MADD and Ignition Interlocks

[ParanoiA]

not murder but manslaughter. Murder implies that it the killing was calculated. with manslaugter, you are still responsible for killing someone, but it's not like it was your idea all along. It justs slightly more reasonable to charge a drunk driver with manslaughter. And if they don't actually kill anyone, attempted manslaughter.

 

You're confusing 1st degree murder with 2nd degree murder - or maybe I am. Whatever, only one of them is premeditated, the other is the one we'd like to use against drunk drivers. Of course, premeditated is plausible, since you knew you were going to drive home and knew you were getting drunk ahead of time.

 

Manslaughter implies you didn't mean to, or wasn't your idea. If you're driving drunk, how could you not mean to?

 

the bit that REALLY Pi$$es me of if that this:

 

go to a junk yard' date=' and take the bumper off a car, walk in the street and beat someone to death with it (drunk or not) and you`ll get Life!

 

now take the precaution of attatching this bumper to a car and doing the same, and you`ll get off with a couple of years at best![/quote']

 

Excellent point. Never thought about it that way.

[ecoli]

You're confusing 1st degree murder with 2nd degree murder - or maybe I am. Whatever, only one of them is premeditated, the other is the one we'd like to use against drunk drivers. Of course, premeditated is plausible, since you knew you were going to drive home and knew you were getting drunk ahead of time.

oh yeah... I think you're right.

 

Manslaughter implies you didn't mean to, or wasn't your idea. If you're driving drunk, how could you not mean to?

Well, nobody gets behind the well and says, I mean to kill someone when driving home tonight. Nobody who is driving drunk is thinking about the possible consequences of their actions... which, of course, is part of the problem.

 

Normally, if you kill someone there is no malicious intent, just an inability to act in your right mind. That's not to say I condone what they did, just that I don't think it's full blown murder. Though, I might be of that opinion because I haven't had any family or friends killed by drunk drivers.

 

edit: Not everybody gets killed by drunk drivers... the tragedy is sometimes when people survive: (scroll through the entire page)

http://www.fnnc.org/drunk-driving.html

[ParanoiA]

Well, nobody gets behind the well and says, I mean to kill someone when driving home tonight. Nobody who is driving drunk is thinking about the possible consequences of their actions... which, of course, is part of the problem.

 

 

Exactly, which is why I agree with Mokele in straightening out their perspective by procescuting them for murder - not manslaughter. That's the point YT was hitting on as well with the bumper comparison.

 

Everyone thinks they don't mean to. The drunks claim they don't get behind the wheel and look to kill someone. But we claim that they do - that by being drunk and driving a potential weapon, that they are purposefully looking to kill someone.

 

Maybe when a few drunk drivers spend some serious time in prison, and some get the death penalty even, then perhaps others will take notice and make better decisions when drinking.

 

I did have a friend that was killed by a drunk driver at an intersection waiting to turn left. She was killed by a drunk driving head on - she wasn't even in motion. She died, he lived. She was 17. Her brother was a drunk and had his own drunk driving incident years earlier that left him comatosed for a few months before waking back up with irreversable brain damage. Imagine her parents' misery to this day dealing with both of their children being victims of the same thing - each on different sides of it.

 

Maybe I'm a little biased, but maybe it's ok.

[Dak]

^^^ i think your missing the point. a crime (almost allways) requires two aspects -- actus rheus (guilty act) and mensa rhea (guilty mind)

 

for murder, the mensa rhea is intention to kill -- either direct (where you try to kill someone) or oblique, where you dont care wether they live or die (like section 18 GBH -- kicking the shit out of someone to the point where they could dye, if it can be established that you dont particularly care if they live or die, is (attempted) murder).

 

for manslaughter, the mensa rhea is irrisponsability.

 

hence, DD cannot be considered murder, unless you could establish in court that they at least didn't care whether someone died or not (when, really, i think most people would be able to establish that they were just to stupid to consider that it might happen)

 

as i see it (tho IANAL), if you were pissed and intentionally aimed your car for someone, without actually trying to kill him, or if you were pissed and joy-riding, then i think you'd get done for attempted murder with oblique intent, otherwize it's manslaughter (which carries a sentance of 'up to life', so it doesn't really matter)

 

the bit that REALLY Pi$$es me of if that this:

 

go to a junk yard, and take the bumper off a car, walk in the street and beat someone to death with it (drunk or not) and you`ll get Life!

 

now take the precaution of attatching this bumper to a car and doing the same, and you`ll get off with a couple of years at best!

 

'causing death by drink/driving' = 10 years (uk)