Driving Drunk: Murder or Manslaughter?

[jmorse]

Hi I wonder how of you have had their lives turnes upside down by someone who has drunk, drove and caused death. I am so sick of these people getting a slap on the wrist. My brother was killed (oops, I mean murdered) in 1974 and my wonderful husband was murdered on May 7 of this year. Where do drunk drivers get off knowing they can cause such harm. This girl has put me in a prison and throwed away the key. She has not gone to trial yet. I think they should automatically be given 2nd degree murder, the reason I say that is because everytime they take a drink they are the same as putting a bullet in a gun, then bang and it is all over. I want to hear from others on this.

[ThePessimist]

Drunk driving is a crime that can be committed by non-criminals. Many of these individuals are good people who make single errors in judgement. Unfortunately, these errors can bring tragic consequences. I understand your anger and frustration. Losing two family members to one cause must be difficult to bear. However, the individual responsible is probably living within her own prison now, knowing she inadvertently took one's life. If she is a first-time offender, please do not mistake a poor choice for murder. I am not apologizing for her, because drunk driving is still a detrimental problem to society. But, Draconian charges and punishments are not always necessary for justice to be served. She may be just as distraught as you.

[gaygangsta]

As Tracian I'm also sorry for your losses that you've had :rose:

IMO people who drink drive are pathetic and have no regard for life whatsoever.. Where I'm from (Channel Islands) if you're caught drink driving you can get I think up to 3 years off the roads for the first offence, if you do it again it's 5 years, then again it's 10, but my point is for serial offenders of drink driving why don't the people in the courts, driving license issuers and insurers give these people A LIFE BAN.. It would save people going through unnecessary heartache..

[Pixie]

Manslaughter

[Ren]

First of all... I'm really sorry for all you've gone through.

I agree the punishment should be harsher then it is, but they did not go out with the intent to kill.

Drinking is an impairment, and because of it they lose the ability to judge that "hey, I'm not able to drive safely right now". I think that most people simply believe that they are not as drunk as they really are. I do believe they should investigate further into drunk driving incidents, though.

We have a lot of problems with drunk drivers around here, mostly resulting in minor car accidents. We have an interesting program for citizens worried about that sort of thing, they can keep watch in danger areas, and call in directly to a policeman on duty about a driver they think may be driving impaired, or driving dangerously.

[froggy]

:rose: I'm so sorry to hear of your loss.

Drink driving in my opinion would have to be considered Manslaughter, no one goes out with the intent of harming themselves or others with a Motor Vehicle.

Murder, committed with the use of a vehicle is an entirely different thing. It is done with full knowledge and intent to kill.

A drink drivers' decision making processes decline with every drink. .05 or .08. legally put you over the limit to be driving.

When someone is drunk they really aren't thinking about consequences. In reality they a probably not thinking at all. If someone gets into a car with a drink driver, knowing full well they are drunk then they have chosen to take the risk for what may eventuate.

WARNING: Never get into a car with a person you know to be affected by alcohol or other mind altering substances.

SOLUTION: If you know someone is going to drink and drive, take their keys, even without them knowing if needs be. Hide the keys. Disable the car in some way. Call them a Cab. They shouldn't drive.

[mnoffki]

I am very sorry for your loss.

However, manslaughter is my opinion. Consider this: a drunk driver is putting themselves in just as much danger as others on the road, perhaps even more simply due to the fact that they are the ones behind the wheel, and no matter what happens, they are at most risk.

They do not make this stupid decision because they mean to harm anyone. They simply want to get from point A to point B, and they are not thinking straight. Most single car accidents you hear about in the middle of the night where the lone driver hits a tree, wall, or pole involves alcohol. That would not be ruled a suicide, and therefore, if they hurt or kill someone else in the process, it cannot be considered homicide.

That said, I am in favor of strict penalties for drunk drivers. Banning a person from driving for the rest of their lives is a good start for the repeat offender or the first time offender that is involved in an accident with jail time if someone is injured or killed.

The area of the country I am from does not have a good public transportation system, which I feel is another reason that the statistics are what they are, because many areas simply don't have those types of resources. Of course, the responsibility lies with the person drinking, but I have seen in places like London and Boston, that when people go out drinking, they make use of trains and cabs to get to the bar in the first place.

[aproudmom]

Originally posted by jmorse
Hi I wonder how of you have had their lives turnes upside down by someone who has drunk, drove and caused death. I am so sick of these people getting a slap on the wrist. My brother was killed (oops, I mean murdered) in 1974 and my wonderful husband was murdered on May 7 of this year. Where do drunk drivers get off knowing they can cause such harm. This girl has put me in a prison and throwed away the key. She has not gone to trial yet. I think they should automatically be given 2nd degree murder, the reason I say that is because everytime they take a drink they are the same as putting a bullet in a gun, then bang and it is all over. I want to hear from others on this.


Hi jmorse
I am so sorry for your loss I to have lost 3 people due to a drunk driver.

one was a year ago this past August when a drunk driver got into a fight with his wife and decided to drive his jeep 80 mph. in a 30 mile per hour zone and hit and ran over my dear friend and he left her there to die. He got 5 years 500 years would not be enough IMO..

We also just lost 2 16 year old girls on August 14th of this year due to a drunk driver who I want to point out had been convicted of DUI 4 times and his 5th was the night he forgot to turn his headlights on after peeing and plowed in to the path of Heidi and Sadie. He is facing 56 years and I pray to god he gets all 56.

I am sick and tired of drunks killing people and not being punished. And to the ones that say they made a mistake
do you want to look at a little girl laying in casket due to a 46 year old convicted drunk driver. one of the girls were almost cut in half...what if that was your daughter would you say they made a mistake....NO you wouldn't you would want them put away for the rest of there life.

When you have your life changed due to a drunk driver then tell me they just made a mistake. Or better yet pray to God it never happens to you or your family because the way it is going it will effect everyone at some point in there life.

I am fighting for tougher laws in Indiana because this man should have never been driving that night and I don't want some drunk idiot to take the life of another person I know.



IMO if you drink and get behind the wheel and you kill someone it is murder....and a stupid mistake that you should have never made..







:rose: RIP HEIDI SADIE AND ROBIN

[LisaM22]

Manslaughter

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by gaygangsta
As Tracian I'm also sorry for your losses that you've had :rose:

IMO people who drink drive are pathetic and have no regard for life whatsoever.. Where I'm from (Channel Islands) if you're caught drink driving you can get I think up to 3 years off the roads for the first offence, if you do it again it's 5 years, then again it's 10, but my point is for serial offenders of drink driving why don't the people in the courts, driving license issuers and insurers give these people A LIFE BAN.. It would save people going through unnecessary heartache..

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html

[elroh6]

Hello, jmorse. This subject has never touched me personally. :rose: For your brother and husband. I can't even imagine your pain.... I understand how you can call it murder, though.

[elroh6]

I didn't want to put this in my original response to jmorse's post. But, I was in court covering a story a while back, and there was a young man on trial for vehicular homicide/manslaughter. The wreck happened at a very troublesome intersection. Many a petition had been drawn up to get the intersection fixed. The boy who caused the wreck had had a drink, but was well under the limit for being DUI. The cause of the wreck was the faulty intersection. I couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy who is now in prison for a long time.

[aproudmom]

Originally posted by LisaM22


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html


And??????what are you saying that bush has a driving record..if so he should be held accountable for his actions..but I think the question was about if you kill someone while drinking and driving.

why is everyone in such a hurry to bring up the President everytime a subject comes up:shrug:

[aproudmom]

BY THE WAY YES I AM A REPUBLICAN:patriot:

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by aproudmom



And??????what are you saying that bush has a driving record..if so he should be held accountable for his actions..but I think the question was about if you kill someone while drinking and driving.

why is everyone in such a hurry to bring up the President everytime a subject comes up:shrug:

it was a repy to anouther poster who said

"IMO people who drink drive are pathetic and have no regard for life whatsoever.."

[mnoffki]

Originally posted by elroh6
I didn't want to put this in my original response to jmorse's post. But, I was in court covering a story a while back, and there was a young man on trial for vehicular homicide/manslaughter. The wreck happened at a very troublesome intersection. Many a petition had been drawn up to get the intersection fixed. The boy who caused the wreck had had a drink, but was well under the limit for being DUI. The cause of the wreck was the faulty intersection. I couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy who is now in prison for a long time.

And that's another reason that penalties should be strict, but they should not turn everything into a witch hunt either, so that things like this don't happen.

[victims feel]

Originally posted by jmorse
Hi I wonder how of you have had their lives turnes upside down by someone who has drunk, drove and caused death. I am so sick of these people getting a slap on the wrist. My brother was killed (oops, I mean murdered) in 1974 and my wonderful husband was murdered on May 7 of this year. Where do drunk drivers get off knowing they can cause such harm. This girl has put me in a prison and throwed away the key. She has not gone to trial yet. I think they should automatically be given 2nd degree murder, the reason I say that is because everytime they take a drink they are the same as putting a bullet in a gun, then bang and it is all over. I want to hear from others on this.

J, having that happen once is bad enough but twice....so tragic...

where I live so many have been hit in sidewalks/crosswalks etc..some drinking some joy riding ....when the liberals moved drinking to a disease it seems that automatically empathy went in place. I am wondering if that is where the slap on th wrists came from..I donot agree with it at all as I do believe one chooses to get drunk. If you choose to get drunk and get behind the wheel then you choose to engage in vehicular manslaughter....it is equivalent to a drive-by shooting...the victims are innocent and random....


so my vote: vehicular manslaughter

[aproudmom]

Originally posted by victims feel


J, having that happen once is bad enough but twice....so tragic...

where I live so many have been hit in sidewalks/crosswalks etc..some drinking some joy riding ....when the liberals moved drinking to a disease it seems that automatically empathy went in place. I am wondering if that is where the slap on th wrists came from..I donot agree with it at all as I do believe one chooses to get drunk. If you choose to get drunk and get behind the wheel then you choose to engage in vehicular manslaughter....it is equivalent to a drive-by shooting...the victims are innocent and random....


so my vote: vehicular manslaughter


victims feel

that is what the killer of Heidi and Sadie is being charged with 2 counts of vehicular manslaughter, 5 time repeat offender, and DUI resulting in bodilyharm/death

I agree vehicular manslaughter no matter what.

the man that killed robin got 5 years for leaving the scene of a crime resulting in a death
:shrug: not enough IMO

[victims feel]

Originally posted by aproudmom



victims feel

that is what the killer of Heidi and Sadie is being charged with 2 counts of vehicular manslaughter, 5 time repeat offender, and DUI resulting in bodilyharm/death

I agree vehicular manslaughter no matter what.

the man that killed robin got 5 years for leaving the scene of a crime resulting in a death
:shrug: not enough IMO Sorry APM I should have been clearer..I meant for a one time first time offenders....in the case of repeat offenders...we do not let folks walk down the street with a machine gun so why do we let these negligent uncaring, obviously unrehabilitative folks behind the wheel?

I think repeat offenders should also lose their keys for life....and if they have done this twice then they should get a heck of lot more time than 5 years.....for ever offense another five maybe??

vehicular manslaughter for each
1 time- 5 years keys return on conditions.....
2 times-10 years no return on keys
and buy a skate board :flamemad:

3 times-15.....

[Barney]

In NYC today, drunk driver convicted of murder, driveing drunk the wrong way on a highway. He killed a little girl and the limo driver, the driver is 25 years old, said to have had 14-20 drinks, the accident was caught on camera in the limo. the prosecuter went for a murder conviction, he can get 25yrs. You may see more convictions like this. No one forces you to drink.

[sundaygirl]

Hello All,
this is my first post on the forum, and i am not an expert on any subject discussed here.
In my humble opinion, drunk drivers who cause death, should be treated as criminals. Many people are killed each and every day on the roads, through this unnecessary way.
However, every day I read and see on television and the newspapers that people are hurt, property damaged etc. it doesnt matter what laws are in place what penaltys people who drink and drive may face, they just do it.
Alcohol inpairs judgment, even if we introduced zero tolerance ie no alcohol at all. that wouldnt work.
People who are alcohol dependent will drink and drive full stop, if you are lucky after four or five convictions and fear of prison they may give up their cars.
some will stop after one accident, or arrest. you just cant tell.
But one thing i have noticed is that even banning them doesnt work, I see cases in my local paper of people who have been banned several times and still continuing to drive.
prehaps cheaper buses and taxis would help i really dont know, I personally dont drive(one of the few) and also i dont drink! an even smaller minority.
Until people realize that to drive is a privilege and not to take it for granted and that in the wrong or impaired hands that a car is a very dangerous thing, prehaps then things will improve.
A final thing, I am very sorry to hear of the first posters heartache, my heart goes out to her or him.

sunday

[sundaygirl]

HI freshwater,
I like the questions that you set up make me think. I am starting a degree in criminology so this place is great for me lol.

Is someone who runs aways from a crime, stunned afraid, trying to evade capture. I dont know.

Possibly they were in a stolen car, on drugs, have previous crimes outstanding. could be any one of those things.

what should be done about them when they are caught? Throw the book at them charge them with murder? but what does it achieve. the people they killed are still dead.

Sometimes accidents occur that are just that, but this is murder.
It should be treated as such anyway. Hopefully if found guilty of such a charge, might make others think twice.

well thats my two pennies worth of not very knowledgably ideas .

sunday

[ButterflyDragon]

Originally posted by jmorse
Hi I wonder how of you have had their lives turnes upside down by someone who has drunk, drove and caused death. I am so sick of these people getting a slap on the wrist. My brother was killed (oops, I mean murdered) in 1974 and my wonderful husband was murdered on May 7 of this year. Where do drunk drivers get off knowing they can cause such harm. This girl has put me in a prison and throwed away the key. She has not gone to trial yet. I think they should automatically be given 2nd degree murder, the reason I say that is because everytime they take a drink they are the same as putting a bullet in a gun, then bang and it is all over. I want to hear from others on this.

Depends upon the circumstances. There are some drunk drivers with no intention of harming anyone at all. There are also some drunk drivers that don't care whether they create havoc or not.

Think about the different types of crimes we've seen perpetrated because someone was impaired while on illegal drugs. They are called murderers and the drugs are not typically used as a good excuse. But since drinking is a social thing and not illegal, it's viewed a little differently. Even though the impairment by a mood altering drug is the same.

[oldshirley]

Originally posted by jmorse
Hi I wonder how of you have had their lives turnes upside down by someone who has drunk, drove and caused death. I am so sick of these people getting a slap on the wrist. My brother was killed (oops, I mean murdered) in 1974 and my wonderful husband was murdered on May 7 of this year. Where do drunk drivers get off knowing they can cause such harm. This girl has put me in a prison and throwed away the key. She has not gone to trial yet. I think they should automatically be given 2nd degree murder, the reason I say that is because everytime they take a drink they are the same as putting a bullet in a gun, then bang and it is all over. I want to hear from others on this.

We knew a very sweet young lady who was coming home for the Christmas Holidays in 2003 when she was killed by a drunk driver. The woman who killed Julie was driving with a suspended license from 5 PRIOR DWI's; she was pregnant (yes drunk & pregnant); and she was driving on the wrong side of the road with no lights on. She hit the car head-on that Julie was riding in and killed Julie and caused serious injury to the driver of the vehicle Julie was riding in. The drunk driver also had a miscarriage and she had small children who were at home while she was out boozing it up. She spent 1 YEAR in jail and got a 10 year probated sentence. Mark my words, she will kill again because she's an alcoholic (jmo of course).

Now, I personally served on a jury where a man (a teacher) was charged with DWI and the case ended up being dismissed for lack of evidence because each of the jurors, myself included, had to go with what the law prescribes and that is we had to be able to find him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Was the guy guilty? Probably, but the only evidence was a video. The police officer who was the only witness never showed up for the hearing. The man refused a breathalizer and the crime occurred 2 years before the trial. Did I feel guilty saying I couldn't convict him on what little evidence there was knowing my friend Julie was killed by a drunk driver? yes, a little, but I also know that if I were in a situation where I was in trial, I would want a fair and impartial jury as I am privileged to have here in this United States.
As someone posted above, sometimes people who get behind the wheel drunk are good people who made an error in judgment that cost someone else their life. I'm not sure what to do about a person like that, but a person who is a habitual drunk, I'd say lock em up.

BTW, I'm so sorry for your losses. :rose:

[Athena]

I haven't read all of the posts so if this has been said already I apologize for the duplication.

IMO drunk driving is murder. As much as drinking while under the influence of any substance has been publicized in recent years there is absolutely no excuse for it. If you drink, don't drive the car - call a taxi, a friend or family member.

To get behind the wheel while drinking is no different than comitting a crime with a dangerous weapon. In this case the car becomes a weapon. Too many senseless, preventable deaths have occurred to take this lightly.

Both of my children are young drivers and each time they walk out of the door I remind them of this. I have no knowledge of either of them doing drugs or alcohol -- but it is ingrained in them that they are never to drive or get into a vehicle when drinking has occurred -- even one beer!!!

jmho

[oldshirley]

Originally posted by Athena
I haven't read all of the posts so if this has been said already I apologize for the duplication.

IMO drunk driving is murder. As much as drinking while under the influence of any substance has been publicized in recent years there is absolutely no excuse for it. If you drink, don't drive the car - call a taxi, a friend or family member.

To get behind the wheel while drinking is no different than comitting a crime with a dangerous weapon. In this case the car becomes a weapon. Too many senseless, preventable deaths have occurred to take this lightly.

Both of my children are young drivers and each time they walk out of the door I remind them of this. I have no knowledge of either of them doing drugs or alcohol -- but it is ingrained in them that they are never to drive or get into a vehicle when drinking has occurred -- even one beer!!!

jmho

Athena, while I agree with your points, there is the issue of proving someone is actually drunk or actually has been drinking. There are a number of medical conditions that can make a person appear drunk when, in fact, they are not. For instance, when I worked for a criminal defense attorney, we had a client who was accused of DUI. He had not had one drink and luckily for him, he was taken to the hospital because of injuries so they drew his blood--no alcohol whatsoever in his blood. He went into diabetic shock and caused a very serious accident which injured some other people besides himself. However, he appeared drunk at the scene because he was slurring his words and not making any sense.
But I definitely agree, that if someone gets behind the wheel drunk and they take another person's life, they should pay with more than 1 year's time in jail and a slap on the wrist. IMO, they should spend a minimum of 5 years in jail and during that time, they should spend a certain amount of time each day in counseling for alcoholism as well as be forced to attend scenes of drunk driving accidents to see what kind of damage is caused by such negligence. Also, I believe they should have to give speeches to teens about drinking and driving and the consequences.
jmo

[Athena]

Originally posted by oldshirley


Athena, while I agree with your points, there is the issue of proving someone is actually drunk or actually has been drinking. There are a number of medical conditions that can make a person appear drunk when, in fact, they are not. For instance, when I worked for a criminal defense attorney, we had a client who was accused of DUI. He had not had one drink and luckily for him, he was taken to the hospital because of injuries so they drew his blood--no alcohol whatsoever in his blood. He went into diabetic shock and caused a very serious accident which injured some other people besides himself. However, he appeared drunk at the scene because he was slurring his words and not making any sense.
But I definitely agree, that if someone gets behind the wheel drunk and they take another person's life, they should pay with more than 1 year's time in jail and a slap on the wrist. IMO, they should spend a minimum of 5 years in jail and during that time, they should spend a certain amount of time each day in counseling for alcoholism as well as be forced to attend scenes of drunk driving accidents to see what kind of damage is caused by such negligence. Also, I believe they should have to give speeches to teens about drinking and driving and the consequences.
jmo

I understand what you are saying but I am talking about drunk drivers.

Question for you? Most times that I am aware of a breathalyzer test is given when DUI is suspected. Wouldn't someone who was on medication pass a breathalyzer since it combines a chemical reaction with alcohol content? Also from what I understand if a death is involved you have to take a blood test at a medical facility which would determine that you are in fact not drunk. The punishment I am referring to is not for someone with a medical condition.

There was a man in my town who went to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes. In the process he killed two 12 year old children on their way to a soccer game. He died as well. He was 81 years old and it was assumed he had a heart attack as the car he hit was stopped at a red light and he never slowed down. His autopsy results howevr showed triple the amount of the legal limit of alcohol.

I have NO sympathy for drunk drivers -- people with medical conditions are not who I am referring to when speaking about just punishment for a drunk driver.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Freshwater
What should happen to this type of offender? Some one who hits people in a road and then chooses to leave the scene and drive off without stopping to offer assistance or even make a 911 call ..... is it being scared or stunned or a calculated attempted to get away with murder?

As always intersted in your thoughts.

FH20

Wow -- heavy question. I would imagine that someone could be so scared, stunned or disoriented that they leave the scene. However if the person turns himself/herself in within a reasonable time I would suppose it could be a valid defense. By the same token if they are found the scared/stunned defense should not be valid. JMO

[Star Diva]

The State of California several years ago changed the Statute covering this question from Manslaughter to Second Degree Murder.

The law operates from a couple of premises - or so it seems to me.

One is intent of the offender and two by exercising reasonable intelligence could the offender possibly have determined the outcome.

When sober most drunk drivers certainly are not persons having any intention of harming others and would know that driving drunk very likely could cause just such a terrible outcome.

However, drunk the intention of the driver is unknown, but definitely reckless and the drunk driver has no cognizant ability to assess the potential deadly outcome of his/her actions.

Removing responsibility from them for such deadly actions would be like absolving someone high on drugs from their crimes and we all know the Courts and juries do not rule that way.

What I'd like to know from those who think this is not murder, is exactly what difference exists between alcohol addiction and drug addition and please spare me the legality arguments.

Thanks,

[mnoffki]

Originally posted by Star Diva


*snipped to address this question*

What I'd like to know from those who think this is not murder, is exactly what difference exists between alcohol addiction and drug addition and please spare me the legality arguments.

Thanks,

The difference I see is that the drug/alcohol addicted person on the road is on the road because they are impaired enough to think that they can do this safely. I would argue that in almost every case, the intention is simply to get from one point to another.

If one is high or drunk and pulls out a steak knife to kill someone, then it is murder. The impairment in this case really does not matter because it is an intentional act of violence.

I would not say that the drunk driver deserves a slap on the wrist, but as I mentioned before, if that same driver is in a single car accident and dies alone, it is not considered suicide. If they take someone out in the process, therefore, it is not homicide.

JMO

[Star Diva]

Originally posted by mnoffki


The difference I see is that the drug/alcohol addicted person on the road is on the road because they are impaired enough to think that they can do this safely. I would argue that in almost every case, the intention is simply to get from one point to another.

If one is high or drunk and pulls out a steak knife to kill someone, then it is murder. The impairment in this case really does not matter because it is an intentional act of violence.

I would not say that the drunk driver deserves a slap on the wrist, but as I mentioned before, if that same driver is in a single car accident and dies alone, it is not considered suicide. If they take someone out in the process, therefore, it is not homicide.

JMO

Sorry, but the State of California would convict you of Second Degree Murder - apparently it doesn't see much difference between a person high on Cocaine/Meth/Crack pulling out a steak knife and stabbing someone or hitting and killing them head on because you are mentally and physically imparied due to alcohol.

Conceptually this nation has been soaked in alcohol for so long we can no longer see the alcoholic for what he/she is - a substance abuser capable of making as many exercises in bad judgement as anyone high on illegal subatances. Substance abuse is substance abuse and, in my book, no excuses are appropriate for anyone's behavior while abusing, least of all alcohol the most abused drug in this society.

[mnoffki]

Originally posted by Star Diva


Sorry, but the State of California would convict you of Second Degree Murder - apparently it doesn't see much difference between a person high on Cocaine/Meth/Crack pulling out a steak knife and stabbing someone or hitting and killing them head on because you are mentally and physically imparied due to alcohol.

Conceptually this nation has been soaked in alcohol for so long we can no longer see the alcoholic for what he/she is - a substance abuser capable of making as many exercises in bad judgement as anyone high on illegal subatances. Substance abuse is substance abuse and, in my book, no excuses are appropriate for anyone's behavior while abusing, least of all alcohol the most abused drug in this society.

Luckily, and for more reasons than this, I do not live in California, nor do I abuse substances and drive around while on them.

Drugs/alcohol are pretty much the same to me. They are all impairing, but we will have to agree to disagree. A manslaughter charge is not excusing the behavior, IMO, but it is taking it for what it is. As I have mentioned, no one that is impaired goes out with the intention of killing themselves or someone else. That is very different from slugging down a bottle of Jack and beating your wife to death with a tire iron in a drunken rage which is intentional.

[Star Diva]

Originally posted by mnoffki


Luckily, and for more reasons than this, I do not live in California, nor do I abuse substances and drive around while on them.

Drugs/alcohol are pretty much the same to me. They are all impairing, but we will have to agree to disagree. A manslaughter charge is not excusing the behavior, IMO, but it is taking it for what it is. As I have mentioned, no one that is impaired goes out with the intention of killing themselves or someone else. That is very different from slugging down a bottle of Jack and beating your wife to death with a tire iron in a drunken rage which is intentional.

In rationale I totally understand and agree that there are very huge differences between vehicular manslaughter/murder and what you've described. However, often those who end up causing horrific accidents where innocent people die (even children) are not first time offenders. They have been cited, sometimes multiple times, for driving drunk. They've had their licenses revoked and then some smarmy attorney convinces a judge (like you're convinced) "where's the harm."

This country has become a nation of excusers for bad behavior who now have a national epidemic of bad behavior for which there is no excuse. I'm not a hard-liner, but as a citizen I demand others take responsibility for their actions and failing that I don't have problem one with depriving them of their freedom.

:hat:

[mnoffki]

Originally posted by Star Diva


In rationale I totally understand and agree that there are very huge differences between vehicular manslaughter/murder and what you've described. However, often those who end up causing horrific accidents where innocent people die (even children) are not first time offenders. They have been cited, sometimes multiple times, for driving drunk. They've had their licenses revoked and then some smarmy attorney convinces a judge (like you're convinced) "where's the harm."

This country has become a nation of excusers for bad behavior who now have a national epidemic of bad behavior for which there is no excuse. I'm not a hard-liner, but as a citizen I demand others take responsibility for their actions and failing that I don't have problem one with depriving them of their freedom.

:hat:

Beleive me, I understand the point that you are making, but calling it murder, as far as I am concerned, isn't very helpful. Repeat offenders and first time offenders have the same chances of killing someone, themselves included. I'm all for harsh penalties but treating the drunk driver the same as say, Charles Manson, is hardly the answer. The circumstances are very different.

It's not about not taking responsibility, and this is where you have me pegged wrong. There are better ways to punish and deter this sort of thing. No method is perfect, but what if instead of a drivers license, a repeat offender, after doing their time and having their license revoked for life, had instead a card that they would have to present that would ban them from buying or consuming alcohol? They would be forced to drink at home if they are allowed at all. Like anything else, there are ways around that, but it would certainly make it more difficult. Perhaps publishing names in a local newspaper and having those lists posted at local watering holes and stores periodically, alongside the liquor license would help this cause. We already track sex offenders, why not repeat drunk drivers in order to enforce their restrictions?

I am not minimizing the seriousness of the crime, but the fact remains, it is still very different to get liquored up or high and stab someone than it is to get into a car and accidentally kill someone because of bad judgment. I've lost friends to drunk drivers, and I know how senseless it is, but in the end, the offenses are very different.

My suggestions listed above are FAR from perfect solutions, and I realize that, so let's please not make this about that in response. But they are loose ideas, and while I do not feel it is the responsibility of a bartender to babysit either, asking for ID isn't a huge stretch as it has to be done anyhow.

JMO

[IsItAnyWonder]

I feel very sorry for your loses and to say I've lost a brother in the same situation...

However as previously mentioned by many, there is no intent or motive to kill, only bad judgement from impaired people. Maybe we should look at who is responsable enough to actually consume alcohol ?? Probation against driving is secondary, the problem should be resolved at the source ( alcohol !! ) If law would prohibate certain individuals who tend to lose there responsabilities under the influence of alcohol. We would be one step ahead of drinking and driving.

Hey, here we say, it's ok to drink, but don't drive.......
Maybe it's not ok to drink,if you can't stop yourself from driving.

Taking away the drivers licence might not be the best alternative.
Taking away the right to drink maybe just the ticket !!!

What do you think ?
:shrug:

[mnoffki]

Originally posted by IsItAnyWonder
I feel very sorry for your loses and to say I've lost a brother in the same situation...

However as previously mentioned by many, there is no intent or motive to kill, only bad judgement from impaired people. Maybe we should look at who is responsable enough to actually consume alcohol ?? Probation against driving is secondary, the problem should be resolved at the source ( alcohol !! ) If law would prohibate certain individuals who tend to lose there responsabilities under the influence of alcohol. We would be one step ahead of drinking and driving.

Hey, here we say, it's ok to drink, but don't drive.......
Maybe it's not ok to drink,if you can't stop yourself from driving.

Taking away the drivers licence might not be the best alternative.
Taking away the right to drink maybe just the ticket !!!

What do you think ?
:shrug:

I agree here. Revoking a license does not stop a person from driving necessarily. Banning them from buying alcohol might not stop them from drinking. However, maybe if both concepts are used together, it would cut back on these incidents.

The average person will be deterred, and the repeat offender will pay for the crime with perpetual inconvenience and possibly humiliation at having to carry a "banned from buying" card rather thana license.

Again, in saying this, I will stress that I know that I do not have all the answers, but perhaps, as the previous poster noted, this is the better approach. Stop it at the source and those that are not responsible enough to drink will have a more difficult time getting a drink.

jmo

[TaraCrazyHair]

I feel that anyone arrested for DUI needs to be charged with an automatic Felony and automatic loss of license for the minimum of two years .. even first offenders, and not plead down to reckless op (it is only making the lawyers rich)

Perhaps with dire consequences for their "temporary lack of good judgment" will cause most people to think twice before getting behind the wheel after having a "few drinks"

I agree with the poster who stated that a person behind the wheel who had been drinking is the same as putting a bullet into a gun and firing aimlessly, sometimes hitting a target and sometimes missing ..

DUI offenders basically get a slap on the wrist with financial consequences .. it is time they got a heck of a lot more than that!

In my opinion

[mnoffki]

Originally posted by AvengingAngel
I recently read an article about alcohol sensors/locks being installed in cars of convicted drunk drivers. That's a step in the right direction.

As always, when I think about social problems, I think about the tech stuff.

In the near future, I think we will see more and more smart devices being installed in cars that can detect whether the driver is impaired and shut off the car.

That would ROCK. I would love to see something like that implemented. While I do not believe that there is any perfect solution, it would prevent a lot of tragedy for both the offender and those hurt by the offender.

[BJ_BOBBI_JO]

I almost depise drunk drivers because they choose to drive drunk and they choose to get drunk. Taking that drink was their choice and no one elses.

Im also very sick of drunk drivers getting off so easy.

The man who got drunk and stole our family van only got 3 months in jail for it. And it was his 3rd drunk driving offense. While he was drunk driving in my van that he stole he almost ran over a tent full of kids sleeping.
Also he did not have to pay for the damages. the county this happened in has jails loaded down with drunk driving offenses.

I know most drunk drivers who kill would never do that if they were sober. BUt after all they did choose to take that drink. So its their fault.

[ButterflyDragon]

Originally posted by TaraCrazyHair
I feel that anyone arrested for DUI needs to be charged with an automatic Felony and automatic loss of license for the minimum of two years .. even first offenders, and not plead down to reckless op (it is only making the lawyers rich)

Perhaps with dire consequences for their "temporary lack of good judgment" will cause most people to think twice before getting behind the wheel after having a "few drinks"

I agree with the poster who stated that a person behind the wheel who had been drinking is the same as putting a bullet into a gun and firing aimlessly, sometimes hitting a target and sometimes missing ..

DUI offenders basically get a slap on the wrist with financial consequences .. it is time they got a heck of a lot more than that!

In my opinion

I absolutely agree.

I was watching a show with my nephew the other day, I think it was Cops or something similar.

They were showing the video of them chasing a woman speeding through traffic over 90mph. As they were narrating this piece, they said that this woman had had 18 prior DUI convictions, which is why she most likely was running.

18 DUI's????

How could she get past the second one without spending some time in jail or prison?

We (as a society) are way too lenient on people who abuse alcohol and then go out and threaten other people's lives due to their abuse.

I'd take your felony suggestion a bit further. In most cases if you're convicted of a crime with a firearm, your right to own or be in possession of a firearm is taken away. The same should happen with DUI/DWI. If you're arrested for a felony (going on your suggestion), then that person's right to own a vehicle or to operate a vehicle should be taken away.

We have a lot of government officials who want to jump on tobacco, drugs, etc., as potential killers. We hear all the numbers of how many people die from XYZ... but has anyone really thought about all of the death and destruction caused by alcohol?

I'm definitely not saying we need prohibition. I'm saying people who have been found to be irresponsible in their drinking habits, should have the book thrown at them. They throw outrageous taxes on cigarettes, but alcohol is cheap as can be. Tack on a $3 or $4 tax per six-pack. That will make people think twice.

[IsItAnyWonder]

Total fatalities Alcohol related fatalities
in the United States
Not
Impaired Impaired
Year Number Number Percent
1982 43,945 26,173 60
1983 42,589 24,635 58
1984 44,257 24,762 56
1985 43,825 23,167 53
1986 46,087 25,017 54
1987 46,390 24,094 52
1988 47,087 23,833 51
1989 45,582 22,424 49
1990 44,599 22,587 51
1991 41,508 20,159 49
1992 39,250 18,290 47
1993 40,150 17,908 45
1994 40,716 17,308 43
1995 41,817 17,732 42
1996 42,065 17,749 42
1997 42,013 16,711 40
1998 41,501 16,673 40
1999 41,717 16,572 40
2000 41,945 17,380 41
2001 42,196 17,400 41
2002 43,005 17,524 41
2003 42,643 17,013 40
2004 42,518 16,694 39

I don't want to bust your head trip here boys and girls, however, if in 2004 39% were drunk fatal related accidents. Then 61% were not related to to drunks and much more deadly in percentage. Maybe alot of people need to learn how to drive. Drunk driving has been on the downfall for quite sometime now. But accidents in general are not. Where's this rule that it's ok to kill by being distracted or wreckless, but don't drink drive.
Let's understand that even if the drunk driver is not at fault in the collision, he/she will be held responable anyway...
Wow if only that applied to guns... Your friend beats somebody to death, but since you were holding an illegal weapon, your guilty of the offence.... Only in America !!!!

It's sad for all the loved ones lost. I know,I've lost a brother to a drunk driver. But saying things like removing a the right to drive after a second offence for life !! Well it's all fine for those who live in large cities and can commute by bus,subway or what ever. But think of all the small towns who do not have access to such forms
of transportation.

This opens a new can of wirms here.

Why is it so dam important to have the right to drink booze !
All these fanatics that believe that it's ok to drink, but don't do drugs !! Heck, to me it's all the same. They impair your thinking and your reactions, plus they both screw up your body in the long run...... Hey, lets not think booze is bad, why it's healthy, right ?

1 more for the road ( hic ) !!!!!!

RDJ

[ButterflyDragon]

Originally posted by IsItAnyWonder
*snipped*

But saying things like removing a the right to drive after a second offence for life !! Well it's all fine for those who live in large cities and can commute by bus,subway or what ever. But think of all the small towns who do not have access to such forms of transportation.

*snipped*



They'd damn sure think twice before getting in that car if they thought they'd never have it again, wouldn't they?

The problem is for the first offense they're generally fined, told to attend an ASAP class and it's dropped.

After the second one, they again given a fine, might have their license suspended for 6 months and told to attend another ASAP class.

I think that's ample warning. If they don't "get it" by then, they don't deserve the "privilege" of driving on the road and endangering other's lives.

Being able to drive in this country is NOT a "right". It is a privilege.

[Gaiar]

Originally posted by aproudmom



victims feel

that is what the killer of Heidi and Sadie is being charged with 2 counts of vehicular manslaughter, 5 time repeat offender, and DUI resulting in bodilyharm/death

I agree vehicular manslaughter no matter what.

the man that killed robin got 5 years for leaving the scene of a crime resulting in a death
:shrug: not enough IMO

Don't hold me to this since Im not a Police officer or even really that well versed in laws like this. But I believe Hit and Run may be one of the laws that overrun drunk driving. Or at least may overrun it origionally. Though I can not remember exactly what you had said about Robin in how long it took them to find him in that you know he/she was drunk. Sadly theres alot of people that drive as if they were drunk, but they sometimes end up not being drunk.

Though Im unsure of Murder or Vehicular manslaughter though they do need better punushments.

[AmyW]

If you're stupid enough to drink then drive, you should suffer harsh penalties. If you aren't responsible enough to have someone else drive you home, you deserve whatever comes your way.

[torch1974]

Here's a story that has broken today:

Jeep killer jailed indefinitely

Alan Steel did not stop after the crash in which Paula Stead died
A banned driver with 17 previous motoring convictions has been given an indefinite jail sentence for killing a school dinner lady in a hit-and-run.
Heroin user Alan Steel, 26, ploughed into Paula Stead, 32, as she walked home with her 11-year-old daughter, Bridie in Sunderland last September.

Steel had previously admitted causing death by dangerous driving and a string of related offences.

Newcastle Crown Court heard Steel was a "thoroughly amoral individual".

The court was told Steel, from St Luke's Road in the town, had 13 previous convictions for driving while disqualified and four previous convictions for dangerous driving.

'No regard'

Mrs Stead, of Forest Road, Sunderland, died after she was hit by a Jeep Cherokee on St Luke's Road on 21 September.

She had recently married her landscape gardener husband John, and was returning from her second job cleaning at a dental surgery when she was fatally injured.

The Cherokee was allegedly being followed by police prior to the incident.

Northumbria Police referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which decided no further action was necessary.

In court, Judge David Hodson imposed an indefinite sentence for public protection and told Steel: "You are a thoroughly amoral individual with no regard for others.

"You are a complete menace to the community."

Steel was told he must serve a minimum of five years in prison.


Though he has to serve a minimum of five years, he could theoretically spend the rest of his life in jail, the parole board will assess the risk to the public before allowing him to be released.