• 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 Drivers

How should drunks be charged?


  • Total voters
    39
How should they be charged?
Driving under the influence of alcohol. People who cause someone else's death are charged with the offences you list.

I'm leaning towards first degree murder. They are clearly scum of the earth who are unworthy of life.
I've zero respect for people who choose to drive drunk but that doesn't mean the rule of law shouldn't apply. A criminal charge should be based on a considered review of all the circumstances of an incident, not an emotional reaction to a single aspect of it.
 
The way I understand it, both first and second degree murder involve some kind of premeditation or malice. I don't think either applies to a drunk driver. Voluntary manslaughter involves some manner of provocation, which doesn't apply either. I would say the only logical charge is involuntary manslaughter.
 
Driving under the influence of alcohol. People who cause someone else's death are charged with the offences you list.

I've zero respect for people who choose to drive drunk but that doesn't mean the rule of law shouldn't apply. A criminal charge should be based on a considered review of all the circumstances of an incident, not an emotional reaction to a single aspect of it.

Laws should be adjusted to reflect the high rate of recidivism, as well as the utter lack of regard these people have for the lives of others. Being drunk is not an excuse for killing someone.
 
The way I understand it, both first and second degree murder involve some kind of premeditation or malice. I don't think either applies to a drunk driver. Voluntary manslaughter involves some manner of provocation, which doesn't apply either. I would say the only logical charge is involuntary manslaughter.

mmm- going to a bar/ party whatever, and getting smashed without regard for the safety of others equals premeditation in my view. Not that it matters. Plenty of people agree with you. If it happens to my family, I'll have to take justice into my own hands, I suppose. I'll be damned if I let some drunk pos kill my family and get a slap on the wrist.
 
mmm- going to a bar/ party whatever, and getting smashed without regard for the safety of others equals premeditation in my view. Not that it matters. Plenty of people agree with you. If it happens to my family, I'll have to take justice into my own hands, I suppose. I'll be damned if I let some drunk pos kill my family and get a slap on the wrist.

People don't generally decide to get drunk with the specific intent of killing someone once they get behind the wheel of a car. So no, it's not a premeditated killing. It's reckless and very dangerous behavior, but it doesn't fit in the legal definition of "premeditated murder".
 
People don't generally decide to get drunk with the specific intent of killing someone once they get behind the wheel of a car. So no, it's not a premeditated killing. It's reckless and very dangerous behavior, but it doesn't fit in the legal definition of "premeditated murder".

Except the recidivism part.
 
Personally i'm tired of the attitude i see sometimes that Drunk Drivers are not as bad as "other" murderers.

Too many people who drive drunk do it over and over and over again. They make the choice to drink. They make the choice to drive. They know what the consequences could be and still they do it.
 
Last edited:
How should they be charged?

I'm leaning towards first degree murder. They are clearly scum of the earth who are unworthy of life.


This is by way of example and does not reflect all jurisdictions in the US:


RCW 46.61.520
Vehicular homicide — Penalty.


(1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

(a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

(b) In a reckless manner; or

(c) With disregard for the safety of others.

(2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5


RCW 9A.20.021
Maximum sentences for crimes committed July 1, 1984, and after.


(1) Felony. Unless a different maximum sentence for a classified felony is specifically established by a statute of this state, no person convicted of a classified felony shall be punished by confinement or fine exceeding the following:

(a) For a class A felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of life imprisonment, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of fifty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;

RCW 46.61.520: Vehicular homicide

RCW 9A.20.021: Maximum sentences for crimes committed July 1, 1984, and after.
 
Except the recidivism part.


Here is a situation regarding your statement.

"A drunk driver who pleaded guilty to running down and killing a tow truck driver and then speeding away was sentenced Wednesday to the maximum 48 years in prison.

Zachariah Dobler, 28, pleaded guilty in March to vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of the accident, both felonies, as part of a plea agreement.

Even though Dobler admits to being remorseful, friends and family of the victim say Dobler has had one too many chances.

Dobler was out on bond on the night that Alan Eugene Dilley was killed and has had three previous offenses for driving under the influence. On that night, Dobler stole his parent's brand new Nissan Rogue because his own car had an interlock device, preventing him from driving while intoxicated.

"I've come to the conclusion that he's had too many second chances. I've come to the conclusion that he's had too many slaps on the hand. It's time to send a clear message, not only to this defendant but to our community that this type of thing has got to stop and that the penalties are going to be severe if you don't, if you repeat, if you repeatedly drink and drive," said Dilley's girlfriend, Claire Howard-Stephens, during the sentencing hearing ."

Drunk Driver Sentenced For Tow Truck Driver's Death
 
Sitting in traffic court in my local municipality, I have noticed that the judges are way too lenient on the drunken driver. All a driver has to do is bring in their teenaged or pre-school child, claim they are the sole support for said child, say they have to buy groceries and go to work, and the judge automatically allows them to drive only to work and the grocery store, fines them $500 or so, and away they go. If you think that driver is only going to limit his driving to those places mentioned, then don't be surprised when he is caught driving drunk once more. If he or she is caught again, they cry once more and bring in their children to these sympathetic, bleeding heart judges. Perhaps the judges who were so lenient on these drunks should be brought up on charges as well.
 
Well, if a prosecutor can successfully argue premeditation, more power to them. :shrug:

I cannot imagine that a "guilty mind" or intent could ever be established as intoxication is a bar against such a determination. However, reckless or disregard for human life could be attached.

"§ 14.03 Model Penal Code

[A] General Rule – Model Penal Code § 2.08(4)–(5) distinguishes three types of intoxication:

1.) voluntary ("self-induced") intoxication;
2.) pathological intoxication; and
3.) involuntary ("non-self-induced") intoxication.


Exculpation Based on Intoxication


[1] Mens Rea Defense – Any form of intoxication is a defense to criminal conduct if it negates an element of the offense. [MPC § 2.08(1)] Since the Code does not distinguish between "general intent" and "specific intent" offenses, the mens rea defense is broadly applied, with one exception. In the case of crimes defined in terms of recklessness, a person acts "recklessly" as to an element of the crime if, as the result of the self-induced intoxication, he was not conscious of a risk of which he would have been aware had he not been intoxicated. [MPC § 2.08(2)]"

Criminal Law Capsule
 
How should they be charged?

I'm leaning towards first degree murder. They are clearly scum of the earth who are unworthy of life.

It's clearly manslaughter. Maybe murder 3, but I see it well more accurate as manslaughter.
 
I can't really respond to this poll because just being drunk is not grounds for murder. I think the author of this poll inadvertently left out, "drunks who kill people while driving ."
 
Laws should be adjusted to reflect the high rate of recidivism, as well as the utter lack of regard these people have for the lives of others. Being drunk is not an excuse for killing someone.

Which is why there are still laws such as manslaughter which makes it illegal. Duh!
 
mmm- going to a bar/ party whatever, and getting smashed without regard for the safety of others equals premeditation in my view. Not that it matters. Plenty of people agree with you. If it happens to my family, I'll have to take justice into my own hands, I suppose. I'll be damned if I let some drunk pos kill my family and get a slap on the wrist.

Drunk driving punishments far exceed the crime currently. And part of the reason is exactly what is in your post here. It is emotionalized drivel and we're to make law and punishment off of this? No, we're finding ourselves in worse and worse situations because we are allowing emotions to dominate policy making.

If anything we need to reverse directions on DUI laws and punishments such that we create a fair system of appropriate punishments.
 
Sitting in traffic court in my local municipality, I have noticed that the judges are way too lenient on the drunken driver. All a driver has to do is bring in their teenaged or pre-school child, claim they are the sole support for said child, say they have to buy groceries and go to work, and the judge automatically allows them to drive only to work and the grocery store, fines them $500 or so, and away they go. If you think that driver is only going to limit his driving to those places mentioned, then don't be surprised when he is caught driving drunk once more. If he or she is caught again, they cry once more and bring in their children to these sympathetic, bleeding heart judges. Perhaps the judges who were so lenient on these drunks should be brought up on charges as well.

Oh yeah, sorry. I mean we sure would be better off if we just totally destroyed them instead. I mean, they're drunk drivers, it's not like they're human!
 
Drunk driving punishments far exceed the crime currently. And part of the reason is exactly what is in your post here. It is emotionalized drivel and we're to make law and punishment off of this? No, we're finding ourselves in worse and worse situations because we are allowing emotions to dominate policy making.

If anything we need to reverse directions on DUI laws and punishments such that we create a fair system of appropriate punishments.

I often agree with you Ikari but i can't here.

The punishment did not exceed the crime here.

Idiot - blew 0.173 and was unlicenced/suspended for 2 prior drink driving convicitions and driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle and crossed onto the wrong side of the road killing one person and maiming another for life.

His Penalty - jailed for three years/seven months and a non-parole period of two years/eight months.
The victims penalty - dead.
The passengers penalty - Health complications for life.
The family of the victims penalty - The rest of their life without their son/brother.
 
Is this for causing death, or just for weaving?
 
Laws should be adjusted to reflect the high rate of recidivism, as well as the utter lack of regard these people have for the lives of others. Being drunk is not an excuse for killing someone.

And what if it is not recitivism? What if someone had never been arrested before and lived a good, law abiding life otherwise. Drunk driving seems to be the catch all offense that many try to display their moral superiority about. "We don't just punish them, we bury them". Making a general statement that all people who are involved in drunk driving are scum is ridiculous and irresponsible. Considering all of the horrible premeditated crimes that happen this is amazingly harsh and unfair. Life is not foolproof. Most everyone makes wrong decisions and judgements. I am all for being harsh for repeat offenders who have demonstrated that they disregard the danger to other people on the road. That is more like premeditation. But your poll cannot be answered as written.
 
Ikari said:
Drunk driving punishments far exceed the crime currently. And part of the reason is exactly what is in your post here. It is emotionalized drivel and we're to make law and punishment off of this? No, we're finding ourselves in worse and worse situations because we are allowing emotions to dominate policy making.

If anything we need to reverse directions on DUI laws and punishments such that we create a fair system of appropriate punishments.

Really?

If anything, I think drunk driving laws need much more harsh punishments. Far too many times I've seen people get picked up for a DUI and get off with a fine and a night in the drunk tank.

Now, murder is too much because drunk driving lacks mens rea. I don't think anyone knocks back a six-pack and gets in the car with the intention of killing someone. However, as Arcana mentioned, involuntary manslaughter sounds about right.

I'd like to know what you view as "appropriate punishment" for intentionally incapacitating yourself and gaining control of a 2,000 pound weapon capable of endangering countless lives. You may as well have an uzi on a crowded subway.
 
Laws should be adjusted to reflect the high rate of recidivism, as well as the utter lack of regard these people have for the lives of others.
If you're making that as a general legal argument that's just fine. If you're making it about drink driving alone, it isn't.

There are plenty of crimes of negligence or arrogance which carry the similar levels of risks to other people and similar rates of recidivism. Some of them aren't even illegal. There is no rational reason to focus exclusively on a single offence unless you can establish that offence is being treated uniquely by existing laws.
 
I often agree with you Ikari but i can't here.

The punishment did not exceed the crime here.

Idiot - blew 0.173 and was unlicenced/suspended for 2 prior drink driving convicitions and driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle and crossed onto the wrong side of the road killing one person and maiming another for life.

His Penalty - jailed for three years/seven months and a non-parole period of two years/eight months.
The victims penalty - dead.
The passengers penalty - Health complications for life.
The family of the victims penalty - The rest of their life without their son/brother.

But these are accidents, and these particular cases are not the norm. In that, punishments are generally very severe and held. Now I don’t know about his prior DUIs. I in general do not support jail time for DUI alone. 3 years in prison is a long time; but this isn’t murder either. There was no intent to kill, it was an accident.
 
Back
Top Bottom