• 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!

Drunk Driver Made to Wear Sign Saying He Killed a Man

What other conclusion can one come to? Unless each car has a driving 'chamber' where nobody can talk to the driver, where the driver can not listen to the radio, that cancels out cell phone signal, that they have to blow into a tube before the car starts, that doesn't have a mirror so you can put your makeup on or shave, .... then everyone is unsafe. Right?
Hello Senior Hyperbole, how are you today? Everyone can be unsafe at any moment doing any number of activities that we may consider “normal” or “excusable”. Yet these things are all dangers and if you’re driving you should be aware of the danger you and other people on the road pose. Yes? That is safe driving. People love to come down on Drunk Driving with this near religious zeal; but they like to forget that many things that perhaps even they themselves have done puts other people at serious risk for injury or death. We look over those all the time. The point was to highlight that there are many dangers while driving, not just DUI. And when people are behaving recklessly, they should face the same punishments. Yet in drunk diving we have a unique case where we punish to some exorbitant extreme and no one gives a second thought to any of these other causes which functionally produce the same dynamic.

So before we start demonizing DUI to such extent, perhaps we can all think upon our own driving habits and consider whether or not we’ve contributed to the dangers on the road through reckless driving before we get on our high horse, stand it on a soap box, and begin preaching exclusively against drunk driving. Perchance we’d all be more safe if we were all cognoscente of the dangers certain activities pose on the road.
 
So before we start demonizing DUI to such extent, perhaps we can all think upon our own driving habits and consider whether or not we’ve contributed to the dangers on the road through reckless driving before we get on our high horse, stand it on a soap box, and begin preaching exclusively against drunk driving. Perchance we’d all be more safe if we were all cognoscente of the dangers certain activities pose on the road.

This all comes across as more of a rant from someone that is probably an alcoholic, that is pissed off because they kept getting caught driving, lost their license and are, like so many others, no willing to take the responsibility for their own actions.
 
This all comes across as more of a rant from someone that is probably an alcoholic, that is pissed off because they kept getting caught driving, lost their license and are, like so many others, no willing to take the responsibility for their own actions.

Or maybe what he posted holds some truth?

I happen to agree with him, particularly with the part you quoted, and not only have I never had a driver's license, I also am a very lite drinker (I get drunk possibly once a year, have never been puking-drunk, and normally drink less than 2 drinks during a week, if even that). I'm 31, btw.
 
Hello Senior Hyperbole, how are you today? Everyone can be unsafe at any moment doing any number of activities that we may consider “normal” or “excusable”. Yet these things are all dangers and if you’re driving you should be aware of the danger you and other people on the road pose. Yes? That is safe driving. People love to come down on Drunk Driving with this near religious zeal; but they like to forget that many things that perhaps even they themselves have done puts other people at serious risk for injury or death. We look over those all the time. The point was to highlight that there are many dangers while driving, not just DUI. And when people are behaving recklessly, they should face the same punishments. Yet in drunk diving we have a unique case where we punish to some exorbitant extreme and no one gives a second thought to any of these other causes which functionally produce the same dynamic.

So before we start demonizing DUI to such extent, perhaps we can all think upon our own driving habits and consider whether or not we’ve contributed to the dangers on the road through reckless driving before we get on our high horse, stand it on a soap box, and begin preaching exclusively against drunk driving. Perchance we’d all be more safe if we were all cognoscente of the dangers certain activities pose on the road.

If a person's negligence or unsafe and illegal habits cause the death of another person they should be imprisoned under extremely harsh conditions for life. I don't understand why it is if you accidently kill someone during a crime it is murder, unless you are driving. Then it's suddenly ok to go around murdering people. Driving drunk is a crime. You kill someone while committing a crime, and this prick get 90 days in jail and has to hold up a sign? This man deserves life in prison or death. Nothing less. This victim, and their family are the ones who are being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And they didn't do anything to be punished for. Telling someone that their child, parent, sibling or whatever this victim was to other people life was irrelevant and not worth even punishing the person who was responsible for their murder is just about as cruel as it comes.

There is a huge flaw in our justice system when a man is facing life for taking a life in defense of his own, and another man gets sentenced to 90 days for murdering another person while committing other crimes.
 
Last edited:
This all comes across as more of a rant from someone that is probably an alcoholic, that is pissed off because they kept getting caught driving, lost their license and are, like so many others, no willing to take the responsibility for their own actions.

Well if your only goal is to insult and dismiss, mission accomplished.

But no, what I had listed there was a rational argument for reasonable punishment for similar dynamics.
 
If a person's negligence or unsafe and illegal habits cause the death of another person they should be imprisoned under extremely harsh conditions for life. I don't understand why it is if you accidently kill someone during a crime it is murder, unless you are driving. Then it's suddenly ok to go around murdering people. Driving drunk is a crime. You kill someone while committing a crime, and this prick get 90 days in jail and has to hold up a sign? This man deserves life in prison or death. Nothing less. This victim, and their family are the ones who are being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And they didn't do anything to be punished for. Telling someone that their child, parent, sibling or whatever this victim was to other people life was irrelevant and not worth even punishing the person who was responsible for their murder is just about as cruel as it comes.

There is a huge flaw in our justice system when a man is facing life for taking a life in defense of his own, and another man gets sentenced to 90 days for murdering another person while committing other crimes.

Well another thing to note is that punishment standards are wide varying. We can always hear about the case were some dude with X DUIs finally causes a fatal accident and say "what's wrong with the system", but those may be cases which are far off on the wings of the distribution. "There should have been more punishment before hand", hindsight being 20/20 it's always easy to say what we should have done in that individual case prior to it being a problem. But the real question as to demonstration of problem would be the statistics. How many people who DUI kill people actually get 90 days? How many get less? What is the median prison sentence? I don't really know these off hand; but it would help us to better understand the system we are arguing.
 
Well another thing to note is that punishment standards are wide varying. We can always hear about the case were some dude with X DUIs finally causes a fatal accident and say "what's wrong with the system", but those may be cases which are far off on the wings of the distribution. "There should have been more punishment before hand", hindsight being 20/20 it's always easy to say what we should have done in that individual case prior to it being a problem. But the real question as to demonstration of problem would be the statistics. How many people who DUI kill people actually get 90 days? How many get less? What is the median prison sentence? I don't really know these off hand; but it would help us to better understand the system we are arguing.

I dont need to know what median is because it is less than life. Anything less than life in prison or death is unacceptable.
 
I dont need to know what median is because it is less than life. Anything less than life in prison or death is unacceptable.

I'm not quite sure for accidental deaths that I would be looking at life in prison. And that's a general, across the board statement.
 
If a person's negligence or unsafe and illegal habits cause the death of another person they should be imprisoned under extremely harsh conditions for life. I don't understand why it is if you accidently kill someone during a crime it is murder, unless you are driving. Then it's suddenly ok to go around murdering people. Driving drunk is a crime. You kill someone while committing a crime, and this prick get 90 days in jail and has to hold up a sign? This man deserves life in prison or death. Nothing less. This victim, and their family are the ones who are being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And they didn't do anything to be punished for. Telling someone that their child, parent, sibling or whatever this victim was to other people life was irrelevant and not worth even punishing the person who was responsible for their murder is just about as cruel as it comes.

There is a huge flaw in our justice system when a man is facing life for taking a life in defense of his own, and another man gets sentenced to 90 days for murdering another person while committing other crimes.

It is a crime because it has the potential to kill/hurt someone, not because the action itself is a crime.

If you accidentally kill someone while robbing them, you were already causing another person harm by robbing them and you have demonstrated that you had at least a small intent to cause more harm to the person by threatening them with a weapon.

But neither drinking by itself, nor driving by itself, nor really even drinking and driving together is going to always cause harm to someone else. Drinking alone increases your chances of causing harm to someone else, just as driving increases your chances (compared to you walking or not driving a large mass of metal moving an average of 50 mph) of causing harm to someone else. Drinking and driving together increases your chances even more of potentially causing harm to another but it does not guarantee that you will cause harm to someone else.

What if we had similar penalties for drinking and hunting that we have for drinking and driving? Afterall, we are talking about a person who is operating a device meant to take lives and they are impairing their judgement by drinking (to a guy with blurred vision or itchy trigger finger, the other guy in the woods may look like a deer or rabbit or bear). Some states only take away a person hunting license as punishment for a hunting accident, even one that kills someone.

Most people on here has said the guy should have gotten more time in jail for the drunk driving killing, but that doesn't mean he deserves being charged with the same as someone committing a separate crime who kills someone, someone who intentionally set out to do harm.
 
Well, I'm sure this guy doesn't have a license to drive right now, but prolly will some day again. I always thought they should have plates for DUI convictions for a period of time...front and rear, something to identify them on the road. You want your license back, here's your plate.

Ok, as long as every bank robber, once released, has to wear a sign when they walk into a bank that says they have robbed a bank before.

And every shoplifter who has stolen a candy bar wear a sign when walking into Wal Mart that says they are a shoplifter.

Or every.......you get the point.
 
I happen to agree with him, particularly with the part you quoted, and not only have I never had a driver's license, I also am a very lite drinker (I get drunk possibly once a year, have never been puking-drunk, and normally drink less than 2 drinks during a week, if even that). I'm 31, btw.

And what does his point have to do with the punishment of someone that has had multiple DUI's that got away with killing another human?

Well if your only goal is to insult and dismiss, mission accomplished.

Just mentioning that what you put forth (diversion from the topic) is the same sort of stuff I have seen from alcoholics in the past.
 
I'm not quite sure for accidental deaths that I would be looking at life in prison. And that's a general, across the board statement.

Accidental deaths caused while committing a crime are treated as murder under any other circumstance. Why should murdering someone while drunk make it suddenly better?
 
Why didn't they hang a scarlet D around his neck. Is this judge a Puritan? This is not 1642.
 
Accidental deaths caused while committing a crime are treated as murder under any other circumstance. Why should murdering someone while drunk make it suddenly better?

I'm not talking about it making it better. I just don't see this as a life in prison sort of thing. Reckless endangerment and Manslaughter shouldn't really be life in prison offenses, IMO. This isn't premeditated murder and as such should not be treated as premeditated murder. Not saying that his punishment was enough. I don't actually have all the details of his court case nor do I know why he got such a seemingly lenient sentence. But it's still not premeditated murder and should not come with the punishments of premeditated murder.
 
Last edited:
It is a crime because it has the potential to kill/hurt someone, not because the action itself is a crime.

If you accidentally kill someone while robbing them, you were already causing another person harm by robbing them and you have demonstrated that you had at least a small intent to cause more harm to the person by threatening them with a weapon.

But neither drinking by itself, nor driving by itself, nor really even drinking and driving together is going to always cause harm to someone else. Drinking alone increases your chances of causing harm to someone else, just as driving increases your chances (compared to you walking or not driving a large mass of metal moving an average of 50 mph) of causing harm to someone else. Drinking and driving together increases your chances even more of potentially causing harm to another but it does not guarantee that you will cause harm to someone else.

What if we had similar penalties for drinking and hunting that we have for drinking and driving? Afterall, we are talking about a person who is operating a device meant to take lives and they are impairing their judgement by drinking (to a guy with blurred vision or itchy trigger finger, the other guy in the woods may look like a deer or rabbit or bear). Some states only take away a person hunting license as punishment for a hunting accident, even one that kills someone.

Most people on here has said the guy should have gotten more time in jail for the drunk driving killing, but that doesn't mean he deserves being charged with the same as someone committing a separate crime who kills someone, someone who intentionally set out to do harm.

Yes it does. He knowingly and actively was violating the laws of the United States and caused the death of another person. That person is not coming back in 90 days. He didn't accidently get drunk. He didnt accidently decide to drive. He intentionally murdered someone and got 90 days for it.
 
Yes it does. He knowingly and actively was violating the laws of the United States and caused the death of another person. That person is not coming back in 90 days. He didn't accidently get drunk. He didnt accidently decide to drive. He intentionally murdered someone and got 90 days for it.

If you can prove intent in a court of law, then by all means.
 
I'm not quite sure for accidental deaths that I would be looking at life in prison.

If you get into a car while tanked up on booze, and take off down the road, whatever happens, is not an 'accident'. It may well be ignorance, selfishness, or apathy, but it is not an 'accident'.

It is a crime because it has the potential to kill/hurt someone, not because the action itself is a crime.

Huh? No, it is a crime, in and of itself. Not only is it a crime, but being drunk and just getting in your car like you are going to drive, in many places, shows intent and that is a crime as well.

Ok, as long as every bank robber, once released, has to wear a sign when they walk into a bank that says they have robbed a bank before.

Works for me...
 
Taking an action that is known to cause death constitutes intent.

But drinking and driving isn't known to cause death. It's known to increase probabilities of being involved in an accident. Though I suppose you are consistent in that if someone had been changing the radio station or texting and it caused a death, you'd be looking to throw those people in jail for life too. Still, I feel that life in prison for reckless endangerment and manslaughter is a bit harsh.
 
But drinking and driving isn't known to cause death. It's known to increase probabilities of being involved in an accident. Though I suppose you are consistent in that if someone had been changing the radio station or texting and it caused a death, you'd be looking to throw those people in jail for life too. Still, I feel that life in prison for reckless endangerment and manslaughter is a bit harsh.

Texting IS illegal in most states, so yes. Changing the radio is not.

Furthermore, drunk driving is known to cause death. How is it not?
 
Texting IS illegal in most states, so yes. Changing the radio is not.

Furthermore, drunk driving is known to cause death. How is it not?

But distracted driving is as dangerous as drunk driving, and these actions are known to cause similar if not greater distraction than driving while drunk. A known activity leading to death, yes? I believe that was your standard. Driving while too tired, to changing the radio station instead of paying attention, to texting, to talking on your cell phone, etc. These are all activities KNOWN to cause distraction, and that was your qualifier, yes?

How is it not? It's not because you're confusing correlation with causation. Drunk driving doesn't cause someone to die. The reckless behavior and distracted driving which it does cause leads to one being a larger threat on the road than otherwise. It leads to an increase in the probability of accident. But if someone is drunk and gets in a car, someone else doesn't up and die, which would be causation then.
 
But drinking and driving isn't known to cause death. It's known to increase probabilities of being involved in an accident. Though I suppose you are consistent in that if someone had been changing the radio station or texting and it caused a death, you'd be looking to throw those people in jail for life too. Still, I feel that life in prison for reckless endangerment and manslaughter is a bit harsh.

When a repeat DUI offender get's on the road yet again, and takes out your family, I'm sure you will come back and tell us how hard you fought for leniency for him. Right?
 
But distracted driving is as dangerous as drunk driving, and these actions are known to cause similar if not greater distraction than driving while drunk. A known activity leading to death, yes? I believe that was your standard. Driving while too tired, to changing the radio station instead of paying attention, to texting, to talking on your cell phone, etc. These are all activities KNOWN to cause distraction, and that was your qualifier, yes?

How is it not? It's not because you're confusing correlation with causation. Drunk driving doesn't cause someone to die. The reckless behavior and distracted driving which it does cause leads to one being a larger threat on the road than otherwise. It leads to an increase in the probability of accident. But if someone is drunk and gets in a car, someone else doesn't up and die, which would be causation then.

Not entirely no. The qualifier was taking an action that you know to be illegal and has been proven to cause death and doing it with a disregard for human life. If you accidently cause a persons death doing something recklessly that is manslaughter, or some version of it. However, under any other circumstance, you cause a death while taking an action that is both known to cause death and is against the law, that is murder. Why does the fact that you are actively committing a crime while drunk make is less offensive or punishable? How does that do justice for the people you kill or their families?
 
Not entirely no. The qualifier was taking an action that you know to be illegal and has been proven to cause death and doing it with a disregard for human life. If you accidently cause a persons death doing something recklessly that is manslaughter, or some version of it. However, under any other circumstance, you cause a death while taking an action that is both known to cause death and is against the law, that is murder. Why does the fact that you are actively committing a crime while drunk make is less offensive or punishable? How does that do justice for the people you kill or their families?

I think in some cases you can certainly make 3rd degree murder claims. My point is that I do not feel this is 1st degree murder as there is no intent to cause harm. I think justice isn't justice for the feelings of family members, but rather a blind sense of crime and punishment weighed out. And in that light, I don't see how one can push 1st degree, premeditated murder for DUI.
 
Back
Top Bottom