intended to put himself in a state where he could kill people. In the law terminology is critical and at that point and once we start muddying what that means you could find all sorts of things under the banner of "murder." For example, and I apologize if this seems political but its the only example I could think of, Dick Cheney could then be charged with attempted murder when he shot his friend hunting since while he had no intention of trying to harm his hunting partner he was in a state where the possibility of something like that happening. He deliberately went hunting and wasn't following basic hunting precautions.
When charging murder, my understanding is that in most jurisdictions prosecutors can either show intent or a "depraved heart" - a disregard for human life that is so shocking that it is an acceptable substitute for intent. So Cheney couldn't be charged with attempted murder (or, at least, wouldn't be convicted) because it was really just an accident. Similarly, most drunk driving deaths wouldn't be murders because the mere act of driving drunk doesn't demonstrate that shocking disregard for human life - but killing someone while driving drunk AND stupidly can be. There was a case in Virginia where a guy got convicted of second-degree murder because he was driving drunk... at between 70 and 100 MPH, in the wrong lane. Sort of different than not being able to brake fast enough because your reflexes are impaired. It's not a bad system, I think. I tend not to want accidental drunk-driving deaths to be charged as murders, but the parameters that are in place seem at least sufficient to keep things from getting to the point where rinsing with Listerine and then hitting somebody who sprints into the middle of the road is considered murder.
I felt the same way after my brother was killed by a drunk driver. Thankfully, I was able to suborn that part of me and didn't end up doing anything that could have ruined my life too.
Agreed. Personally, I think that being drunk should ADD to the sentence if you kill someone behind the wheel. Vehicular manslaughter with 2 years added for the alcohol, something like that. I agree that murder requires the component of intent, which I am sure that the drunk drivers don't have.
Regardless of what you think of the righteousness of charging these cases as murder, you're wrong about the "changing" definition of murder. Even at the common law, murder was defined as a killing with malice aforethought which included "depraved heart" murder where no intent was required and required a reckless indifference.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murder The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. Murder is perhaps the single most serious criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing, a person who is convicted of murder may be sentenced to many years in prison, a prison sentence with no possibility of Parole, or death. The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment. The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies. I think the extreme recklessness part is the one that fits with drunk drivers.
Generally being drunk increases the consequences when it come to vehicular calamities as you put it. I also do not approve of the Mel Gibson defense.
For anyone who would like to see that 60 Minutes story.. <embed src='http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf' FlashVars='linkUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5205158n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel&releaseURL=http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf&videoId=50075135&partner=news&vert=News&autoPlayVid=false&name=cbsPlayer&allowScriptAccess=always&wmode=transparent&embedded=y&scale=noscale&rv=n&salign=tl' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed><br/><a href='http://www.cbs.com'>Watch CBS Videos Online</a>
So fatal accidents caused by a sleepy driver, angry driver, distracted driver eating a hamburger, distracted driver changing the radio stations, etc should all be considered murder cases? They're all "intents to be open to killing by mistake" right?
I kind of want to agree with you. But at first glance this looks like it can go down a slippery slope. I'd personally like to separate manslaughter and murder. That said, I do think manslaughter in America doesn't get nearly enough punishment as it should.
That is interesting but does drunk driving include malice aforethought? I will agree with you and Mathloom if "reckless indiference" is counted as murder. I myself still have a personal problem with that definition, as to me it waters down the definition of murder, but if that is the law then it is.
DA is trying to make a name for himself/herself by getting press, which apparently worked. Pretty much all their is to it.
