Drunk Driver Killers
57CBS 60 Minutes Video
60 Minutes- DWI Deaths
60 Minutes did a wonderful piece on Sunday night about DWI deaths and whether the criminals should be charged with murder instead of involuntary manslaughter. If you missed it, take some time to click on the CBS website because it's an interesting piece.
Involuntary manslaughter charge would only have a criminal serve probation to 15 years. Murder charges would give the criminal 15 years to life. So, Is it fair for a criminal to be charged with that big of a penalty for something they didn't mean to do? I would say, unless you're a complete idiot, we all know that driving drunk is bad... so even though you might drive drunk with no intention of killing someone, the fact is we know the possibility is there.
I hear more and more stories of people with 5, 10, 13 DWI's getting off easy every time until they finally kill someone... it's ridiculous. The effort to deteriorate drunk driving is obviously not working, so why not make it a stiffer sentence? Some might ask... with murder as a penalty, would a drunk driver who doesn't kill anyone but gets caught be charged with attempted murder? Well, wouldn't that deteriorate a lot of drunk drivers?
Should we really feel sorry for the drunk driver or should we shift our sympathy toward the more logical... the victims.
Drunk Driver Penalty
Should a drunk driver be charged with murder?
See results without voting
|
Us Weekly (12-issues)
Price: $15.48
List Price: $47.88 |
|
TIME (1-year)
Price: $20.00
List Price: $277.20 |
|
Vanity Fair (1-year)
Price: $15.00
List Price: $59.40 |
|
The New Yorker (1-year)
Price: $39.95
List Price: $234.53 |
|
Fast Company (1-year)
Price: $9.97
List Price: $49.90 |
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Good hub on a thorny issue that isn't as black and white as it seems. I think you have to look at how the statutes are written to determine if murder vs. manslaughter fits. I believe (but am not entirely sure on the language) that murder requires forethought and intent. I can't imagine anyone knowingly getting in their car -- even after too many drinks -- with the INTENT of getting into an accident that kills someone. Still, it's hard not to sympathize with the families of victims who have lost loved ones to preventable DUI accidents.
The current efforts by MADD to get ignition switches installed in the cars of all repeat DUI offenders is a great idea. It does for the drunk driver what he/she cannot do for him/herself. It makes the decision NOT to drive if the BAC is too high. BTW, here in California, they are implementing new laws that crack down on repeat DUI offenders, too. So the days of 2, 4, 10 DUIs are hopefully soon over. I hear all the time people who say, "Yeah, I had 3 DUIs." It makes me wonder -- didn't anyone suggest to you that you might have a problem with alcohol more than a problem with driving???
In my opinion, the law enforcement community is misplacing its emphasis with DUI offenders. Threats do not work against someone who has a mental and physical illness that compels them to drink no matter what. Punishment doesn't work any better. If it makes society feel better to lock drunks up in jail for 30 days, go for it. But if you really want to keep that drunk from driving drunk again, treatment is much more effective. Anyone and everyone who gets convicted of DUI should have as mandatory part of their sentence go attend AA meetings, if not formal rehab. (Too bad nobody asked me, huh!???). MM
yeah, if someone doesn't learn after the first time there is a deeper issue going on.
There's a shitload of denial that accompanies alcoholism. The first DUI barely scratches the surface. The person's still in that 'the cops were out to get me' or "it was bad luck -- I didn't eat dinner and my drinks hit me hard" mode of rationalization. Seriously, I've even heard people complain, "If people weren't supposed to drink and drive, why do bars have parking lots?" (I had never thought of that before -- it's a good point:-).
The crazy thing about drunk driving is that people who would never in a million years think of doing something blatantly illegal like robbing a 7-11 or putting a gun to someone's head literally do not think about getting behind the wheel while impaired as a "crime" -- because their judgment is just that, impaired! That's why I like the idea of the ignition kill switch so much. In fact, why wait for the first DUI (which could easily be, like your friend's a fatal mistake). Why not put them in ALL vehicles??? Probably some auto industry lobby or gas industry lobby against it. It makes waaayyyy too much sense!
Its like the idea of having a sports car capable of going two hundred miles an hour when maybe at tops you're ever allowed is 85. Of course they are going to push it to the limits. Maybe they can develop new technology that scans the skin cells for alcohol content, I know when I drink, its just coming off me in the gallons. I think if I were put in charge of the world, I would go beyond the getting caught drinking and driving as I would make any offender of alcohol related crimes be put through the kill switch rule and make them apply for a "drinking card" of some type, if you can't handle your booze, don't drink it.
Hi guys, In Australia we have the ignition kill switch as an option to courts in some states, but the problem now seems to be switching to the young P plate driver who thinks he is immortal. We also have a culpable driving charge which I think carries more weight than a manslaughter charge!
Alcohol fuelled bad behaviour seems to be a problem all over the world.
Hmm. I think we are edging into dangerous territory here, GT. So how are we defining "alcohol related crimes" exactly? Are we talking barfights? Asshole fans at sporting events being lewd and obnoxious? Peeing in public? There's a whole range. Oh yes -- what about alcohol fueld domestic violence? I think your concept is quite interesting. But who would administer the "drinking cards" exactly? The police? The DMV? The courts? Or maybe you:-)? LOL. Of course, no sooner would these cards go into effect then someone would find a way to make $ on the black market. People do NOT want to be told they can't drink like their friends!!!
Ag -- good to see you, mate! Absolutely, alcohol fueled bad behavior is not just in the US. Aussies and Kiwis like their cocktails as much as anyone, eh?
MM, I have given this some thought since I come from a family of alkies, I would say a court order posted and operated through your driver's license or state ID, kind of like an ATM swipe. Require the card to also have a pin number, and then someone would know if they sold their card, they could get in some serious trouble or the person who frauded the system could have their purchases tracked and be held accountable.
Risking to being bushed again as in online sexual predators case, I still say that DUI gets unproportional attention. Sure, DUI videos are terrifying, but you can find a plenty of other anecdotal cases when perfectly sober drivers kill people.
And to tell you the truth, those will be much higher in numbers. Should we call any traffic kill murder?
Nowadays lack of skill and lack of attention claim way more lives than drinking.
Mentioned MADD mothers did a good job back in 80s, when people really did not realize what they were doing and simple increase of awareness seriously helped the case. Their today's efforts go more in the direction of keeping themselves afloat and restricting everybody's freedoms.
And governments are happy to push the issue along the same lines, cause, well, this is what government core interest is - the less freedom you have, the easier you are controlled.
IMHO everybody supporting such propaganda campaign again DUI does this against his/her own interests...
Misha I don't know if you misunderstood my comment or just did not bother to read it , but in Australia we have decided that if you kill someone with a motor car and it was not premeditated it is not murder, it can be put in front of a court as culpable homicide. It does not have to be alcolol related, it can be for any reason!
and in my opinion, there is not one answer, but if only 1 life is saved by strict DUI laws then well and good!
Misha, I thought about making exactly the same point you did. If we criminalize every traffic related death to be murder, a lot more people would be classified as murderers. It's definitely an imperfect system. I agree government's motives are less pure than they would care to admit. DUI is a cottage industry -- they charge a small fortune to get through the court, DMV, "drunk driving school" and all the rest. All totally ineffective.
I do disagree that MADD is obsolete. There is always a new generation of drivers who need to be taught responsibility. If we do want to retain our freedoms, people must learn to take responsibility for our own actions. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Hi MM how are you doin?
If only ALL drivers on the road obeyed ALL the rules of the road that are in the book Today. Just imagine how many "accidents" would be prevented!
It would reduce our road toll to the deaths and injuries to what are real "accidents".
Ag, I was not really replying to your comment, rather to the whole thread :)
Replying to your last one, I disagree to your last statement. Everything has a price tag, whether we admit it or not, and we are paying for reduction of deaths related to DUI (already very small percentage, and can't be realistically noticably improved) with our freedom.
MM, yes and no I would say :) What MADD is doing now is pushing for total prohibition (even not driving related) and roadblocks that cut into our freedom.
Here is an interesting reading from independent researchers, if somebody is interested :)
PS Ag, trust me, if ALL drivers obeyed ALL traffic laws, it would be a nightmare :)
Misha a nightmare for who. Only the people who did not want to obey!
When I drive my main aim is to get to where I'm going safely. Not as fast as I can.
A large percentage of "accidents" I have seen can be attributed directly in one way or another to "someone" not adhering to the rules of the road.
I read your article on NMA and they seem to think that 10% of road fatalalies are alcohol related. (does not mention Injuries and Loss) . They also say that this is not acceptable. So it brings us back to square one. What we are doing is not working, we have to try something new.
Yes Ag,
I am definitely not saying that there is no such problem. What I am saying is the magnitude of this problem is overexaggerated, and resources that are allocated to hunt down drivers that drink a glass of wine could actually save lives if they were allocated to training teens how to handle high-speed skid for example. :)
Now, going back to your aim. Give it a thought. Safety is not the goal, safety is a limitation. Your (and mine, and everybody else's) goal is to get from point A to point B as fast as we can - maintaining a reasonable safety. Otherwise you would just use your feet and don't get close to the road, and you achieve the maximum possible safety :)
It is still not absolute, as you can be hit by meteorite, or a mad hunter can mistake you for a deer ;)
Traffic laws (and probably all other laws for that matter) contradict one another, and are written not always with safety as a main goal. Often state revenue overweights. Let me just state it here, and if you disagree, just be it, I am not going to argue over the thing that seems so obvious to me :)
Misha there we must agree to disagree.I thought we were having a reasoned debate here?
My first aim on a journey is to get there safely. If you regard safety as a limitation ,you may be part of the problem and not the solution.
I consider someone a good driver by the way he/she conducts themselves on the road, not by how fast they drive to a given point. We must all realise that the public road is not a race track. And the average driver has neither the driving skills or the temperament to act like a racing driver.
There's a difference between a drunk driver and a regular driver though. I don't think it's fair to compare both. We wouldn't have so many people drinking and driving knowing there could be a murder charge. And, for peope that have a drinking problem, maybe they should be locked up.
deterrent or deter non "deteriorate".
goldentoad says:
12 months ago
I didn't know people can have that many DUI's. I think the murder charge is questionable only because I have friends/family die from drunk drivers and friends who have killed others as drunk drivers. There was one friend who never did anything wrong and barely started drinking at 22, a year later he killed someone. Spent a couple of years in prison but by no means was he ever a wreckless person and truly understood the magnitude of his one slip up.