It was an accident. Even if people have problems and can't control their drinking or whatever, less they are going out with the mindset to kill, it's accidental. Not a lot of drunk drivers are getting drunk so they can kill.
Bull scat. It’s not an accident at all. If someone drinks, they are still responsible for the result. Everyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence knows that driving under the influence of alcohol risk lives and can and often does cause death and destruction. They have the foreknowledge of those facts. That alone makes them responsible. If they continue to drink and drive, their culpability increases.
Not a lot of drunk drivers are getting drunk so they can kill. Maybe 3 years is "too little", but I fear a lot of people are trying to attach first and second degree murder times to punishment; and it just doesn't fit the mechanics of the crime. I do not think that we should increase punishments just because we can emotionalize a topic so much as to throw out reason and logic.
I haven’t noticed reason and logic from the pro-drunk- driving crowd. All I see are excuses.
Crimes must be weighed by their functional effects and similar crime is punished similarly.
Fuctional effects? Like- -Killing someone?.. Just as long as they’ve poured some alcohol down their throats, it’s no biggie. The families devastated—nevermind that—god forbid we express concern for actual justice. That is emotional. :roll: Preventing repeat offenses with manslaughter charges is unlikely. You’re making excuses for them. Just like you make excuses for child molesters and other scum. Sad, really. For every low life, dirt bag, people like you make up excuses.
In my younger days I used to go to the bars drink beer and shoot pool until I couldn't see straight, then I would drive home. A couple of mornings I actually went out to see if my pickup was there because I had no memory of driving home. I just thank God I never hurt anybody and now I never ever drive drunk. I think society at large has finally learned drunk driving is serious business and not the funny story we used to think it was.
And if you had killed someone, do you believe that you would have had a right to go on with your life afterwards because: oh well, you made a mistake?
I agree with Sawyer and earworm on this one. Locking the guy up for a long time only assures he won't drive during that period. Nowadays, people are required to attend AA, put locking devices in their cars, etc; just for DUII's alone.
When the young alcoholic stops by for a beer on his way home, hours (an beers) later he has no idea what he's doing.
Nonsense. Was he in a coma? Unless this person was unconscious, he was aware of his actions. He got out of his car, walked into a bar, and began drinking. No one had a gun to his head. HIS CHOICE. Stop making excuses .
To an alcoholic "one beer" usually refers to several. There's no easy solution, some people have to learn the hard way, others don't learn, even as their liver starts to fail.
When I was a teen, one of my early memories was cruising town with my Mom, finding Dad at a beer joint, then I was assigned to drive him home. I was 16 and hadn't had my license very long. I remember Dad fumbling for cigs and droppiing them on the floor of the passenger seat. He wizened up in later, thank God. So, my tolerance of drinking is not real high, LOL.
No excuse. None whatsoever. I’ve been drinking myself to sleep for months now. I’m responsible for everything that happens. So are other alcoholics. It’s not a disease. I’ve made a choice to quit drinking. There’s a bottle of liquor downstairs. If I drink it, who should I blame?
Yeah, manslaughter is really a slap on the wrist :roll:
Depends on what state...
Legal issues aside... most people who are drunk are also incapable of accurately assessing their own driving abilities at the moment. Most think/say, "Oh, I'm fine.", and honestly believe that, when in reality they're not.
I don’t give a damn. They are still responsible. Before they get drunk, it is THEIR responsibility to make provisions for their ride home. If they don’t, they’re culpable. Quit making excuses for killers.
That's all well and good, but none of that is any indication of clear intent to go out and commit murder. The legal system places specific definitions on the different levels of murder. Take it up with them. :shrug:
Intent is when someone makes a decision knowing the consequences beforehand. That is what is happening in these instances. They know they’re going to drink, they know that drinking leads to poor decisions, and they know that those poor decisions risk lives. They just don’t give a crap. And you kicking the can down the road with such a pointless, say-nothing response is almost as bad a Ikari’s pro drunk emotional tantrums.
Umm whether you think they are "scum of the earth who are unworthy of life" (pure emotional prejudice with no place in criminal justice) is completely IRRELEVANT to the actual criminal charge they should face. People who accidentally kill someone while driving drunk are not guilty of first-degree murder, because there was no intent to kill. Simply being irresponsible is not the same as committing premeditated murder.
Yes they are. See above response.
Let me rephrase your above statement about first-degree murder, and tell me if you still agree: Do you think that someone who intentionally uses their car as a weapon to mow down a pedestrian should receive no harsher punishment than someone who accidentally killed someone through negligence?
Drunks aren’t accidentally killing someone through negligence so your example is moot.
If they kill someone, that's involuntary manslaughter. If they didn't kill or injure anyone, that's a DUI and they should be charged as such.
The legal limit should also be changed from .08 in most places to .12. Impairment begins at .12 to .15. The changing to .08 was nothing more than "feel like we're doing something" legislation and has done nothing at all to catch more drunks.
God damn. So now it’s not even manslaughter, it’s involuntary manslaughter. Well. Let’s not inconvenience them too much.
I have a question for you If I may, should people that kill driving that are high on weed be charged the same as drunk drivers and individuals that kill while texting while driving....should they be charged the same as well....after all murder is murder right ?
Meh weed is too difficult to pin point. Even if it is as dangerous as alcohol, and it’s not, there is no real way to prove that it is the cause of an accident UNLESS the person is caught with it on his person and it is clear that he was actually smoking it at the time of the collision. For example, if someone quits smoking pot and a month later gets into a car accident and is tested, thc is still found in his system. Because it’s fat soluble, it stays in the tissues for several weeks, long after it’s metabolized. The “high” may only last a few hours depending on quality and a person’s tolerance. Alcohol is completely different/.
Not sure about texting.