• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DWI Deaths: Is It Murder?

A

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Last night, 60 Minutes did a piece on drunk driving and charging the drunk driver with murder. In the case discussed on the show, this 24-year-old guy (the drunk driver) smashed into a limo, killing 2 people (the young girl was beheaded in the accident). He, however, suffered minor injuries and had a blood alcohol content 3 X over the legal limit.

The DA charged him with murder, and he was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 18 years to life in prision.

DWI Deaths: Is It Murder?, Bob Simon On One Prosecutor's Efforts To Increase Penalties For Drunk Drivers Who Kill - CBS News

Drunk driving kills more than 13,000 Americans a year - that's one every 39 minutes. Authorities call it an epidemic. They say that despite all the publicity, all the education campaigns, and all the advertising over the past decade, the number of drunk-driving fatalities has not gone down.
Click to expand...

I think charging drunk drivers with murder is the way to go. If all the publicity of drunk driving has not caused the number of fatalities to decrease, we need to be doing something differently. If people feared being charged with murder, maybe they would re-think getting behind the wheel when impaired.

We put people in jail for possession of drugs, and yet a drunk driver who kills someone usually doesn't serve any jail time. WTF?
 
I think it is negligent homicide.
 
aps said:
LOL Using a dictionary to address a legal definition is classic. Post dismissed.

Oh, by the way, the defendant in the above case was convicted of second-degree murder. Explain that, Sherlock.
Click to expand...



What is it your time of the month? :lol::2wave:;)



Tell me what is the legal definition of "murder" then. Note that definition references it.


It is Involuntary manslaughter, not murder. Murder requires "malice aforethought", where was it in this case? And if you wanted to be less of a jerk in your responses, I'll do the same.....


Also if you note, what I meant by "nice sentiment" was that I think the penalty for killing someone like this should equal murder, it in and of itself is not murder, by calling it so, you open a can of worms for other instances, some not as noble.,
 
Last edited:
aps said:
I think charging drunk drivers with murder is the way to go. If all the publicity of drunk driving has not caused the number of fatalities to decrease, we need to be doing something differently. If people feared being charged with murder, maybe they would re-think getting behind the wheel when impaired.

We put people in jail for possession of drugs, and yet a drunk driver who kills someone usually doesn't serve any jail time. WTF?
Click to expand...


I totally agree. The drunk driving rates in this country are sickening. Almost 13,000 people died in 2007 because of drunk driving and who knows how much it grew last year. It is preventable and if charging these selfish drunks with higher sentences is what we need then I am all for it. Car accidents are the number one cause of teenage deaths and a major cause for that is drunk driving. Our DUI laws are laughable, you barely get a slap on the wrist for driving drunk unless you get multiple upon multiple citations for it.


- Mothers Against Drunk Driving - Drunk Driving Statistics and Underage Drinking Statistics
 
In Illinois we have vehicular manslaughter.

I don't like that 2nd degree Murder was used to convict this person. It cheapens the charge of murder. Reckless behavior does not equal killing someone purposefully. What if you were texting and driving and killed someone?

It's definitely a serious crime and should be punished accordingly. Manslaughter covers this very well.

Edit: Should we just change DWI/DUI to attempted murder?
 
Last edited:
I just did some reading about all this. I think the only homicide definition that fits the actions of a DWI where someone dies is Involuntary Manslaughter, sometimes referred to as criminally negligent homicide.

All the other, more culpable, homicides that I read about involved intent to end someone's life. A person guilty of a DWI cannot be said to have intent, no matter how much we detest them.

I think I agree that there is something more insidious about a murderer than the person who commits involuntary manslaughter as part of a DWI.
 
Dezaad said:
I just did some reading about all this. I think the only homicide definition that fits the actions of a DWI where someone dies is Involuntary Manslaughter, sometimes referred to as criminally negligent homicide.

All the other, more culpable, homicides that I read about involved intent to end someone's life. A person guilty of a DWI cannot be said to have intent, no matter how much we detest them.

I think I agree that there is something more insidious about a murderer than the person who commits involuntary manslaughter as part of a DWI.
Click to expand...




Exactly........
 
Dezaad said:
I just did some reading about all this. I think the only homicide definition that fits the actions of a DWI where someone dies is Involuntary Manslaughter, sometimes referred to as criminally negligent homicide.

All the other, more culpable, homicides that I read about involved intent to end someone's life. A person guilty of a DWI cannot be said to have intent, no matter how much we detest them.

I think I agree that there is something more insidious about a murderer than the person who commits involuntary manslaughter as part of a DWI.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Any driving person knows that a car can kill someone. This person made the decision to drink as much as he/she drank. This person then decided to get behind a machine that can kill someone when this person was impaired. To me, that shows a depraved indifference to the consequences of his/her actions.

We're not going to decrease the number of drunk driving deaths until we take more serious action against those who choose to drink and drive.

Drunken Driver Crashed Car, Killed Best Friend - News- msnbc.com

I think someone who is texting while driving and kills someone should be charged with some sort of second-degree murder.
 
aps said:
I disagree. Any driving person knows that a car can kill someone. This person made the decision to drink as much as he/she drank. This person then decided to get behind a machine that can kill someone when this person was impaired. To me, that shows a depraved indifference to the consequences of his/her actions.

We're not going to decrease the number of drunk driving deaths until we take more serious action against those who choose to drink and drive.

Drunken Driver Crashed Car, Killed Best Friend - News- msnbc.com

I think someone who is texting while driving and kills someone should be charged with some sort of second-degree murder.
Click to expand...



Where is the "malice aforethought"?
 
aps said:
I disagree. Any driving person knows that a car can kill someone. This person made the decision to drink as much as he/she drank. This person then decided to get behind a machine that can kill someone when this person was impaired. To me, that shows a depraved indifference to the consequences of his/her actions.

We're not going to decrease the number of drunk driving deaths until we take more serious action against those who choose to drink and drive.

Drunken Driver Crashed Car, Killed Best Friend - News- msnbc.com

I think someone who is texting while driving and kills someone should be charged with some sort of second-degree murder.
Click to expand...

If we were serious about eliminating drinking and driving breathalyzer ignitions would be mandatory like seat belts.
 
Ok, I just read the whole article. The prosecutor apparently used a writing of the law as it is in her state to charge the person with murder based on a 'depraved disregard for human life'.

In my opinion, she used the grisly nature of the facts of the crime to convince a jury that the man had committed the more serious charge. I just don't agree that this person had a depraved disregard for human life.

The statistics bear me out on this. Firstly, a person who drives under the influence and ends up killing someone is equally as depraved as a person who drives under the influence and happens to make it home safely with no accident at all. The only difference is that one got lucky and one didn't.

The relevance is that in order for us to believe that this person had a depraved disregard for human life, we would have to believe that everyone who has ever driven drunk has a depraved disregard for human life. That's alot of people. A very high percentage of the total population.

Look at the statistics from the article. 1 in 10 people admit to having driven drunk at least once in the last year. What if respondents were asked about if they had ever driven drunk.

All it takes is once. This guy, who supposedly had a depraved disregard for human life, had no prior arrests. This may have been his only time to ever drive drunk, and it turned out very badly. He probably believed, wrongly, that he was able to drive competently. That doesn't amount to murder.
 
Tucker Case said:
Illinois law just changed so that all people who get convicted of DUI from now on will need to have this for a minimum of 6 months.
Click to expand...

Yep, I saw that. It makes sense.

Ralph Nader should quit running for President and work on this.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
If we were serious about eliminating drinking and driving breathalyzer ignitions would be mandatory like seat belts.
Click to expand...

THAT is what I would love to occur! I totally agree. Can you get started on that, please?

;)
 
Dezaad said:
All it takes is once.
Click to expand...

QFT.

I got a DUI in November becasue I had a reaction to alcohol because of medication I was on that caused me to blackout after only three drinks. During the blackout I got behind the wheel (somehting I NEVER do) and got into a one-car acident that totalled my car. I had planne don taking a cab and leaving my car behind when I started drinking, something I've done hundreds of times in the past, but this time, for whatever reason, I didn't.

This was absurdly out of character for me, but now that I know it is even possible, I have given up alcohol for good because of the sheer and utter disgust in myself I have over it.

I got VERY lucky I didn't kill anyone or crash into anyone. I remember absolutely nothing from the third drink onward until I was being taken to the police station.

If I had killed someone, I don't believe I could live with myself, considering I am still totally ashamed at the simple possibility that I could have.

If I had killed someone, I believe that jailtime would have been warranted, but Murder would be excessive because it was so out of character for me. I didn't make the conscious decision to drink as much as I did, nor did I make the conscious decision to drive in that state.

But now that I have gotten a DUI, any subsequent arrests for that should be treated like attempted murder, and if I were to kill someone in that state, I sshould get charged with murder.

Prior to that night, I didn't believe that I even could get behind the wheel while drunk. Now that I know it is possible, I am responsible fo rmaking sure that it never, ever happens again.

If I ever get arrested for DUI again, I think that I deserve to go to jail for a very, very long time even if I don't kill anyone.

The thing is, a first DUI could be an honest mistake that can have the gravest of consequences. That person could honestly and legitimately believe that them driving drunk is a near impossibility, as I did.

Any subsequent DUI's, though, means that the person did not learn from their terrible mistake. If they are unwilling or unable to learn, they are a danger to society.

I can assure you that I will never get another DUI, because I will never be drunk again because I would rather not drink if it means I have the potential to kill someone while drunk.
 
Tucker Case said:
QFT.

I got a DUI in November becasue I had a reaction to alcohol because of medication I was on that caused me to blackout after only three drinks. During the blackout I got behind the wheel (somehting I NEVER do) and got into a one-car acident that totalled my car. I had planne don taking a cab and leaving my car behind when I started drinking, something I've done hundreds of times in the past, but this time, for whatever reason, I didn't.

This was absurdly out of character for me, but now that I know it is even possible, I have given up alcohol for good because of the sheer and utter disgust in myself I have over it.

I got VERY lucky I didn't kill anyone or crash into anyone. I remember absolutely nothing from the third drink onward until I was being taken to the police station.

If I had killed someone, I don't believe I could live with myself, considering I am still totally ashamed at the simple possibility that I could have.

If I had killed someone, I believe that jailtime would have been warranted, but Murder would be excessive because it was so out of character for me. I didn't make the conscious decision to drink as much as I did, nor did I make the conscious decision to drive in that state.

But now that I have gotten a DUI, any subsequent arrests for that should be treated like attempted murder, and if I were to kill someone in that state, I sshould get charged with murder.

Prior to that night, I didn't believe that I even could get behind the wheel while drunk. Now that I know it is possible, I am responsible fo rmaking sure that it never, ever happens again.

If I ever get arrested for DUI again, I think that I deserve to go to jail for a very, very long time even if I don't kill anyone.

The thing is, a first DUI could be an honest mistake that can have the gravest of consequences. That person could honestly and legitimately believe that them driving drunk is a near impossibility, as I did.

Any subsequent DUI's, though, means that the person did not learn from their terrible mistake. If they are unwilling or unable to learn, they are a danger to society.

I can assure you that I will never get another DUI, because I will never be drunk again because I would rather not drink if it means I have the potential to kill someone while drunk.
Click to expand...

Wow, Tucker. Thank you for your openness. I am glad you're okay and that you didn't hurt anyone. I like that idea about not charging the first DUI/DWI with any sort of intent, but anytime after that, then intent can be inferred.
 
Dezaad said:
Ok, I just read the whole article. The prosecutor apparently used a writing of the law as it is in her state to charge the person with murder based on a 'depraved disregard for human life'.

In my opinion, she used the grisly nature of the facts of the crime to convince a jury that the man had committed the more serious charge. I just don't agree that this person had a depraved disregard for human life.

The statistics bear me out on this. Firstly, a person who drives under the influence and ends up killing someone is equally as depraved as a person who drives under the influence and happens to make it home safely with no accident at all. The only difference is that one got lucky and one didn't.

The relevance is that in order for us to believe that this person had a depraved disregard for human life, we would have to believe that everyone who has ever driven drunk has a depraved disregard for human life. That's alot of people. A very high percentage of the total population.

Look at the statistics from the article. 1 in 10 people admit to having driven drunk at least once in the last year. What if respondents were asked about if they had ever driven drunk.

All it takes is once. This guy, who supposedly had a depraved disregard for human life, had no prior arrests. This may have been his only time to ever drive drunk, and it turned out very badly. He probably believed, wrongly, that he was able to drive competently. That doesn't amount to murder.
Click to expand...

You're right. The facts in that case significantly helped her get a conviction. However, I am guessing that anyone in that state who read about the case may think twice before getting behind the wheel impaired.

My guess is that the reason the stats are so high in getting behind the wheel impaired is because the laws don't scare people enough to NOT get behind the wheel when impaired.
 
Tucker Case said:
QFT.

I got a DUI in November becasue I had a reaction to alcohol because of medication I was on that caused me to blackout after only three drinks. During the blackout I got behind the wheel (somehting I NEVER do) and got into a one-car acident that totalled my car. I had planne don taking a cab and leaving my car behind when I started drinking, something I've done hundreds of times in the past, but this time, for whatever reason, I didn't.

This was absurdly out of character for me, but now that I know it is even possible, I have given up alcohol for good because of the sheer and utter disgust in myself I have over it.

I got VERY lucky I didn't kill anyone or crash into anyone. I remember absolutely nothing from the third drink onward until I was being taken to the police station.

If I had killed someone, I don't believe I could live with myself, considering I am still totally ashamed at the simple possibility that I could have.

If I had killed someone, I believe that jailtime would have been warranted, but Murder would be excessive because it was so out of character for me. I didn't make the conscious decision to drink as much as I did, nor did I make the conscious decision to drive in that state.

But now that I have gotten a DUI, any subsequent arrests for that should be treated like attempted murder, and if I were to kill someone in that state, I sshould get charged with murder.

Prior to that night, I didn't believe that I even could get behind the wheel while drunk. Now that I know it is possible, I am responsible fo rmaking sure that it never, ever happens again.

If I ever get arrested for DUI again, I think that I deserve to go to jail for a very, very long time even if I don't kill anyone.

The thing is, a first DUI could be an honest mistake that can have the gravest of consequences. That person could honestly and legitimately believe that them driving drunk is a near impossibility, as I did.

Any subsequent DUI's, though, means that the person did not learn from their terrible mistake. If they are unwilling or unable to learn, they are a danger to society.

I can assure you that I will never get another DUI, because I will never be drunk again because I would rather not drink if it means I have the potential to kill someone while drunk.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are lucky. I'm glad you are being responsible and choosing not to drink.

I agree with what you have said here.
 
aps said:
Wow, Tucker. Thank you for your openness. I am glad you're okay and that you didn't hurt anyone. I like that idea about not charging the first DUI/DWI with any sort of intent, but anytime after that, then intent can be inferred.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to pull a bonnie and give my real life story, but it fit the topic at hand and sharing was appropriate, IMO, to give perspective. My opinions are based on the experience ;)

I think that it clarifies that I have a personal bias about the subject. if someone hasn't learned after one, then all subsequent one's should be treated with extreme prejudice.
 
aps said:
You're right. The facts in that case significantly helped her get a conviction. However, I am guessing that anyone in that state who read about the case may think twice before getting behind the wheel impaired.

My guess is that the reason the stats are so high in getting behind the wheel impaired is because the laws don't scare people enough to NOT get behind the wheel when impaired.
Click to expand...

People who drink and drive (except for cases like Tucker's) usually don't think about the consequences of that actions. If they did, the choice is simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom