Drink Driving Dilemma

[Dre89]

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.

 

[_Keno_]

The answer is in your question. Our society/government cares less about intentions are more about what resulted from actions. This is most noticeable because attempted murder carries drastically less of a penalty than murder.

But I agree, knowing something is potentially a danger to others and doing it anyways should be punished as if you had actually harmed someone.

And surely if the government decided to charge everyone who DD'd with attempted Manslaughter, and therefore Manslaughter (remember, murder and attempted would carry the same consequences), people would be less inclined to drink and drive.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Actuarial science is usually used to determine the amount of cost that should be charged for the death of a human being. This cost is usually the remaining years that the person was likely to live and their current income throughout the span of that time period. A tree has relatively static value in comparison.

 

[Trick]

To me, punishing someone on consequence as opposed to negligence or intent seems to lead to a lot of inconsistencies.

I dont mean to unnecessarily quote-snipe, but I do think this was the crux of your OP so I will comment on it. I'm immediately wary of the idea of punishing for intent over punishing for consequence. Someone should be punished for what they ended up doing, because you might have a hard time proving their specific intent in court. Punishing for negligence on the same level as its possible consequence seems reasonable at first... but what do you punish that drunk driver for, when he hits the tree. Manslaughter? But, couldn't he have killed two, or three, or a bus-load of people? Couldn't you charge him for the worst possible thing he could have done (but didn't do)?

 

[Dre89]

But if you punish consequence, someone who is driving safely and kills a kid who runs out infront of the car all of a sudden would get the same charge as someone who kills out of cold blood.

 

[Sieguest]

But if you punish consequence, someone who is driving safely and kills a kid who runs out infront of the car all of a sudden would get the same charge as someone who kills out of cold blood.

That would be IF the law actually did punish strictly consequences. The law takes more than the consequence of the action into account, it takes causes into account as well. The fact that law enforcement bothers to perform a preliminary field investigation is enough to support that assertion. Then there is actually being tried in the legal system and considering the details around the incident (Assuming someone died). Even the existence of different "classifications" of homicides shows that the system isn't just "you killed someone, you get this type of thing. There's the legal difference between murder and manslaughter (which involves the difference in intent and situation leading up to the act), then there's the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Most vehicular homicides that follow along the lines of a pedestrian coming out of nowhere and getting hit will fall under involuntary manslaughter charges. Someone killing out of cold blood would get a murder charge. The physical conditions surrounding each incident would logically be different as well especially since it involves vehicles.

If one REALLY wanted to be as absolutely fair as possible in administering punishments then they would all just be getting charged with public endangerment.

Heh heh heh.

 

[Lord Chair]

More law debating, different law systems are different :/

 

[1048576]

removing someone from society who defends themselves or drives on neighborhood streets doesn't make society better off.

Presumably, driving drunk near a family neighborhood carries a harsher penalty than doing so in the desert (you know, like speeding in a school zone), but you can't completely predict who's gonna kill someone eventually, so deal with an imperfect justice system.

 

[DanteFox]

They're both important. Which is why premeditation is more damning in murder cases.

 

[Dre89]

Exactly, that's why intention should depend the punishment, not the consequence.

 

[Lord Chair]

Presumably, driving drunk near a family neighborhood carries a harsher penalty than doing so in the desert (you know, like speeding in a school zone), but you can't completely predict who's gonna kill someone eventually, so deal with an imperfect justice system.

How is this imperfect? You're being punished for accepting the risk of killing someone. The judge is the one to put the whole ordeal into perspective and adjusting the punishment appropriately. If the judge is to act the way he is ought to be, you won't be punished as hard simply because it's a lot more excusable.

 

[Orboknown]

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.

Exactly, that's why intention should depend the punishment, not the consequence.

you seem to contradict yourself,but ill chalk that up to playing devils advocate for the different viewpoints.

I do believe that taking the intentions as opposed to consequences for basis of a trial leads to a more fitting sentence,however proving intent in some cases is rather hard to do.
(oh yea,shouldnt the title be Drunk driving?)

 

[Dre89]

How did I contradict myself? I always argued intention was more important.

 

[Orboknown]

It seemed like earlier in your posts,you said the opposite. however,now i just realized I misread your earlier post. My mistake.