If you ask people whether a drink driver who killed someone should be charged with homicide, I think a lot of them would say yes. However, why is it that the DDer who hits a person, should get a harsher sentence than the DDer, who got twice as drunk, and simply got luckier by only hitting a tree?
To me, punishing someone on consequence as opposed to negligence or intent seems to lead to a lot of inconsistencies. For example, someone who kills out of self defence, or even when they're not negligent (eg. a child running out in front of a safe driver) would get the same sentence as someone who killed in cold blood.
To me, punishing someone on consequence as opposed to negligence or intent seems to lead to a lot of inconsistencies. For example, someone who kills out of self defence, or even when they're not negligent (eg. a child running out in front of a safe driver) would get the same sentence as someone who killed in cold blood.