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.
Thats not 100% true. Did the drunk guy mean to run over an innocent person? No. Does that make him any less liable, no. It was still an accident, and it could have been prevented, but its still Murder.
Parents have been charged with murder for leaving firearms loaded, and unsecured in the house.
There are lots of examples where murder was the charge, but no one meant for it to happen.
That only points out the irrational direction we have been going & waters down the seriousness of real crime.
A drunk is liable, no doubt about it, but he's not a murderer & neither are parents of a kid who shoots himself.
Kinda like the way we call people guilty of non violent crimes felons & lump them in with rapists & killers, its simply stupid.
Murder is the intentional willful killing of another person. People have been convicted of murder for defending themselves, a conviction or charge does not mean that justice is being served.
This excerpt does mention drunken driving but again IMO is shouldn't. That should be perhaps negligent homicide, it is worthy of noting that they cite California, not a very rational place by any means.
Calling things like that murder causes an uncertainty in the harshness of sentence for the crime of murder. Murder is, to most people, a clear intentional killing of an innocent. As such it deserves the harshest of penalties.
William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder as
“ when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.[4] ” The first few elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).
Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of second-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
DUI that causes death may, in special cases, be charged as murder. In the most extreme cases, it may even be charged as murder in the first degree. First-degree murder requires a showing of malice, usually found when the defendant acts in utter recklessness. It is stated that malice for the purpose of DUI murder are acts by the defendant that represents conscious disregard for human life, that the defendant knew his conduct was dangerous to others and had blatant disregard for any damage he/she caused. The defendant’s treatment history for alcoholism can be brought before the court as evidence that the defendant knew his/her conduct was dangerous and sought treatment before driving drunk again, when the death occurred. In most DUI murder convictions, malice is inferred from the defendant’s handling a weapon that may cause death. In the case of a drunk driver, it is said that the mere driving of a car on the road demonstrates the defendant handled a dangerous weapon. This is one of the main reasons I never drink and drive anymore.
"Under California law, Murder Crime can be classified as first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter. A killing which may not be intentional can still be treated as a first-degree murder if it is considered as a violent crime, such as: rape, carjacking, robbery, kidnapping, burglary."
This link mentions a DUI case in which the defendant plead guilty to 2nd degree murder."
I agree with the 2nd degree. But, not 1st.
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.
