• 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

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.

We will just have to disagree here. We are both going to continuously say the same things.
 
We will just have to disagree here. We are both going to continuously say the same things.

To some level yes. I've argued and thought about this topic quite a bit because I feel that DUI punishment is out of sync with level of crime. Certainly when property or personal damage come into play, there are more charges to be brought forth and harsher punishment. But often times I think we let ourselves emotionalize this topic to such a degree as we forget proper role of crime and punishment. Since DUI that leads to death rarely has intent to harm associated with it and lack of premeditation; I just don't see this as a "life in prison" sort of thing. And if we hold that standard to DUI, we would have to hold the same standard to all cases of reckless behavior that led to death in car accidents. And on some level I think life in prison then is greater punishment than crime committed.
 
To some level yes. I've argued and thought about this topic quite a bit because I feel that DUI punishment is out of sync with level of crime. Certainly when property or personal damage come into play, there are more charges to be brought forth and harsher punishment. But often times I think we let ourselves emotionalize this topic to such a degree as we forget proper role of crime and punishment. Since DUI that leads to death rarely has intent to harm associated with it and lack of premeditation; I just don't see this as a "life in prison" sort of thing. And if we hold that standard to DUI, we would have to hold the same standard to all cases of reckless behavior that led to death in car accidents. And on some level I think life in prison then is greater punishment than crime committed.

Not all reckless behavior is illegal. One standard for murder, whether it be murder 1 or 2, is death caused while committing a crime. As for the punishment, I believe in eye for an eye. I dont discount the deads life. Or the lives of the family members of the person killed. You say

And on some level I think life in prison then is greater punishment than crime committed.

A person recklessly takes another persons life while committing a crime. Why should they be allowed to continue their life free among society? They didnt give their victim that much
 
Not all reckless behavior is illegal. One standard for murder, whether it be murder 1 or 2, is death caused while committing a crime. As for the punishment, I believe in eye for an eye. I dont discount the deads life. Or the lives of the family members of the person killed. You say

The big standard for Murder 1 is intent and premeditation, however. And both those are absent in DUI death.

A person recklessly takes another persons life while committing a crime. Why should they be allowed to continue their life free among society? They didnt give their victim that much

There's certainly jail time and punishment involved. I'm not saying they should be let off the hook or even get only 3 months in jail. But on some level it is an accident as there is no premeditation or intent to harm. So that takes it out of Murder 1. Reckless endangerment and manslaughter are still laws on the books which have proper rules and enforcement. I'm very much in the camp of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

One interesting side note, Eye for an Eye was an original concept to limit punishment of criminals.
 
So for those who are still focused on how public-shame isn't an acceptable element in punishment just where does criticism and scrutiny within a forum thread online fall? Is that public shaming? Or is it not public shame for us to talk about him because we won't recognize him immediately on the street in relation to his crime we've heard about on TV and in the media.

When someone does something wrong is it only tolerable and 'right' to punish them in private: and not let anyone know?

article-2133012-12B1A92E000005DC-806_468x586.jpg
 
There's certainly jail time and punishment involved. I'm not saying they should be let off the hook or even get only 3 months in jail. But on some level it is an accident as there is no premeditation or intent to harm.

If I were to suddenly discharge my firearm in a public park shooting at squirrels and hit a little kid in the head what charges do you believe I should face?

I'm very much in the camp of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

Why? An eye for an eye would not leave the whole world blind. Just the criminals.
 
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?

If they are committing a crime that is actually causing harm to someone. A person who is speeding and kills someone while speeding is still charged (in most places) with the same thing or less that someone who was drinking and driving usually is, vehicular or involuntary manslaughter. A person who is jaywalking and causes an accident in which people die might be charged with reckless endangerment or possibly involuntary manslaughter, but not much more.

See where this is going. It all depends on what the crime is that is being committed as to whether a person is charged with murder during the commission of the crime. In order for there to be a murder charge, the person had to actually threaten the person or someone else in some obvious way during the commission of the crime.
 
If I were to suddenly discharge my firearm in a public park shooting at squirrels and hit a little kid in the head what charges do you believe I should face?

Reckless Endangerment, Reckless Discharge of Weapon (I don't know the actual name), Manslaughter.

Why? An eye for an eye would not leave the whole world blind. Just the criminals.

Because at some point it starts to involve other people and if we aggressively pursue these methods, there are going to be a non-zero number of innocent people caught in the system. It's one of my arguments against the death penalty. Proper enforcement and punishment is where we should shoot for, revenge type punishment is something we should get away from, I think anyway.
 
When someone does something wrong is it only tolerable and 'right' to punish them in private: and not let anyone know?

We don't do that. Court records are open to the public. In fact, it must be so. Police must document arrests and courts must document court cases and punishments and this must be open to the People. Else people start to "disappear" and you never know why.
 
How is this NOT considered "cruel and unusual"???

I think it's cruel and unusual to be struck dead by a drunk driver at a young age.
 
So for those who are still focused on how public-shame isn't an acceptable element in punishment just where does criticism and scrutiny within a forum thread online fall? Is that public shaming? Or is it not public shame for us to talk about him because we won't recognize him immediately on the street in relation to his crime we've heard about on TV and in the media.

When someone does something wrong is it only tolerable and 'right' to punish them in private: and not let anyone know?

article-2133012-12B1A92E000005DC-806_468x586.jpg

I don't think any are saying he shouldn't get punished or even talked about, shunned, social punishment, etc..

I know personally I see this sign wearing punishment in this particular case to just be a ridiculous and pointless punishment that could actually work against any rehab this guy might be in. He should have had to be in jail longer. Since the parole board or state officials decided the parole, then the judge could have given him many, many community service hours in place of the sign wearing. Making him wear a sign to humiliate him has little potential to deter future, similar behavior, by him or others, nor does it really benefit the community as a whole.
 
IMO, he got off light. 90 days in jail and a few Saturdays of public humiliation are nothing in comparison to willfully and knowingly making himself unsafe and causing the death of another.

Wtf. He only got 90 days in jail?
 
Reckless Endangerment, Reckless Discharge of Weapon (I don't know the actual name), Manslaughter.

What differentiates murder 2 and manslaughter to you?

Because at some point it starts to involve other people and if we aggressively pursue these methods, there are going to be a non-zero number of innocent people caught in the system. It's one of my arguments against the death penalty. Proper enforcement and punishment is where we should shoot for, revenge type punishment is something we should get away from, I think anyway.

If a person maliciously murders somoene, in cold blood, not accidentally, not self defense, why should they be allowed to continue to live their life?
 
Wtf. He only got 90 days in jail?

His sentence was a couple of years, but he got out on what is called "shock parole", which means someone in the system decided to let him out on parole after only 90 days without ever telling him he was going to be released until he was. From the article, it seems like this decision involves a judge to decide what the person has to do while on their parole period.
 
What differentiates murder 2 and manslaughter to you?

IMO, intent to harm

If a person maliciously murders somoene, in cold blood, not accidentally, not self defense, why should they be allowed to continue to live their life?

Enacting the death penalty has several negative consequences including the consumption of innocent life in the process.
 
So let's get this straight.

A young man had his life snuffed out by a drunk driver. The driver now spends about 90 days in jail, and we're complaining the killer has to wear a sign around his neck?

Screw that. Give this pos 10 years in jail, since a sign isn't good enough.
 
IMO, intent to harm

Knowingly taking part in an act that you know can result in harming and killing others constitutes harm. You may not think that First Degree murder is appliciable (which is what I'd like to see) but then why not Second Degree? If you think that intent to do harm and causing a death is what is needed?

Enacting the death penalty has several negative consequences including the consumption of innocent life in the process.

This doenst quite answer my question. If you murder someone, in first degree, why should you be allowed to have a life? You talk about the consumption of innocent life, then why do you justify innocent lives being taken in other circumstances?
 
So let's get this straight.

A young man had his life snuffed out by a drunk driver. The driver now spends about 90 days in jail, and we're complaining the killer has to wear a sign around his neck?

Screw that. Give this pos 10 years in jail, since a sign isn't good enough.

Why not complain the guy wasn't in jail long enough? (which a lot of us complaining about the sign were also doing) Or complain that since some bureaucrat in the area's government decided to let this guy go after only 90 days (most likely due to overcrowding), we should at least try to get some useful community benefit from this guy. Not just give him a ridiculous punishment that doesn't really help anyone and, in this specific situation, likely won't even help to deter future similar crimes of this nature.

The judge most likely had it in his ability to give this guy hundreds of hours of community service (at least as many hours as he is standing on the corner) which would have provided much more benefit to the community.
 
Knowingly taking part in an act that you know can result in harming and killing others constitutes harm. You may not think that First Degree murder is appliciable (which is what I'd like to see) but then why not Second Degree? If you think that intent to do harm and causing a death is what is needed?

There's certainly better argument for 2nd degree murder. In the end as this is my opinion and not legal fact, I still think that 2nd degree carries along with it some intent to actually harm an individual. Lots of things we do can, if taken to extremes or under a certain set of circumstances, result in harming others. But I take 1st and 2nd degree murder to mean there was intent to harm and kill, the difference between the two being premeditation. So I see 2nd degree murder as on par with 1st, just lacking the planning. If I look at the various definitions and intent of murder designation, I would say that this fits voluntary manslaughter to a T as it is murder that results from depraved heart or extreme recklessness.

This doenst quite answer my question. If you murder someone, in first degree, why should you be allowed to have a life? You talk about the consumption of innocent life, then why do you justify innocent lives being taken in other circumstances?

I think it quite well addresses the question. Perchance you do not “deserve” to have a life. Though I am not god, so I don’t know how one can make such a judgment call. The system itself consumes innocent life and that’s reason to not have it at all. Your last question is hyperbole as I am not justifying the deaths of innocent people. I am not saying people should go unpunished for murder or manslaughter. I am merely saying that the punishments must be properly constrained to represent the crime.
 
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.

No, distracted driving is different than impaired driving. When they make radio's, dvd players..etc. illegal we'll abide. I think cell phones should be illegal unless paired with your radio or a bluetooth and texting should be illegal in all states.
 
No, distracted driving is different than impaired driving. When they make radio's, dvd players..etc. illegal we'll abide. I think cell phones should be illegal unless paired with your radio or a bluetooth and texting should be illegal in all states.

How is it different if it produces functionally similar dynamics?
 
Why not complain the guy wasn't in jail long enough? (which a lot of us complaining about the sign were also doing) Or complain that since some bureaucrat in the area's government decided to let this guy go after only 90 days (most likely due to overcrowding), we should at least try to get some useful community benefit from this guy. Not just give him a ridiculous punishment that doesn't really help anyone and, in this specific situation, likely won't even help to deter future similar crimes of this nature.

The judge most likely had it in his ability to give this guy hundreds of hours of community service (at least as many hours as he is standing on the corner) which would have provided much more benefit to the community.

I can understand that, but I see it a little differently. The sign itself I have no problem with him wearing. He killed a young man and I see not problem wearing a sign; maybe that in itself will sober him up to the realities of life. Did you know that people were treated much worse hundreds of years ago for stealing and being a general nuisance? If I could have things my way, a simple sign would be the least of his worries. I'll agree should have recieved hundreds of hours of community service, and that someone higher up made a mistake. As far as the killer's sensibilities, well, imagine the sensibilities of the mother and father whose young son is now dead. Who's going to care about their feelings? I will, by not caring about the feelings of the killer.
 
I can understand that, but I see it a little differently. The sign itself I have no problem with him wearing. He killed a young man and I see not problem wearing a sign; maybe that in itself will sober him up to the realities of life. Did you know that people were treated much worse hundreds of years ago for stealing and being a general nuisance? If I could have things my way, a simple sign would be the least of his worries. I'll agree should have recieved hundreds of hours of community service, and that someone higher up made a mistake. As far as the killer's sensibilities, well, imagine the sensibilities of the mother and father whose young son is now dead. Who's going to care about their feelings? I will, by not caring about the feelings of the killer.

It's not the "feelings" of the person that concern me, but his reaction to them. It seems, from the info we have, that this guy is an alcoholic and drinks more when stressed out and it is available to him. Causing him more stress that does not benefit the community nor prevents him from being able to consume alcohol has the potential for causing the community more harm.

We should be looking to prevent this guy from doing the activity that was the biggest contribution to the other guy's death. Not giving out some random punishment that may make the guy's mother feel good and give stupid people a reason to yell at the guy.

I don't know how remorseful the guy is for what he did. Most people would feel devastated that they are responsible for someone else's death because of their stupid choices.

But, I do look at things with prevention as well as reform and punishment in mind. I only give up on a person when reform isn't possible or isn't deserved. He took a life, but I doubt many people would really be going off on this guy the same way if he had been sober and ran that same light and killed that same guy. It's very likely the guy wouldn't even be facing the same punishment (although, either way he would deserve the years in prison). I have been in the car more than a few times when someone was distracted enough that they ran a fully red light, completely sober. At least one I remember the driver wasn't in conversation or doing anything, I guess he really just wasn't paying attention to the light. Lucky for us, in all cases, there was no traffic coming, but it was pure luck in every case.
 
Enacting the death penalty has several negative consequences including the consumption of innocent life in the process.

The innocent life lost was the one the drunk killed. The drunk is nowhere near innocent.
 
The innocent life lost was the one the drunk killed. The drunk is nowhere near innocent.

Well the power of hindsight makes everything clearer. I was talking, of course, about the generalized use of the death penalty and the negative effects using such a system can have.
 
Back
Top Bottom