Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe some studies (can't cite them, so I'm not claiming it as absolute fact) show that distracted drivers (eating, talking on phones, reading maps, shaving, etc.) kill or injure more people than drunk drivers do. That doesn't exonerate drunk drivers; it just means we'd all be a lot better off paying frickin' ATTENTION and taking driving seriously. Driving a car--whether it's a hoopdy or a really nice one--is not a God-given right. It's a privilege, one that (apparently) not everyone can handle.
Driving while impaired is the problem weather the impairment is created by sleep deprivation, fatigue, drugs, alcohol or illness. Just driving a car under these conditions is irresponsible. Being responsible for an accident under these conditions should lead to criminal prosecution but not a murder charge.
Everybody knows if you drink and drive you could kill someone, because of your decision to do so, it shows that you are willing to take that risk and if you kill someone knowing this then it's murder, or it should be, there is no excuse to drink and drive.
Murder is the intentional killing of another person. There's first degree murder, which is premeditated, and there's second-degree murder, which is generally considered "heat of passion."
Drunk drivers have no intention of killing someone.
If a person has been working all night and decides to drive home tired, falls asleep at the wheel, and kills someone by running into them, is that murder? It's pretty irresponsible if you ask me, but I'd hardly call it murder.
I agree that it can't be considered murder. Calling it murder only serves to water-down the crime of killing someone with malice and INTENT to kill.
Killing someone while driving drunk should be automatic loss of license for life, carry jail time, but it should not be considered murder.
But how much jail time would be enough to repay a family for the loss of their mother, brother, sister, etc. My own mother lost hers when she was only 4 yrs. old. She, her mom and dad were heading to the grocery store when a drunk driver slammed into their car head on. Being that this occurred back in 1966, the laws were very slack on this issue and the perpetrator got of with almost no real reparation. In the meantime, my mother was left to not only fend for herself, but also to help take care of her younger sister because of course her father had to keep working. By the time my mom was 11 yrs. old she was pretty much a full-time mom, cooking and cleaning and taking care of her sister. She not only lost a mother, she lost her childhood as well. Looking at it from this perspective, that man not only killed a woman, he stole a childhood as well. Not to mention a man's wife who to this day can hardly look at a picture of her. Lives were permanently changed by that man's selfish decision to drive that night. And because he willingly got in that car after willingly drinking those drinks he should be willing to face whatever consequences may result from his actions. So I say, get what you can get. If you can make a murder charge stick, then by all means go for it. If not, get the next best thing. Just don't allow another family to go through this kind of grief and hardship while the guilty party gets off with a little time and a 3yr. revocation of his/her license. That just isn't justice.
But how much jail time would be enough to repay a family for the loss of their mother, brother, sister, etc. My own mother lost hers when she was only 4 yrs. old. She, her mom and dad were heading to the grocery store when a drunk driver slammed into their car head on. Being that this occurred back in 1966, the laws were very slack on this issue and the perpetrator got of with almost no real reparation. In the meantime, my mother was left to not only fend for herself, but also to help take care of her younger sister because of course her father had to keep working. By the time my mom was 11 yrs. old she was pretty much a full-time mom, cooking and cleaning and taking care of her sister. She not only lost a mother, she lost her childhood as well. Looking at it from this perspective, that man not only killed a woman, he stole a childhood as well. Not to mention a man's wife who to this day can hardly look at a picture of her. Lives were permanently changed by that man's selfish decision to drive that night. And because he willingly got in that car after willingly drinking those drinks he should be willing to face whatever consequences may result from his actions. So I say, get what you can get. If you can make a murder charge stick, then by all means go for it. If not, get the next best thing. Just don't allow another family to go through this kind of grief and hardship while the guilty party gets off with a little time and a 3yr. revocation of his/her license. That just isn't justice.
I haven't said anywhere that killing someone while driving drunk shouldn't be punished in the same way as murder, but I'd prefer to have a separate law that deals with this type of situation without the use of the term "murder." You could put a person away forever for all I care.
Murder is the intentional killing of another person. There's first degree murder, which is premeditated, and there's second-degree murder, which is generally considered "heat of passion."
Drunk drivers have no intention of killing someone.
If a person has been working all night and decides to drive home tired, falls asleep at the wheel, and kills someone by running into them, is that murder? It's pretty irresponsible if you ask me, but I'd hardly call it murder.
Drunk drivers don't necessarily have to have the intention to be guilty of the crime. See below:
Common law murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought if the defendant acts with any of the following states of mind:
(i) Intent to kill; (ii) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm; (iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (abandoned and malignant heart); or (iv) Intent to commit a felony (felony-murder doctrine).
As you can see number 3 states "Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life." A drunk who gets into a vehicle and drives off is doing exactly that. And they know it too. We are taught from childhood how bad and dangerous drinking and driving is. Indifferent to the possible high risk, he drives off anyway, because he wants too. I wouldn't charge him with first degree, but it clearly could be considered a murder.
If a drunk gets behind the wheel of a car he/she knows they can kill someone, thats enough intent for me, what do most drunk drivers do after they hit someone? they try to get away, they know what they are doing is wrong and they should pay the price if they hurt or kill someone.
My wifes best friend was killed by a drunk driver, her husband is now raising two little girls by himself, they suffer everyday with the loss of her. The drunk had many priors and no license, he had been through plenty of classes on DUI and knew what could happen, plenty of intent when he got behind the wheel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
