Should drunk drivers who kill be charged with murder?

[Archae]

"60 Minutes" yesterday re-ran a story about a DA who prosecutes drunk drivers who kill with depraved indifference murder charges.

The DA has two convictions so far.

I agree with this, I'm sick and tired of reading how drunk drivers who kill get a couple years, at most.
They end up with 15 to life, they might actually think twice.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. As long as they treat other dangerous-while-driving behaviors the same

People who kill other people because they fell asleep behind the wheel or were using the phone or texting should be charged with murder too. Why single out drinking?

[meegbear]

4. Hear! Hear!

[cbdo2007]

10. Why not single out drinking?

it's better than nothing, like it is now.

Good luck with your "all or nothing" attitude though.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Why not single out texting while driving then?

Maybe because drinking is an activity that many people disapprove of?

[ieoeja]

95. The bible doesn't say anything about texting.

Every M.A.D.D. officer I have ever met was also a member of The Women's Christian Temperance Union.

M.A.D.D. did not get started that way, but it is now run by Prohibitionists funded by the Insurance Lobby ... whose sky-high rates for past offenders is just part of the punishment, doncha' know?

[bighart]

99. It's more about disapproving of killing someone because you are

too drunk to drive than it is about disapproving of drinking.

[Hello_Kitty]

126. Really? So you support treating ALL driving behaviors that lead to death as murder, right?

Or is it just drinking?

[rd_kent]

155. Are you really that dense?

"Maybe because drinking is an activity that many people disapprove of?" Many people? Are you out to make drinking illegal because you "disapprove" of it? It's not the drinking, its the drinking and DRIVING! Keep your morality to yourself, please.

[Hello_Kitty]

158. Did you read my post?

You should read it again.

[LynneSin]

14. I have to agree. If you're gonna do it for drunk-driving then do it across the board

for anything dangerous that people do while driving.

If I had lost a love one due to a car accident, I would be just as angry to hear it was a drunk driver as I would if it was someone who was texting while driving or putting on make-up while driving or driving when extremely tired. I don't see one as being 'less horrifying' than the other.

[JuniperLea]

31. Yep...

It's negligent behavior resulting in the death of another... murder.

[demigoddess]

135. no, when you drink and drive, you know you will be impaired also

you know that drinking and driving is against the law. You are willing to take the chance, whereas when it is an accident, maybe your reflexes were not fast enough. Driving 90 in a 55 mile an hour zone would be the same thing.

[Hello_Kitty]

149. And when they make driving while texting or on the phone illegal you will also have no excuse.

I'd really like to see them treat driving while texting the same way they treat drunk driving.

[JerseygirlCT]

21. well, you have to intentionally take that drink -

there's more chance that a person who falls asleep didn't realize they were that fatigued.

[madinmaryland]

42. you also have to intentionally answer that text message..

just sayin.

[JerseygirlCT]

102. Oh absolutely!

Can't believe people are so stupid as to try that.

But it can be hard to judge fatigue. Are you just a bit tired, or too tired? Sometimes hard to judge.

[madinmaryland]

131. Yeah. Fatigue is much harder to judge.

And there is no real way to test for driving while fatigued.

[Hello_Kitty]

133. Right. So when you doze off behind the wheel and take out an entire family.

There should be no penalty since you were just tired. I mean, it's not like you were DRUNK or anything! :eyes:

[madinmaryland]

143. Whoa! Where did I say there should be no penalty for fatigued driving??

:wtf:

All I suggested was that it was much harder to detect it.

Keep your eyes to yourself.

[JerseygirlCT]

147. I'm saying that's the difference between a horrible accident

and basically committing vehicular homicide because you got behind the wheel after taking a drink.

[Hello_Kitty]

148. Right, because driving tired is an accident.

You have no way of knowing you are too tired to drive, apparently. There are no physical signs of tiredness. Like yawning. Or you know, falling asleep. Nope. Fatigue just has a funny way of sneaking up on a person (who has been awake for several hours straight) without any warning whatsoever.

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Bullshit. You know you're tired when you're tired.

And you can't even make that argument with cell phones and texting. You have to intentionally take out that phone, don't you?

[JerseygirlCT]

103. I'm not making that argument wrt texting or phones at all

And fatigue can be hard to judge - so many people these days are just plain always tired... we don't sleep enough, we work too hard - how to judge reliably when you've just gone over the line toward "too" tired? I think that one catches many people.

[Hello_Kitty]

124. And some of those people doze off behind the wheel and kill others.

Oh, but they were just tired so it's different. It's not like they were doing that immoral and unsavory activity known as drinking, in which case they should be charged with murder.

[ashling]

28. I don't believe any body "singled out" drinking

that just happens to be the topic here.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. Gee, that's funny. I thought the topic was supposed to be saving lives.

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

156. definitely. vehicular homicide should cover a LOT of irresponsible driving habits...

in the cases where they cause someone to be killed.

[valerief]

2. Yes. I wonder if they are in civilized countries. You know, the countries with universal health care

[dipsydoodle]

13. I think that here in the UK

the charge would be "causing death......" but not murder for which here intent needs to demonstrated. Think so anyway.

[valerief]

19. Well, there's manslaughter. That's murder without intent, I think. nt

[Mariana]

74. Intent has to be proven in the US too, I believe in every state.

This prosecutor is probably arguing that drinking and driving = intent to kill.

[Romulox]

87. Intent is more complicated than that. There are two kinds of intent

One kind of intent, "general intent" is merely the intent to engage in a behavior (e.g. the intent to drive a car.) The other, "specific intent" is the intent to bring about a particular result (e.g. the intent to kill.)

Because we generally don't prosecute people unless they have acted consciously, every crime will have a general intent requirement. But by no means does every crime have a specific intent requirement. In the case "depraved heart" second degree murder, no specific intent to take a life need be shown.

[dipsydoodle]

129. I meant

the deliberate intention to deprive of life. We don't have 2nd degree whatever over here. Murder and manslaughter and that's it.

[Obamanaut]

109. All the health care in the freaking world won't help when one is smashed

into by a several thousand vehicle at the hands of an alcohol impaired driver. Or one not impaired by alcohol for that matter.

[MindPilot]

114. I think valerief's point is that if we had better health care

there would be more and better treatment options for addiction, particularly alcoholism, and therefore fewer drunk drivers.

[Obamanaut]

115. There are people who get a belly full of alcoholic beverages and

drive who are not addicted. Some are on their first binge. Some not even a real binge, just impaired enough to muddle the senses. And then, some family is without a sister, father, son, etc.

Health care, or lack of it, will not change any of that.

[MindPilot]

122. That is same line of logic the right uses against every social program

We shouldn't have any of those welfare or food stamps programs because somebody will cheat.

Look even if cars and alcohol were completely illegal, someone somewhere will build a car, distill some rotgut and go hurt somebody.

Consistently and reliably preventing the examples you cite would require something close to complete and absolute totalitarianism. Are you really willing to go that far?

[Obamanaut]

125. If a frog's ass wasn't so close to the ground, it wouldn't get dust in

it's eyes when it farted.

The "if" or "what if" argument doesn't always work. "...Look even if cars and alcohol were completely illegal, someone somewhere will build a car, distill some rotgut and go hurt somebody..."

And if these things were illegal, and someone did build and distill and hurt, then that person should pay the penalty. In this case - lllegal building and distilling, added to hurting somebody.

Sorta like enhanced penalties for thought, er, hate crimes.

[valerief]

136. Good point, but no. I was asking if civilized countries, like those with uni health care, have

harsher drunk driving laws.

[valerief]

134. My point was that civilized countries probably have harsher laws for drunk drivers.

And because they're civilized, they have universal health care, too.

[Deja Q]

3. Yes. And the death penalty. Execution is civilized under some circumstances.

[cbdo2007]

5. yes

First, let us acquaint ourselves with some alarming statistics: 250,000 people have died in alcohol-related accidents in the past 10 years; 25,000 people die each year in alcohol related accidents; 500 people are killed weekly and 71 people daily in alcohol-related accidents; one American life is lost every 20 minutes in an alcohol-related car crash; and one out of every two Americans is likely to be involved in an alcohol-related accident in his lifetime. Every year, 708,000 persons are injured, 74,000 of them seriously, in alcohol-related crashes. About 2,000 people receive injuries each day in alcohol-related accidents.

A recent study reveals that alcohol-impaired drivers cost American taxpayers $21 - $24 billion dollars per year. According to a recent National Geographic report, alcohol abuse costs American society $136 billion and 65,000 lives annually.

The rise in the number of accidents often goes hand-in-hand with binge drinking, meaning having at least five drinks at a time. Binge drinkers were 13 times more likely to report driving while they were alcohol-impaired, and most of them admitted they often had far more than five drinks per binge.

If you receive injuries in a drunk-driving accident, you may be entitled to compensation from the drunk driver or his insurer. Under certain circumstances, even injured pedestrians and their close family members are entitled to receive compensation. Such compensation usually includes payment for medical treatment, past and future lost income, and emotional distress damages.

In some limited instances, the injured person is entitled to get recovery from the provider of alcohol to the driver, usually a bar or restaurant. Such cases against third parties are, however, more complicated and difficult to prove. Punitive damages are meant to punish malicious or reckless drivers, and to deter such conduct in the future.

Drunk Driving provides detailed information on Drunk Driving, Drunk Driving Lawyers, Drunk Driving Accidents, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and more. Drunk Driving is affiliated with Cancer Treatment Centers.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Josh_Riverside

[unc70]

66. No, not based on those "statistics". Mostly used as campaign slogan.

There is a real problem with tragic consequences, but various groups (MADD being one of the worst)distort the drunken driving statistics. The term "alcohol related" is often used when anyone involved in a wreck has consumed any amount of alcohol; thus, a wreck caused by someone completely sober but where a victim had earlier had a glass of wine with dinner (well below legal "limit") would still be considered "alcohol related". This inflates and distorts the real problem with alcohol.

Most of the people killed by drunk drivers are the drivers themselves and people riding with them. A major factor affecting drunk driving is distance between home and bars -- rural areas with "dry" counties have a lot of people (relatively) returning from bars/clubs late at night. Raising the drinking age, particularly for beer and wine, increased the number of teens drinking in automobiles instead of in clubs.

Short of requiring all vehicles to have alcohol detection systems, there are few things remaining that will actually change behavior. Nothing short of locking up all the habitual drunks will keep them from driving. Stupid, high-risk behavior among young males is even harder to stop; try lecturing or scaring a young Marine or soldier just back from Iraq and see how well that works.

MADD has self-promoted and claimed credit where it is often underserved. I see this as being a lot the same as the DARE program in schools; recent research shows greater drug use among students in DARE versus similar students not in DARE (research done at Research Triangle Institute and elsewhere).

The problem then is what would be a sensisble, outcome-based policy rather than the current slogan-based focus on punishment that doesn't work very well in changing behavior.

[Warpy]

Drunks don't think, that's the problem

and the idea isn't deterrence, it's more getting a dangerous alcoholic off the roads until he's forgotten how to drive.

The only thing universal among drunks is that they're Supermen, drinking makes their driving better, nothing can possibly happen to them because they're so much quicker, brighter, better than all the other drivers on the road.

That's what makes alcohol such a bad drug and why deterrence doesn't work.

[LynneSin]

16. Neither does someone who thinks they can text while driving

or putting on their make-up while driving.

[Hello_Kitty]

54. I think a lot of the deterrence is working.

I see a lot more people using designated drivers or cutting themselves off sooner if they know they'll be driving. It's a big contrast from my memories of the 70s and 80s when no one seemed to worry about being too drunk to drive.

[Strong Atheist]

6. Yes. nt.

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. The real challenge

is detering drunk drivers. That suggests the DA should be aggressively prosecuting EVERY drunk driving offense. Being this aggressive only against drunk drivers involved in horrific accidents is selective grandstanding prosecution IMHO.

[ensho]

8. yes

alcoholism kills in more ways then one

[Winterblues]

9. It is every bit as much murder as a drunck shooting someone with a gun

You aim any weapon at a human being while drunk and it goes off, it is murder.. Maybe not first degree but murder none the less. An automobile is most definitely a weapon if used as such..

[Xicano]

47. What law are you citing please?

Murder requires intent. Without intent, a murder has not taken place. It would be a crime going around charging people for something they're not guilty of.

[Winterblues]

55. The intent is Driving while drunk

A person intends to drive while impaired knowing full well it could result in an innocent's death. That is murder...A drunk knows full well they should not be driving yet they chose to do so anyway. That is intent...

[Xicano]

62. That's not intent. That's recklessness.

Nowhere in your example do you illustrate that a person drank and got behind the wheel with the intent being to kill someone.

Recklessness is not intent. I am still interested in knowing what law was being cited.


Thanks..

[Winterblues]

67. When you kinow full well your actions could result in death and you do it anyway that is intent..

The knowledge and forethought is there and yet you do the deed anyway, then it means there was intent. There are many degrees to murder and granted this would not be first degree murder but it is murder no less.

[Xicano]

85. Listen to yourself.. "Could" is a term that leads to absurd results.

What I mean is: In law that term would never be applied here because it would be shot down immediately for "void-for-vagueness". Example: Simply driving a car sober "could" result in death, but, since you did it anyway and someone died as a result. Then under your own standards you would be guilty of murder.

But of course this is an absurd notion. You didn't "intend" to kill anyone when you drove your car. You just wanted to get from point A to point B even though doing so you knew statistically "could" result in an accident which "could" result in someone's death.

Now because of such vagueness with applying "could" as a standard the court is forced to bring in "speculation". To speculate whether or not you acted in a murderess way or not. Nevermind the very world murder means kill with the "intent" to kill. Now see why we have Manslaughter laws? Because if responsible people sitting on a jury are asked to convict someone of murder when it can't be shown they had any intentions to kill anyone, they, as would I, are not going to vote guilty for something a person is not guilty of. And its not going to be their fault that this person got away without any punishment. It will be the fault of those who wrongfully tried to apply the law.

And first degree murder just means not in the heat of passion, but, rather, with forethought and planing.

[MajorChode]

132. You're assuming that malice requires ill will towards the victim

and that's not the legal standard.

California Penal Code section 187-188:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
...
Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

[dipsydoodle]

11. I thought

murder needed to show intent ? :shrug:

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Manslaughter at least

but you probably could also argue that it was planned as they made a choice to drive drunk.

I agree - I think we let people who do this off far too easily. They need serious help, but they also need to removed from the general population for safety's sake...

[Kolesar]

20. Manslaughter is a "murder" charge

I think they call it fourth degree murder in some states.

I missed the 60 Minutes segment.

[jberryhill]

52. This is why it is a silly question without reference to a particular state /nt

[damntexdem]

15. By getting drunk, one must accept responsibility for the acts one commits.

If one kills, then it's murder -- albeit, second degree.

[tuckessee]

17. Define "drunk".

The US gov't PSA's all over the radio tell us "buzzed driving is drunk driving". The neo-prohibitionists seek to make driving after consuming ANY amount of alcohol illegal.

When the anti-dui crusades started in the 1980's legally drunk in my state was .12. Now it's .08. Someday it'll be .04. Life in prison for a sip of alcohol? I dunno about that......

Also, what about distracted drivers who kill?

[Hoopla Phil]

18. NO

Murder is a pre-meditated deliberate act. You WANT to kill someone and plan to do it. Manslaughter is when an unintended death results from an illegal act.

Now if you can prove that a person was planning to kill someone and used drunkenness to cover up the planned act then, and only then is it murder.

[Echo In Light]

23. Agreed

[Romulox]

51. 2nd degree murder doesn't have to be either a) intentional; or b) premeditated.

The doctrine mentioned in the OP "abandoned and malignant heart" murder, has long been used to secure a conviction for 2nd degree murder where the accused is found to have engaged in behavior with the knowledge that it carried a high probably or near certainty of causing death or serious bodily injury to others.

[Political Heretic]

69. 2nd degree murder has to be intentional in this since:

You intended harm... it may be the whole "I snapped... I didn't mean to kill her" bullshit, but there's still a choice to agress.

Getting in a wreck is an accident, even if you are "at fault." Manslaughter is the correct charge.

[Romulox]

71. No, it does not. Please google "depraved heart murder".

I'm not making this stuff up. :hi:

[Political Heretic]

86. That can be classified - wrongly in my view - as second degree murder

But thank you for mentioning that, I did go look it up. It is sometimes classified - correctly in my view - as manslaughter and sometimes as 2nd degree murder.

Obviously, its not up to me to make the rules, so thanks for pointing out the example. :)

[Romulox]

93. Legal authority is based on statute, caselaw, and precedent.

Your (or my) opinion of whether this is "correct" or not is different from whether the doctrine of "depraved heart" murder exists (it does), whether it has a venerable, if not universal, history in this country (it does) or whether a specific intent to kill should have to be shown under such cases (it does not.)

[Political Heretic]

144. I understand that - which is why I said you were right, and thanked you for pointing it out.

I'm still entitled to feel that statute and precedent is wrong. But I was incorrect on what the statue actually is. So thanks for clearing that up.

[elocs]

22. Absolutely. Any of us here are probably more in danger of being killed by a drunk driver

in the normal course of our lives than we are at risk of being murdered or mugged by someone with a gun or some other weapon. Where I live we see time and time again somebody arrested for drunk driving who already has multiple DUIs (5, 6, 7...). It's time to treat drunk driving with the seriousness it deserves.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. No, but drunk drivers who don't kill should be more harshly charged than they are.

When you drink and drive, you're essentially gambling with your own and other people's lives.

What we ought to be discouraging is taking that gamble rather than losing it, I think.

[RebelOne]

25. Yes, drunk drivers who kill should definitely be charged with murder.

I have had two people in my family killed by drunken drivers.

One, was my stepfather, who was killed instantly by a drunken off-duty cop who hit him and his passenger on Biscayne Blvd. in Miami. The passenger was killed also. That cop didn't do any time. His only punishment was to be discharged from the police force.

The other was my daughter's husband. He was walking down the street to a 7-11 in Hialeah, Fl. A drunken driver jumped the curb, hit him and dragged him about a block. He was on life support for about a week, but my daughter had to finally have it turned off because the damage to his brain was too severe. That driver only got a year in jail, but he was able to get out during week days on a work release.

[ashling]

26. The first thing my father told me when teaching me to drive

"Always remember, this is a 2,000 lb. deadly weapon"

[MindPilot]

110. That is a ludicrous statement. A car is not a weapon.

A car is not a weapon any more than a rock or a forklift is a weapon.

[Mutley]

121. Until it's used as a weapon...

A steak knife isn't a weapon either, until someone uses it to stab someone else.

[MindPilot]

127. There is a name for that and it's called "vehicular homicide".

A rifle is a weapon; a sword is a weapon. Those are things designed specifically to deliver injurious force to a target. Regardless of how they are used, still weapons.

A car is designed to get you from one place to another; not a weapon. A steak knife is designed to cut your steak into yummy bite-sized pieces; not a weapon. These are objects that are not weapons until they are used as such, and after that they are again no longer weapons.

It bugs me when people make these kinds of hyperbolic statements.

[Mutley]

128. Is a samuri sword a weapon if I cut my steak with it?

[NutmegYankee]

137. Knives, axes, and guns are also tools...Or weapons if used that way.

A car can run you from point a to b, or run down a crowd of people at a market. A knife can slice your tomato, or slice someone open. An axe can split up firewood, or split a man open. A gun can shoot a target in a sporting competition, or shoot a man down in cold blood. It's how it's used, not what it is.


Not to mention that rocks are one of man's oldest weapons. Slingshot that one around ;-)

[ashling]

138. The point is that you respect the power and deadly consequences

and treat it appropriately. If someone operates a vehicle with a deprave indifference to the consequences, then if their action causes someone to die it should be considered murder. Its no different than someome shooting a gun into a house they assume to be empty and killing someone inside. As I distinctly recall from law school, that is murder. If someone is involved in a fealony and in the act of that fealony someone else involved murders someone, then the other guy is guilty of fealony murder.

Operating a vehicle while drunk, texting, or putting on makeup is being indifferent to the forseeable consequences.

[ashling]

140. It is definitely NOT a ludicrous statement

It may be a metaphorical statement, but it is definitely not ludicrous if it gets a 17 year old kid to think about the consequences.

[rd_kent]

157. Really?

By that definition, a gun is not a weapon until you use it as one. Anything can be a weapon, if used as one. I think the guys father was trying to make a point, a point that you may have missed.

[MindPilot]

111. delete--dupe

[JitterbugPerfume]

27. yes

[proteus_lives]

29. Yes.

Drunk drivers get off light far too often.

[Orsino]

30. Murder with what motive?

Fuck, no.

[JitterbugPerfume]

37. His motive didn't mean shit to me

when a notorious drunken driver killed my son. My kid lived 10 agonising years afterwards in a nursing home and died at age 17 . I have no sympathy for people who put someone elses life in jeopardy and that includes people who text , talk on cell phones and do other risky activities while driving.

The life taken could be your kid.

[Orsino]

39. Uh-huh. Reason enough for our rage...

...but without establishing a motive, why should we call it murder?

[Lex]

46. There is no requirement at ALL that murder have a "motive" to

be murder.

[Xicano]

61. Murder is killing with intent to kill.

Establishing motive is a powerful way of showing intent.

[Lex]

70. Reckless intent. Google it.

[Romulox]

77. One need not intend to kill to be convicted of murder...

If one engages in behavior that has a high probability or near certainty of causing death, and a death indeed occurs, one may be tried for 2nd degree homicide without ever having any specific intent to cause anyone harm; in such cases, the intent to do harm is inferred from the sheer recklessness of the behavior.

[Xicano]

92. Here's the examples given:

Second Degree Murder:

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.



http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html

Now here's Involuntary Manslaughter:

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.


http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/manslaughter_involuntary.html

In these samples, see the difference in degree with respect to dangerous conduct? See how one still shows an intent to harm and the other doesn't?

[Romulox]

117. Please read the material you yourself have quoted!

"Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.



http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_de..."

The bold language following "or..." is what we've been speaking about.

"In these samples, see the difference in degree with respect to dangerous conduct? See how one still shows an intent to harm and the other doesn't?"

With all due respect, you haven't understood the materials you've quoted.

[Orsino]

64. Again, why should we call it murder without a motive? n/t

[Lex]

72. Because who cares WHY if you can prove intent.

Climbing into a car drunk can be enough for intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)

[Lex]

73. .

[Orsino]

79. I was asking about the word "murder."

I think I understand why those most outraged want to label a crime accordingly. I was just wondering why manslaughter isn't enough for some folks.

[Romulox]

76. Motive is not an element of the crime of murder, to begin with... nt

[Orsino]

81. Let's say "intent to kill," then. n/t

[Romulox]

88. As discussed elsewhere, "intent to kill" is not a required element of all murder

charges. Specifically, "depraved heart" murder does not require a showing of an intent to kill--or, to be more specific, in such a case, the intent is inferred from the callous indifference to the probability of one's behavior resulting in death or serious injury.

Essentially, this is a charge extremely similar to involuntary manslaughter ("negligent homicide")--the only real difference is in the degree of recklessness/"callous indifference" to human life exhibited.

[Orsino]

90. I'm still left with my question, then.

Why do we want to use the word "murder"?

[Romulox]

91. The person will be charged under the appropriate legal code.

We call it "murder" if it meets all the elements described in that code. If the behavior does indeed meet those elements, it will be because the state legislature finds the class of behavior in question more morally reprehensible than a mere "accident".

[Orsino]

94. That is the key point, it seems.

"Murder" has crept into legal codes with varying definitions. What ordinary citizens would call "murderous intent" seems entirely separate from the stupid drunk who mows somebody down without seeing the victim.

I suspect that the inflammatory nature of the word murder is what is sought in get-tough criminal codes.

[JitterbugPerfume]

57. When E got behind of the wheel of that car ,

he knew he was drunk and he knew their were children living on that street. He disregarded that so he was guilty of manslaughter , but never charged.

I don't even hate him anymore . Actually I would have felt vindicated if he had recieved rehab and turned into a productive citizen but that didn't happen either.

People are responsible for their actions , and the results of their actions.

[nini]

60. but motive applies in a court of law

regardless, I had no idea your son was killed :cry: I am so sorry for you loss and understand your views :hug:

I was disabled by a drunk driver in '85 and have no sympathy for them either.

[Lex]

75. motive is not an element of murder to be proven in court

intent must be proven, not motive, and intent can be proven by showing someone acted recklessly enough to cause an accident

[Romulox]

78. +1. nt

[nini]

101. true.. I stand corrected

wrong word there.

[mkultra]

32. manslaughter

[eShirl]

33. manslaughter only if no previous DUI

full murder otherwise

[H2O Man]

34. Yes.

[kiva]

35. Not until we bring those same charges against

anyone who causes the death of another person Leave your child in a hot car and they die? Murder. Kill someone because you're speeding and driving? Murder. If we take intent out of the equation, then we should prosecute anyone who causes a death.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. And then of course we have to start charging people with attempted murder

For any behavior that may lead to or have lead to a death.

[Romulox]

56. It has to do with the relative dangerousness of the behavior engaged in,

not necessarily the outcome. In other words, drinking and driving carries a much higher likliehood of causing death or serious injury than does speeding, for example. In addition, drunk driving has little social utility, while driving (albeit at above posted speeds,) clearly does. Therefore, society punishes the former much more harshly than the latter, even if the same outcome results.

[MajorChode]

130. Here's the problem with your reasoning

What is required for a murder conviction is malice and legally malice takes two forms which are expressed and implied. Implied malice does not take "intent out of the equation". If someone fires a gun into a crowd, even though they may not have expressly intended to kill someone, their actions still show an 'an abandoned and malignant heart' which may rise to the level of implied malice. That sure as hell wouldn't be the case with someone who accidentally left their child in a car. It might be the case if someone were speeding, but their behavior would have to be extremely reckless and they would have to know that there was a high probability of causing someone's death.

[stray cat]

36. Did someone die because of their criminal negligence - then yes

[NeedleCast]

38. No

Murder is a specific crime that has a specific defintion and intent is a major part of that definition.

I would not be opposed to seeing the penalties associated with drunk driving being more severe. At the same time, organizations like MADD who have officially reached the "outlasted our usefulness stage" are pressing for "drunk driving" to mean "having consumed any alcohol, even one drink, then driving." I'd hate to see a world in which someone has a glass of wine with dinner then drives home, gets in a car accident that results in a death even though they are not impared, and gets hit with a murder charge because of it.

[Flaneur]

41. No. They should be charged with manslaughter.

Murder is the deliberate taking of life. Auto accidents are not intentional, even if the guy is drunk.

[Lochloosa]

44. Yes. n/t

[jberryhill]

49. Every State Has Its Own Set Of Criminal Homicide Classfications

What the word "murder" means, and various degrees thereof, varies from state to state. In some states, yes, a homicide resulting from drunk driving already qualifies for some version of "murder".

Of course, the penalties for various classifications vary as well, rendering the question to be pretty much meaningless as an abstract universally-applied question.

[gaspee]

50. YES!

The outcome of driving drunk is predictable. It's not as if it's an actual accident. Killing someone while driving drunk is murder.

[DevonRex]

53. No. Manslaugher, yes. Murder, no.

[Romulox]

58. Under the right facts, a drunk driving fatality can and should be prosecuted as 2nd degree

"depraved heart" murder.

[nini]

59. depends on the situation

Motive requirements would pretty much negate a murder charges. Involuntary manslaughter seems more logical.

[alarimer]

63. I sense a double standard here.

People who drive drive drunk (but do not hurt anyone) are EXACTLY like people who text while driving. The punishment should be equal.

People who drive drunk and injure or kill someone should be treated the same way as someone who is talking on the phone who injures or kills someone. There is no intent to do harm there. It is reckless, negligent even but not murder.

The folks at MADD want to prohibit all drinking everywhere, whether you get in a car or not. Clearly stricter laws HAVE NOT HELPED AT ALL, though.

[JonQ]

65. I would say so

yes.

Negligent homicide at least. Although not first degree murder.

[Political Heretic]

68. As soon as they charge texters, sleep deprived, cellphone users, make-up doers with murder too.

Then great.

[ashling]

142. I say go for it.

nt

[Political Heretic]

145. Sure, that's fine. I just like consistency. I don't do those things so.... whatever.

[ashling]

146. The common feature is indifference to the consequences

and the degree to which the behavior is incompatable with driving. A reasonable person should understand that such activities are incompatable with driving and that it is reckless behavior.

[SteppingRazor]

80. Yes, but only if we do away with basic DUI laws.

That way, the only people punished are the ones who do it poorly.


:popcorn:

[MindPilot]

106. And that is kind of they way it used to be.

When I first got my license back in Colorado, it literally was not illegal to drink and drive. You could drive down the road with Coors in hand--there was a liquor store with a drive-up window every other block--but if you crashed there was hell to pay.

[SteppingRazor]

107. I was joking (kinda), but I do think DUI laws have become way too draconian.

.08 BAC is hardly anything -- certainly not worth destroying someone's life over.

[MindPilot]

113. Agreed. Obviously what is being done now isn't helping.

I suspect more of it will help even less.

[laureloak]

82. NO! Not unless it's proved to be premeditated.

MADD has gone off the deep end.

[MajorChode]

123. A murder conviction does not require premeditation

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murder

I believe all of the DUI murder convictions have come from repeat offenders where the accused was given education on the dangers of drunk driving from a previous DUI conviction. So the convicted couldn't claim ignorance of the hazards of their actions. At least one of the convictions has held up under review by the California Supreme Court.

[Maine-ah]

83. I'm not sure about the murder charge

I do however think that the sentences should be upped. I have had two people in my life, people I considered family, taken away from me because of a drunk driver. One of the bastards hit my best friend's twin brother while he was walking home. Left him in the road to die. Peter's best friend found him the next morning when they went out looking for him because he hadn't come home the night before.

The fucker that hit him (very small town btw) knew who he fucking hit, he admitted so. He could have gone for help, but he went into hiding for three days before the cops finally found him. He spent less than a year in jail for what he did, and no amount of restitution paid to the family can ever make up for the life that was lost.

That bastard still lives in the same town, and has the fucking balls to wave to Peter's parents when he sees them.

[laureloak]

84. Then you would have to charge all drivers with murder when

their actions result in a fatality.

[Romulox]

89. An easy example to explain "Depraved heart murder":

If someone shoots a loaded gun straight up into the air in the middle of Disneyworld on a crowded day, not caring if anyone is hurt or killed when the bullet returns to earth, and someone is indeed killed, the person is morally (and undoubtedly legally) guilty of murder.

If you can understand this principle, then the argument becomes a matter of degrees: just how reckless must one be before the behavior is so indifferent to human life, so callous, so cruel so as to be the moral equivalent of murder?

The argument regards whether drunk driving crosses this line or not, not whether or not there is such a line in the first place!

[ieoeja]

96. You make a very good point.

I still believe the drunk driving laws have become horribly draconian. But your point is well made.

[laureloak]

97. Thats the same line the NY lady judge uses to send

drunk drivers to jail for 35+ years.

She's power crazy and is abusing her position.

[Romulox]

98. Your response doesn't seem to have any relationship to my post.

:shrug:

[laureloak]

100. Because you're using the same logic the judge does.

I saw the same TV interview last night.

[Romulox]

118. That's because it's logic based on hundreds of years of common law precedent...

:hi:

[Maine-ah]

105. is she sending DD's to jail for 35 years or DD's that have killed someone?

[Telly Savalas]

152. +1

On Sunday somebody was driving 100 mph in a 40-45 zone near here, ran a red light, and killed someone.

I think one can argue that some instances of drunk-driver initiated deaths haven't crossed the line of being murder, but in cases like this one the behavior is so outlandish it's hard to not consider it cold-blooded murder. The analogy of shooting into a crowd is spot on.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1361197.html

[MindPilot]

104. The mere fact that this question is asked proves our current system doesn't work

For decades, the sentences have been getting stiffer and the limits lower. We've given up our rights in favor of sobriety checkpoints and implied consent laws which are grossly inefficient at catching the real drunks.

As someone mentioned up-thread, in terms of raw numbers not much has changed. Obviously the current system is not working especially when in many many cases the crashes that result in deaths are usually caused by people with multiple DUI convictions and very high BACs.

We are talking about a serious addiction problem here and the usual logic of "if I get caught at this something bad will happen" does not apply. If careening into the power pole at 80 is not a deterrent, why does anyone think a lengthy jail sentence would be?

This needs to be addressed as the medical problem that it is. I don't pretend to have the answers but I am sick and tired of people thinking they can fix every problem with a tougher law or longer sentence.

[Obamanaut]

108. Yes. They don't accidentally drink - it is a conscious decision. When

they maim or kill someone they should pay the full penalty.

There has been enough advertising about the dangers associated with drinking/driving that violators should be aware by now.

[armyowalgreens]

141. You are using indirect actions to convict someone of murder...

They consciously drank. They were not conscious or fully aware when they killed the person.

[MindPilot]

112. Any place that serves booze should have breathalysers

Two reasons. One is obvious -- you can test yourself so you know if you can legally drive or not. Secondly most of us have no clue what it feels like at .08 or .12 or 2.0 or whatever.

Will something like this keep the real problem drinkers off the road? Probably not, but it would free up the police from having to deal with the woman who but for that second glass of wine with dinner and the checkpoint would have made it home just fine.

[TexasObserver]

116. Such charges are very common where a driver is drunk.

If they are driving and have a bad accident, and someone dies as a result - even someone who is a passenger with the driver - charging them with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide is fairly common. They'll take the driver to a hospital, and get blood drawn to determine an exact level for blood alcohol.

Whether they can prosecute for depraved indifference depends on the facts and the state.

The state has to prove its case to a jury, and the charges that can lead to longer imprisonment are harder to prove.

As with all criminal charges, I believe the punishment should fit the crime. That means just because someone who is drunk has an accident, and just because someone dies, doesn't mean the state of inebriation was a proximate cause of the accident.

Example: A drunk person is driving down the road legally otherwise, when a child darts out from a car and the drunk has no chance to brake. The child is dead, but the proximate cause was the child running out into traffic, not the drunk being drunk.

Compare: Mom is drunk, picks up her own child, blows through a red light, and the child dies when the car is T-boned. That's a solid case against the mother.

[TransitJohn]

119. No

Murder is a crime of intent. Disagree with that as much as you want, but when legislatures write laws, they write some intent ones, which murder is.

[SeattleGirl]

120. Manslaughter, not murder.

The person did deliberately drink, but unless it can be shown that they had intent to kill the person they killed, murder would be difficult to prove.

And as others have said, it shouldn't stop with drunk drivers. Plenty of people can get hurt or killed by some idiot texting while driving, reading the newspaper while driving, putting on makeup or shaving while driving, etc.

If you kill someone because you were not paying full attention to driving, you should be held accountable, no question.

[stewartcolbert08]

153. exactly!

If it was not thought out first and planned then its not murder 1 per the law!

[armyowalgreens]

139. No.

[Hotler]

150. Kill some while driving and talking on the cell phone or texting.

life in prison.

[tabasco]

151. Growing some pot plants in your closet is a felony.

Drunk driving is a misdemeanor.

Hurt no one = felony.

Endanger everyone around you = misdemeanor.

[rd_kent]

154. 100%. Start making people responsible for their actions.