Question about drunk/sober driving

He's skating because he's hired an expensive lawyer.

Re: Question about drunk/sober driving


He's being charged with whatever he's being charged with because the prosecution is most likely to be able to prove it. As for relative penalties, that's a problem to take up with the legislature.

I only held up the state representative as an example because this is current and because we all know about it. The crux of my complaint is, drunks are being unfairly singled out for harsher punishment. "By getting behind the wheel the drunk knowingly committed a criminal act that led to death." True. But, by driving like a lunatic for years the sober individual also knowingly commits a criminal act that leads to death. I fail to see why one is worse than the other.

I would agree with our resident rapper here, PDiddie, that havin' a good law dog has a lot to do with it.

I was prepared to wonder what you were on about, EB, but as i read and consider what you've written, i have to say that i think you point is well taken.

It's almost as if we would charge a crime at a higher level because the driver is drunk; if he's sober, charge that at a higher level too.

My logic is:

The chronic, scofflaw speeder is criminally reckless.

The drunken, chronic scofflaw speeder chooses to be criminally reckless in spades. He chooses to drive--and furthermore to drive at reckless speeds--when he's mentally and physically impaired.

In a recent local case a 20-year-old Free Spirit was speeding along through town and crashed into a series of cars who had stopped for a red light. Two dead, six injured.

A blood test revealed, pot, crack, bennies and six different black market prescription painkillers.

His public defender--still a little wet behind the ears--argued that because of chemical impairment his client could not be held responsible.

Speeding is bad. Speeding while impaired is worse.

With me it has to with choices before the act of driving. I fail to see one death as less relevant than the next.

same issue applies to killing a cop.

What makes you think he's being hit with lesser charges edgar?

In SD a 1st offense for DUI/Drunk Driving is a misdemeaner charge. A 2nd or subsequent offense is a felony. Any prosecution for a death resulting from a DUI is handled as 2nd degree manslaughter.

This Rep. from SD is currently pending several charges and the main charge is 2nd degree Manslaughter - the exact same charge as it would be for drunk driving resulting in a death.

I read on a news release that he was being given a lesser charge because there was no established drunkenness. I took the story at face value, since I don't live near there. Anyway, the thrust of my complaint is in general, not just specific to that person.

I think your point is well taken EB, It reminds me of a similar case I once tried to make to friends.

A man finds out you are seeing his wife when he is at work, so he takes his .38 and shoots you in the chest, by a million to one chance the bullet passes through you without hitting anything that could cause a fatality.

If you had died the sentence would have been life in jail, but you were only off work for a month so he is charged with attempted murder which carries a much less sentence.

My question has always been this: why should he be rewarded with a much less sentence? His intention was clear, his action was clear, why should he benefit from your unbelievable good luck?

Good point kev, but sometimes people do hold back or somthin'

What about the guy who shoots you then decides he was nuts to do so and takes you to the hospital and saves your life?

Law can rarely codify all that can possibly happen. I guess there will always be loopholes.

In your instance Craven I would agree, taking you to hospital showed regret for what he had done, it would be fair to argue mitigating circumstances,

However in my scenario, I forgot to mention the sob left me in a ditch.

EB, there was a report on NPR this morning that he will be hit with felony manslaughter . . . and he apparently has a long record of reckless driving. He is apparently being extremely contrite, and the reporter (the Washington Post bureau chief for that region) stated that the people of South Dakota are very sceptical about how he will be treated by the law--which has made it almost impossible for the prosecutors or any judge to let him off easy . . .

I was glad to hear it.

kev,

I made the example a more obvious one. But here's a more subtle one:

A gang of skinheads is beating a gay/black what have you.

Now while they are kicking the person (multiple people kicking someone on the ground is considered attempted murder in some places) a few of them start to regret it and their kicks start becoming perfunctory.

The person doesn't die. And the reason is because they changed their intent even though they kept up the attempt.

In this situation their intent might have saved the life. Even if the attempt continued.

Thing is, law can't deal with intent very well. See manslaughter. It only exists because we want to prevent that result. Not because we think all accidents should be punished.

Anywho, on a philosophical level I'd agree with you, but law can't quantify the many things that humans use to determine justice.

There is a certain aspect of law however, which, apart from the revenge and victim vindication factor of which Neitzsche takes note, is predicated upon an assumption of deterence value. The man who shoots you, but then takes you to the hospital, can offer his subsequent action in mitigation during the sentencing phase of a trial. However, society expects that the law be harsh for harsh actions, and in the interest of equity, the law cannot be so specific as to attempt to tailor itself to all contingencies, because of the absolute nature of society's will to prevent certain actions, and a principle of equal justice for all.

setanta
He should be made an example of, because it is apparent he was taking advantage of his political power to set himself above the law.

Hi setanta,

The perp shoots our victim, then does everthing in his power to help the man to survive, so at the sentencing phase he can use this second act to ask for a more lenient sentence. I like it up to now.

The problem with the mitigating factor is there are, for whatever reason, judges who make the most incomprehensible decisions.

In the example below the mitigating factor is obvious, the charge defies logic, the sentence is truly incomprehensible.

In my view, in this case the police, the crown prosecution service, the jury, and the judge all acted in away that beggars belief.

Before reading this remember that in English law a person is allowed to use REASONABLE force to defend themselves if they are being assaulted.

I edited this because when I read it back it made me sound like I think I'm the smartest guy in the world and I don't.



http://www.portia.org/chapter03/frame3.html

Kev
I see the point you made about the shooting.