Drink Driving Causing Death. It's murder, so why don't we do this here?

[Genestho]

Murder requires intention..

Do you choose to drive drunk? Is that an accident?

Remorse...
There is no criminal that doesn't say "I made a mistake"

The Australian stories....
And the tough American Prosecutor paving the way...
How many deaths must it take for things to change.
Aired in Queensland last night....

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=788320

[Skyryder]

Accidental death is manslaughter. You can be as 'pissed as a fart' but any death that is a result of this is still accidental.

Get pissed as a fart and deliberalty go and kill someone this then becomes a premeditated act and the death is murder.

It is important that this distinction remains.


Skyryder

[Cajun]

Accidental death is manslaughter. You can be as 'pissed as a fart' but any death that is a result of this is till accidental.

Get pissed as a fart and deliberalty go and kill someone this then becomes a premeditated act and the death is murder.

It is important that this distinction remains.


Skyryder

I see both sides of this, and a bit unsure weather on there first offence, but if they are known drink drivers and kill someone murder charges should follow.


But someone who drunk gets in a car and drives, isn't that delibate?
They are driving when know they should not drive.

[Skyryder]

I see both sides of this, and a bit unsure weather on there first offence, but if they are known drink drivers and kill someone murder charges should follow.


But someone who drunk gets in a car and drives, isn't that delibate?
They are driving when know they should not drive.


Yes there are two sides to this.

The other guy who robs a bank and deliberatley kills someone in the act: murder.

And yourself driving along the road and a kiddie comes out on his trike, you can not avoid him and you kill him.


So how many sides are there now??


Skyryder

[CookMySock]

It's a bit like spear-tackling in rubgy. It's a fucking dangerous thing to do. Theres no reason for it. But people are stll going to do it so what will it take to stop them?

I think the murder distinction should remain, but I don't see the penalty for drink driving causing death should not be increased.

Bigger hammer required to get the message though I think.

Steve

[Mully]

I don't see why there can't be a charge of "Negligent Homicide"

For example, if you drink and drive, you are well aware of the potential (regardless of how bulletproof you consider yourself) to kill someone. You showed a blatent disregard for public safety and should be charged accordingly.

From a legal standpoint, yes it's manslaughter. Negligent Homicide could have the same penalties as Murder and would be much harder to defend against.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I don't see why there can't be a charge of "Negligent Homicide"

For example, if you drink and drive, you are well aware of the potential (regardless of how bulletproof you consider yourself) to kill someone. You showed a blatent disregard for public safety and should be charged accordingly.

From a legal standpoint, yes it's manslaughter. Negligent Homicide could have the same penalties as Murder and would be much harder to defend against.

Negligent Homicide is functionally equivalent to Mans laughter. and Mans laughter has similar penalties (there is a range) to murder. the key difference is in murder you MEAN to kill (or you don't give a toss whether you do or not) mans laughter is careless/reckless. Its been a long time since Ive looked at the Crimes act (s66 is it?)

[Mully]

Negligent Homicide is functionally equivalent to Mans laughter.

Putting the laughter into manslaughter......

So there is a crime in NZ called Negligent Homicide? Is it used as I have suggested?

Seems to be that manslaughter is: "whoops, he died"
Whereas Neg Homicide should be: "I deliberately ignored the fact that I was pissed and drove into him"

Bollocks, you edited your post......

Trouble is, Drinky Drinkerson drinks and drives and is charged with murder (clearly didn't give a toss) - first thing Johnny McLawyerpants does is say "Nah, manslaughter cos he didn't mean to kill that bloke/women/family and he's real sorry". Seems a pretty big loophole to me.

[Winston001]

Putting the laughter into manslaughter......

So there is a crime in NZ called Negligent Homicide? Is it used as I have suggested?

Seems to be that manslaughter is: "whoops, he died"
Whereas Neg Homicide should be: "I deliberately ignored the fact that I was pissed and drove into him"

Bollocks, you edited your post......

Trouble is, Drinky Drinkerson drinks and drives and is charged with murder (clearly didn't give a toss) - first thing Johnny McLawyerpants does is say "Nah, manslaughter cos he didn't mean to kill that bloke/women/family and he's real sorry". Seems a pretty big loophole to me.

Understand your point but manslaughter is negligent homicide. No purpose served in creating another offence.

Murder requires intent to kill - or to act so recklessly that death is almost inevitable.

For example, the Hells Angels - Comancheros stoush at Sydney airport. One guy died after being hit with a steel pole (bollard). The defence argument will be manslaughter because the guy doing the bashing only meant to teach the other guy a lesson - not to kill him. But the Crown will say that bashing someone about the head with a steel pole is murderous intent, and it would be difficult to defend that.

Another - guy and a mate does a bank robbery with a gun - customer tackles him and gets shot = dies. Murder or manslaughter?

What if the guy with the gun was only given it moments before they entered the bank, by his mate who said it was unloaded? Murder or manslaughter?

Or in Skyryder's example, you blow 405, on your way home from a work farewell, just been told someone at home is ill, hit the child......murder or manslaughter, or drinking driving causing death....?

[ManDownUnder]

Yes. Everyone knows a way to get home after a night on the piss. It might be expensive... tough. That was always going to be the price of getting home - you knew it when you were sober - how can you ignore it till you get drunk?

The attitdue of the general public needs to be "Don't deny it. Deal with it.". Plan ahead... anyone with more than half a brain knows that's part of the price of going out for a drink. Anyone with less than half a brain shouldn't be on the road.

Just like the cop in Mokau that drove to the scene of a major accident while he was over the limit. He faced the proper charge of DIC for his part in attending an accident. Whether he was found guilty or not should be left to legal minds superior to mine, but the fact is he was charged with it... in a situation where his drunk driving probably saved a life (as acknowledged by the judge).

[Winston001]

Murder requires intention..

Do you choose to drive drunk? Is that an accident?

Remorse...
There is no criminal that doesn't say "I made a mistake"



Its a difficult issue. With the poll, murder is always available as a charge, don't know if you can amend the poll but think you mean "Should murder be a charge for EBA causing death"....?

My view - no. Except in those rare cases such as drunk drivers driving deliberately into crowds. And indeed they are charged with murder and convicted as in Christchurch recently. In fact forget about alcohol, you should ask if any road death caused by another should be charged as murder...

[Genestho]

Its a difficult issue. With the poll, murder is always available as a charge, don't know if you can amend the poll but think you mean "Should murder be a charge for EBA causing death"....?

My view - no. Except in those rare cases such as drunk drivers driving deliberately into crowds. And indeed they are charged with murder and convicted as in Christchurch recently. In fact forget about alcohol, you should ask if any road death caused by another should be charged as murder...

Yea I need to figure out how to rename the poll, all good points.

The thing I wonder about is if in the case of somebody being a recidivist dd, there must surely be an agreement... somewhere between conviction/sentencing and "treatment" (if in the 5% that gets it) that he/she knows that drink driving can kill...so therefore it becomes a deliberate act?

Im not skilled in law...obviously lol, just have an enquiring mind..:dodge:

[Winston001]

The problem with drink/driving is that the law allows a tolerance. 400mg/litre breath. So instead of saying "I won't drink anything tonight, I'm driving" people are apt to say "Hmmm I'm allowed 2.4 standard drinks an hour....but I had a meal, I'm a bit bigger than the average wuss.....besides, I can hold my liquor.....I'll be fine...." :Police:

Why our politicians have persisted with this wimpish law I do not know.


There is a simple answer - no alcohol tolerance. Other countries do it. Done. No guessing about drinks, meals etc etc. Easy for everyone.

[Mully]

Understand your point but manslaughter is negligent homicide. No purpose served in creating another offence.

I think there is - to my mind, manslaughter is careless (whoops, I dropped a brick and it hit the guy), and neg homicide is blatant disregard of the safety of the public.

I'm just thinking about what any lawyer worth his salt would say when faced with the respective charges.

I think there can be a purpose to creating two offences - with neg homicide being more punitive than simply manslaughter. Neg Homicide (i.e. drink driving) should, to my mind, have the same punishment as murder. While you didn't mean to kill anyone, you should have reasonably foreseen that you may do so. It's harder to defend against, and should have more teeth than "careless/reckless driving causing death"

[Genestho]

The problem with drink/driving is that the law allows a tolerance. 400mg/litre breath. So instead of saying "I won't drink anything tonight, I'm driving" people are apt to say "Hmmm I'm allowed 2.4 standard drinks an hour....but I had a meal, I'm a bit bigger than the average wuss.....besides, I can hold my liquor.....I'll be fine...." :Police:

Why our politicians have persisted with this wimpish law I do not know.


There is a simple answer - no alcohol tolerance. Other countries do it. Done. No guessing about drinks, meals etc etc. Easy for everyone.
That's answered the above question...almost...

I completely agree there dude, while it is still law to drink drive, the loopholes will persist...

[Usarka]

Dunno. Should an otherwise upstanding citizen who's made one stupid mistake and will spend the rest of his or her life racked with guilt face the same charges and penalties as someone who deliberately set out to kill someone?

Edit: And if it was murder would the same argument not also apply to death where the guilty party was excessively speeding?

[Winston001]

I think there is - to my mind, manslaughter is careless (whoops, I dropped a brick and it hit the guy), and neg homicide is blatant disregard of the safety of the public.

I'm just thinking about what any lawyer worth his salt would say when faced with the respective charges.

I think there can be a purpose to creating two offences - with neg homicide being more punitive than simply manslaughter. Neg Homicide (i.e. drink driving) should, to my mind, have the same punishment as murder. While you didn't mean to kill anyone, you should have reasonably foreseen that you may do so. It's harder to defend against, and should have more teeth than "careless/reckless driving causing death"

Aye and there's the rub - the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment - exactly the same as murder.

[LBD]

Is here a diff between murder and premeditated murder?

Murder when you are under the influence and inadvertantly kill a random persom, and premiditated murder when drunk or not, and target a particular person or persons with intent to do them harm?

[Mully]

Aye and there's the rub - the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment - exactly the same as murder.

Yes, but how often is life used for manslaughter convictions. Again, any lawyer worth his fee will get the sentence as low as he can (especially for first convictions).

My point is, lawyers will get murder off the table ("He's really sorry guys, and he didn't mean to") so at the moment, we are looking at a manslaughter conviction. Again, the lawyer steps up ("first offence and he's reeeeeeally sorry") and the punishment is less than it should be for someone who deliberately and blatently ignored the risk to the public. If we have a negligent homicide law, it's harder for lawyers to argue that he didn't mean to and we can have more suitable punishment (i.e. X years minimum, PER LIFE, served consecutively)

I just think we can reduce ambiguity and sentence disparity by having the law spelt out better ( I always though the courts should have defined "reasonable force" before the anti-smacking law debacle, but they couldn't, which led to that law happening. If the courts can't/don't define the meaning of the law, then the law needs to be changed to make it clearer.)

[Winston001]

Is here a diff between murder and premeditated murder?


Not in New Zealand, but yes in other jurisdictions. We don't have degrees of murder and life imprisonment is the only sentence. There was a move about 5 years ago to amend this but it hasn't happened yet.


Yes, but how often is life used for manslaughter convictions. Again, any lawyer worth his fee will get the sentence as low as he can (especially for first convictions).

My point is, lawyers will get murder off the table ("He's really sorry guys, and he didn't mean to") so at the moment, we are looking at a manslaughter conviction. Again, the lawyer steps up ("first offence and he's reeeeeeally sorry") and the punishment is less than it should be for someone who deliberately and blatently ignored the risk to the public. If we have a negligent homicide law, it's harder for lawyers to argue that he didn't mean to and we can have more suitable punishment


OK we'll just have to disagree, no problem. Negligent homicide is manslaughter in NZ law and manslaughter is treated the way you want negligent homicide to be treated.

If your suggestion was introduced, juries would then face three choices - murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Being on a jury is hard enough already.

Any defendant is entitled to trial and to argue a lesser crime. It's up to the judge and jury. I can't remember cases but recently there was a murder charge where the Crown refused to lay manslaughter as an alternative - might have been one of the car-into-a-crowd cases - which meant it was either guilty of murder or not guilty and walk. The Crown got its conviction.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Aye and there's the rub - the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment - exactly the same as murder.

oooooh, I think I should have known that (having served 15 years for manslaughter*)







*not really

[Mully]

OK we'll just have to disagree, no problem. Negligent homicide is manslaughter in NZ law and manslaughter is treated the way you want negligent homicide to be treated.

If your suggestion was introduced, juries would then face three choices - murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Being on a jury is hard enough already.


I don't really think we are disagreeing per se - I think we are coming from the same general direction.

I'm probably not making my points very well - I tend to do that when I type things. (my mind races away and my typing can't keep up).

My point was (I think) the Police could have something other than manslaughter or murder to charge drink drivers who kill people with (to be clear, I'm talking people waaaaay over the limit)

Anyway, nice discussing this with you in a civil manner. It's quite pleasant to have a meeting of viewpoints (whether a disagreement or not) on KB without it digressing into a personal shitfight.

Have a great day.

[YellowDog]

Generally I would say no to this however there are some circumstances where someone deliberately drives into a crowd (as happened last year). This is murder and being drunk and having (or claiming to have) no recolection should not be an acceptable excuse.

[oldrider]

Murder requires intention..

Do you choose to drive drunk? Is that an accident?

Remorse...
There is no criminal that doesn't say "I made a mistake"

The Australian stories....
And the tough American Prosecutor paving the way...
How many deaths must it take for things to change.
Aired in Queensland last night....

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=788320

When it is recidivus, yes! :spanking: Three strikes and you are out? Whats happening to "that"? John.

[Genestho]

so far to have a legit intelligent debate without the typical personal attacks, cheers guys...appreciate it..

I have to confess I have a wee bit more than enquiring mind...:innocent:
I have a meeting coming up with a very active member of parliament he has made contact twice since Xmas, I just haven't been physically able to meet with him.
He carries himself in a very commonsense type way and has acheived much already.... that I believe (always believe!) is fairly critical in these particular matters...it'll be quite nice to be able to present a line in the sand, and very clear about it. And loaded with commonsense and facts, I have so many that I need to nutshell them.
I think I'll need some help...hehe

Just out of interest.... since theres speak of life to mean life here....and sentencing structures....in regards to the "sentencing and parole" reform bill... it is available for submissions, must be received by 24th April.

The bill is available online here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2009/0017-1/latest/DLM1845314.html)

Send to:
Commitee Secretariat
Law and Order Committee
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON (No stamp required)

Well written posts and opinions guys! Cheers.
(Carryon please!!:yes: )

[HenryDorsetCase]

Generally I would say no to this however there are some circumstances where someone deliberately drives into a crowd (as happened last year). This is murder and being drunk and having (or claiming to have) no recolection should not be an acceptable excuse.

Mr Sila was duly convicted of murder I think.

[Genestho]

When it is recidivus, yes! :spanking: Three strikes and you are out? Whats happening to "that"? John.
Great minds think alike:niceone:
See post above

[Genestho]

Mr Sila was duly convicted of murder I think.

He was, but he's appealing his sentence I think, appeal in April...last I heard

[DMNTD]

Yes.......

[FJRider]

Murder would be if intent to kill was proved.... not intent to injure.... or intent to take a risk that somebody might get injured...

[LBD]

So if we only have manslaughter as an option...Could Drink driving causing death be a manslaughter charge with a minimum mandatory sentence?

I think we do need more discouragement, I dont think the Tassie case of the publican being at fault is a fair call, next would be the bottle shop or super market that sold the takeaways, that were consumed during the afternoon leading to a Drink driving death, being held resposible....

Bring it back to discouraging drinking and machinery operation I say.

[Mikkel]

So far this poll illustrates that 25/33 people on KB didn't understand what the distinction between murder and manslaughter was when they pushed the button. No wonder why so much doubtful legal advice abound...

At least the difference has been pointed out now.

While inexcusable, drink driving does not equal intent to cause death or injury on a 3rd party in and off itself. If so, anyone sober who ran somebody down would have to be subject to the same rules - since you are knowingly engaging in an activity that increases your potential for causing injury to other people. How about careless driving? I'd consider drink driving - besides the charge in and off itself - to be at least careless, and most likely reckless/dangerous, use of a motor vehicle. I'd even maintain that drinking anything at all before operating a vehicle is careless use.

One thing I am unsure of: If you are driving a vehicle while intoxicated - but below the legal limit - aren't you more likely to be held legally resposible for any mishap that may occur. I know that in Denmark, if you drive after having drunk, but still below the legal limit, you will almost always be found at fault by default if an accident occurs. Is it the same here in NZ?

[LBD]

I'd consider drink driving - besides the charge in and off itself - to be at least careless, and most likely reckless/dangerous, use of a motor vehicle. I'd even maintain that drinking anything at all before operating a vehicle is careless use.

One thing I am unsure of: If you are driving a vehicle while intoxicated - but below the legal limit - aren't you more likely to be held legally resposible for any mishap that may occur. I know that in Denmark, if you drive after having drunk, but still below the legal limit, you will almost always be found at fault by default if an accident occurs. Is it the same here in NZ?

There is merit in Zero tolerance and personally I think that is a logical and sensible way forward, no misunderstanding, no excuses, no room for ambiguity. Intent would have no place in the argument.

Drink driving is in my book, infinitely more serious than careless driving, Causing injury and death as a result of alchol impared judgment more serious again and should carry the same weight as serious manslaughter.

Me? I take a hardline on drink (or other chemically altered judgment) driving.

[Genestho]

So far this poll illustrates that 25/33 people on KB didn't understand what the distinction between murder and manslaughter was when they pushed the button. No wonder why so much doubtful legal advice abound...

Yes I see your point, but the intention (right or wrong) and the poll of thread, is based on the provided 60 minutes segment aired in Australia, highlighting a tough lawyers landmark case in the states...to spark debate..it's quite clear that the charge of murder has been used in a drink drive fatality sentence, I was merely asking the question out loud. The voters pushed the button based on the source they were provided.

I am not, and was not advising anyone of doubtful legal advice, and as earlier stated I myself am unskilled in this area...as as also been said earlier....the distinction has been made...

excerpt of transcript;


LIAM BARTLETT: The driver, 24-year-old Martin Heidgen, had been at a party and just like the driver who killed baby Grace in Perth, was three times over the limit. He took a wrong turn onto the wrong side of the freeway, ignoring drivers who beeped and flashed their lights at him. The DA said this showed a depraved indifference to human life and charged him with murder.

KATHLEEN RICE: The deaths of Katie Flynn and Stanley Rabinowitz were as inevitable as someone going into a crowded movie theatre with a loaded gun and just firing it at the people in the theatre. No-one would be surprised, under those circumstances, that someone ended up dead. That's exactly what we're talking about here.

LIAM BARTLETT: And the jury agreed - Heidgen was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 18 years in jail. It's become a landmark legal case because normally, drink driving fatalities are seen as accidental, not intentional.

[popelli]

There is merit in Zero tolerance and personally I think that is a logical and sensible way forward, no misunderstanding, no excuses, no room for ambiguity. Intent would have no place in the argument.



some cough mixture and some medicines have a bit of alcohol

you have a cold, you have to drive somewhere that was unplanned and the inevitable happens and using the above logic you are now classed as a murderer

yes zero tolerence really does make sense

[jrandom]

Murder requires intention...

Here's the current legal definition of murder from the Crimes Act, s167:

Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:

(a) If the offender means to cause the death of the person killed:

(b) If the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not:

(c) If the offender means to cause death, or, being so reckless as aforesaid, means to cause such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, and by accident or mistake kills another person, though he does not mean to hurt the person killed:

(d) If the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he knows to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he may have desired that his object should be effected without hurting any one.

Driving drunk could potentially fall under (d).

So you could certainly say that the charge of murder is already available.

The central question is how "knows to be likely to cause death" is to be interpreted.

I'm sure any High Court judge would have a lot to say on that question, and there's bound to be plenty of precedent. It may well be that the interpretative bar for that clause has been set far higher than any drink driving case could clear. Dunno. The defense could probably argue that a significant majority of incidences of drunk driving don't result in death, and therefore it can't be seen to be 'likely' to cause death.

Anyhow, the definition of 'manslaughter' in s171 is just "culpable homicide not amounting to murder is manslaughter".

So I don't think there's anything wrong with the current legal position. It's within the bounds of possibility to charge a drink driver who kills with murder, and if that doesn't stick, manslaughter will.

If drunk drivers who cause death aren't charged with murder, it's presumably because the prosecutors don't think that the case satisfies the s167 definition. And s167 seems like a pretty good general definition of murder, so I'd say that everything's set up about right.

But perhaps the charge of manslaughter should be used more in drink-driving cases.

Tough sentencing options are available for manslaughter convictions, so perhaps what really needs addressing is not the law itself, but the way it's being used by prosecutors and judges?

[Grahameeboy]

I see both sides of this, and a bit unsure weather on there first offence, but if they are known drink drivers and kill someone murder charges should follow.


But someone who drunk gets in a car and drives, isn't that delibate?
They are driving when know they should not drive.

Drunk people don't often realise the danger...alcoho.l being a depressant.
Hard one...if someone has a gun and points it at someone they know what they are doing...not sure the same case when drunk.

However, a sober person who drives to a Pub for eg should not get drunk so maybe there is a subtle difference that needs to be considered...

[LBD]

However, a sober person who drives to a Pub for eg should not get drunk so maybe there is a subtle difference that needs to be considered...

A sober person should not drive to the pub if they are going to drink with the possibility they will drive home...Drink responsibly.

[Mikkel]

There is merit in Zero tolerance and personally I think that is a logical and sensible way forward, no misunderstanding, no excuses, no room for ambiguity. Intent would have no place in the argument.

Drink driving is in my book, infinitely more serious than careless driving, Causing injury and death as a result of alchol impared judgment more serious again and should carry the same weight as serious manslaughter.

Me? I take a hardline on drink (or other chemically altered judgment) driving.

But there are plenty of situations, besides drug and drink induced incompetence, where both your judgement and/or ability to operate a vehicle may be impaired.

Sleepy
Distraught
Angry
Mentally unstable (yes, there are a few nutcases on our roads too)

It's very difficult to quantify such qualities and their impact. And consequently it is very difficult to create and enforce legislation in that regard.

Another couple of points worth considering:

Alcohol affects different individuals differently - someone could be perfectly safe to drive home at twice the legal limit while others aren't even safe on the road at half the legal limit (or perhaps even at all).

Alcohol affects the individual differently from one occassion to another - one could be quite capable of operating a vehicle after a bottle of wine on one night and not at all capable after two glasses on another. On one occassion you might mellow out while at another you might become more aggressive.

Now, considering that I would have to disagree with careless driving being worse than drink driving. Unless you actually pose an increased danger to your fellow man (compared not to your sober state, but the accepted average standard for a roaduser - i.e. pretty low in NZ, sorry) you can not, rationally, argue that you shouldn't be on the road or be eligible for just persecution.

As for the zero tolerance statement. Sorry, but that's pretty ignorant. Zero tolerance has never worked anywhere at any point in time - history shows this quite clearly. It's not a black and white world I am afraid and any law enforcement community that tries to force that square block through the round hole is a pretty stupid kid indeed. Which, incidentally, is also why the "speed kills" and "bad all drugs" ideas are bound to fail - but will cause a lot of misery until they do. But this will lead off-topic very quickly so let's not digress.

[cc rider]

To the best of my knowledge, which is a bit old - re Australian Law
(Abridged explanation in layperson’s language)

1. Driving under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs.
It is a criminal offence for anyone to drive or try to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

2. Negligent Driving (careless driving or driving without due care & attention, in some states) is a serious offence.
Negligent Driving covers anything from a minor bump to a major accident if it is caused by the negligence of the driver. It applies to any behaviour, which indicates there has been a lack of reasonable care.

3. Dangerous Driving (in some states called reckless driving) is a more serious charge.
Dangerous Driving may overlap w/ negligent driving or w/ other offences & to some extent is deliberately vague in definition to allow for flexibility in the way it is applied. DD covers anything which endangers the safety of anyone else on the road whether or not it involves the committing of a specific offence.

4. Causing Death or Injury on the Road
Depending on state laws, a person who kills someone by bad driving can be charged w/ culpable driving, w/ causing death by dangerous driving, or in some instances w/ manslaughter.

5. Homicide
The term homicide is used to describe the killing of a human being. Such a killing may be lawful or it may be unlawful.
Unlawful homicide includes:
> murder;
> manslaughter;
> causing death by reckless driving;
> etc.

6. Murder
The crime of murder is committed when anyone who is sane intentionally & ‘with malice aforethought’ unlawfully kills someone else.
If someone is injured, & as a result of the injuries, dies within a year & a day, the attacker may be charged w/ murder.
Although ‘intention’ is a necessary pre-condition to murder, if a person accidentally kills someone while committing a violent crime or sexual assault, that person may sometimes be charged w/ murder.

7. Manslaughter
The only difference between manslaughter & murder is the mental intent. A person who commits an unlawful & dangerous act causing death, but without malice aforethought, commits manslaughter.

:)

[koba]

Accidental death is manslaughter. You can be as 'pissed as a fart' but any death that is a result of this is till accidental.

Get pissed as a fart and deliberalty go and kill someone this then becomes a premeditated act and the death is murder.

It is important that this distinction remains.


Skyryder

+1
ten char

[XP@]

If you take a projectile and launch it in a direction where you know there are people, it hits someone and they die ... is that murder?
Why should it make any difference if the object is a car or a gun?

Drunk or not, you are certainly aware a metal projectile traveling at speed can kill.

If you stand on the motorway and start randomly firing your gun you would be done for attempted murder. Surely if you launch a car out of control down the motorway you stand a good chance of killing someone, therefore you should suffer the same consequences.

[Usarka]

If you take a projectile and launch it in a direction where you know there are people, it hits someone and they die ... is that murder?
Why should it make any difference if the object is a car or a gun?

Drunk or not, you are certainly aware a metal projectile traveling at speed can kill.

If you stand on the motorway and start randomly firing your gun you would be done for attempted murder. Surely if you launch a car out of control down the motorway you stand a good chance of killing someone, therefore you should suffer the same consequences.

So any dangerous driving charge causing death should also be murder?

[Mom]

I am going to say no to facing a murder charge in this situation, simply becasue as I understand it you have to have set out to kill some one. Certainly there should never be a question of a manslaughter charge being brought. One thing though that I would really like to see is a zero limit for alchohol while driving. No grey areas at all. If you are driving/riding then no booze allowed. Simple.

[LBD]

Originally Posted by Mikkel
But there are plenty of situations, besides drug and drink induced incompetence, where both your judgement and/or ability to operate a vehicle may be impaired.
Sleepy
Distraught
Angry
Mentally unstable (yes, there are a few nutcases on our roads too)
It's very difficult to quantify such qualities and their impact. And consequently it is very difficult to create and enforce legislation in that regard.

You will not get any arguement from me on the above statement, I think there is attempts to work on the road rage, but as for the others, yes they would be a challange to police.

Another couple of points worth considering:Alcohol affects different individuals differently - someone could be perfectly safe to drive home at twice the legal limit while others aren't even safe on the road at half the legal limit (or perhaps even at all).

So why run the gamble? Yes alchol affects everyone different...but as you say, it affects everyone. It is a proven, accepted and undeniable fact. You cannot argue against the statement that to operate machinary the sharper your senses or reactions are, the safer you are, anything that detracts from that makes you a less capable driver of varying degrees.

Alcohol affects the individual differently from one occassion to another - one could be quite capable of operating a vehicle after a bottle of wine on one night and not at all capable after two glasses on another. On one occassion you might mellow out while at another you might become more aggressive.

Again why run the gamble, if you don't know how the alchol will affect a person....how can that person determine if they will or will not be safe to drive on any given occasion?

Now, considering that I would have to disagree with careless driving being worse than drink driving. Unless you actually pose an increased danger to your fellow man (compared not to your sober state, but the accepted average standard for a roaduser - i.e. pretty low in NZ, sorry) you can not, rationally, argue that you shouldn't be on the road or be eligible for just persecution.

I think there is a difference between careless and reckless/dangerous/drink driving, Careless is accidental unintentional unattentive.... Reckless/dangerous/drink driving is all intentional and still cosidered more serious than Careless driving IMO...

As for the zero tolerance statement. Sorry, but that's pretty ignorant. Zero tolerance has never worked anywhere at any point in time - history shows this quite clearly.

You would need to substantiate that because clearly it opposes the vast majority of statistics and research. as an example have a look the statistics for Zero tolerance for under 21's...When zero tolerance was brought in for under 21 year olds in the US…(yes I know that is not nz)
Over the past 20 years, alcohol-related fatal crash rates have decreased by 60 percent for drivers ages 16 to 17 years and 55 percent for drivers ages 18 to 20

It's not a black and white world I am afraid and any law enforcement community that tries to force that square block through the round hole is a pretty stupid kid indeed.

If a square peg falls comfortable through the round hole (with clearance) and makes a major reduction in the pain and suffering caused by alchol related accidents and deaths, then I for one will support it. After all, what any hard ship would there be (really) if zero tolerance was brought in?


Good debate....tks

[Tank]

So if drink-driving is given a murder charge - where do we stop?


We all know that riding / driving to fast for the conditions increases the risk of an accident (longer stopping distances etc) - so if you are deemed as riding too fast should you be held accountable for murder if you cause an accident? After all it was a conscious decision to take that risk.

We all know that riding / driving without concentrating 100% increases the risk of an accident - should anyone on a cell phone or eating a apple be charged with murder if they are doing that when driving? After all it was a conscious decision to take that risk.

We all know that bald or under inflated tyres increases stopping distances - if we chose to ignore that and drive our car and have an accident - should they be charged with murder? After all it was a conscious decision to take that risk.

We all know that not wearing a seat belt in the back seat is a bad idea. But one day we are in a rush and dont check that my 11 yo son is strapped in. We hit the brakes and he goes thru the window killing him. I was responsible as the driver to ensure he had his belt on - but I didnt and now he's dead. Should I be charged with murder? After all I was negligent.

The difference is intent.

We all do things every day that 'could' end in disaster - I know I do. The difference is that I never go out there to hurt people.

Now - I do agree that there needs to be stiffer penalties - but charging them with Murder is far from the right answer.

[LBD]

So if drink-driving is given a murder charge - where do we stop?


The difference is intent.



I agree with this statement 100% "the difference is intent"

With Zero tolerance, with a minor allowance for the likes of medication, because there is allways exceptions) If you drink then drive, you have intended to drive impaired. Subequently if you have an accident resulting in death the I think you could be considered to "intend to cause a death because you intended to be a hazard on the road.

But back to the original question is it Murder? No any victim was unintionally chosen, not deliberatly selected or targeted.
Manslaughter with a serious minimum penalty...definately.

[piston broke]

i voted no,
but if someone has been drinking and deliberately mows someone down,
then hell yes,even if they are really pissed,claiming they didn't mean too.
i.e, if they deliberately aimed at someone

[BiK3RChiK]

Perhaps if people had been affected by drink driving as you and I, Guzzi Widow they may see things differently.

The absolutely mind-blowingly drunk kid who smashed into me head-on had never been convicted for that before and wasn't for the 'accident' he caused that sunny afternoon either. However, someone who has had many, many convictions should IMO be charged for murder if he causes the death of someone else.

Hugs to you:hug: The Guzzi Widow and all others in similar positions....

[Troll]

However, someone who has had many, many convictions should IMO be charged for murder if he causes the death of someone else.



and how many convictions does it take to be classified as many?

[Mikkel]

So why run the gamble? Yes alchol affects everyone different...but as you say, it affects everyone. It is a proven, accepted and undeniable fact. You cannot argue against the statement that to operate machinary the sharper your senses or reactions are, the safer you are, anything that detracts from that makes you a less capable driver of varying degrees.

Why run the gamble - not to get too philosophical, but life is about managing risks and playing the odds. Safety is an illusion.

As for the rest - indeed drinking will impair your senses and reduce your competence. However, I am not at all concerned with the safety of the drink driver and his passengers - they choose to engage in said activity and it is for evolution to prove them wrong. The issue with drink driving is the increased risk to 3rd parties. As such the level of impairment induced by alcohol is only really relevant if it reduces your competence below the accepted minimum for the average road-user. This is a very important point in my opinion.


You would need to substantiate that because clearly it opposes the vast majority of statistics and research. as an example have a look the statistics for Zero tolerance for under 21's...When zero tolerance was brought in for under 21 year olds in the US…(yes I know that is not nz)
Over the past 20 years, alcohol-related fatal crash rates have decreased by 60 percent for drivers ages 16 to 17 years and 55 percent for drivers ages 18 to 20

By zero tolerance I didn't imply the level to which something is restricted, but whether it is legal at all or not.
I.e. the prohibition of alcohol in the US only served to help organised crime rise to power, people would still get pissed. Just like drugs are doing today. The suppression of the early christians in Rome actually futhered their growth. Just like the war on terrorism has caused an increase in the number of terrorists.
A zero tolerance on alcohol would see a lot of people not drink and drive at all this much is true - but generally speaking these people wouldn't be the dangerous drink drivers as it is now. On the other hand you would get that some of the people who currently are pushing the envelope wouldn't care at all about how much they drank and more people would be doing runners too.

In my opinion that's not really helping the problem that much.


If a square peg falls comfortable through the round hole (with clearance) and makes a major reduction in the pain and suffering caused by alchol related accidents and deaths, then I for one will support it. After all, what any hard ship would there be (really) if zero tolerance was brought in?

As a responsible individual I'd prefer to be allowed to have a couple of beers or glasses of wine with a good dinner with friends over the course of several hours and then be able to drive home across town instead of having to take a bus there and a cab home. I wouldn't welcome any more laws that try to remove from me that wholy satisfatory process of actually thinking for myself, but fuck knows that if the last decades are anything to go by that will become a real luxury soon enough.

Call me an idealist, but passing laws in the vain hope that they may remedy something they never will is pure idiocy. The purpose of the law is to protect people from wrong doing, not to take away the resposibility of having to think for yourself completely.

[BiK3RChiK]

and how many convictions does it take to be classified as many?

Personally, I think one conviction is too many, but I have heard of some people who have many more than 3 convictions in ten years. One case I know of, the guy had 7 previous convictions when he killed someone else! I'd have thought that even after the first conviction, one would learn!

FTR, I never drink and drive. One drink is too many to drive after you've seen the consequences of drinking and driving like what I've seen...

[Genestho]

Hugs to you:hug: The Guzzi Widow and all others in similar positions....
Awww, thankyou darling that is very sweet, and to you :hug: and yes!! To others here who have been through this!!!

Im just wading through some related info from the States...quite interesting...might post it up later for opinions:yes:

[Genestho]

Southern California Legal Strategies...

2nd Degree Murder and Implied Malice cases

The common factors:

Blood alcohol level above the .08% legal limit;
A pre-drinking intent to drive;
Knowledge of the hazard of driving while intoxicated;
Highly dangerous driving;

Also I noted in regards to prior convictions..

Admonition which must be included in all DUI tahl waiver forms, advises the defendant that
“I understand that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, impairs my ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, and is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. If I continue to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, and as a result of my driving, someone is killed, I can be charged with murder.”

Also noted the two types of vehicular manslaughter...Gross and negligent vehicular manslaughter

Of course not relevant in NZ, but again basing my comments on the landmark Murder Charge this thread refers to, in the States...

If you feel like wading through here (http://www.hutton-wilson.com/dui-murder.htm)

[Winston001]

Why run the gamble - not to get too philosophical, but life is about managing risks and playing the odds. Safety is an illusion.

As for the rest - indeed drinking will impair your senses and reduce your competence............


Call me an idealist, but passing laws in the vain hope that they may remedy something they never will is pure idiocy. The purpose of the law is to protect people from wrong doing, not to take away the resposibility of having to think for yourself completely.

Nice arguments Mikkel but you are mixing complex social issues (Prohibition) with a simple social harm - drunk/drugged drivers. The community in virtually every nation in the world has already accepted intoxicated driving is unlawful. So that argument is already finished. All that differs is the level of tolerance.

Removing the doubt of how much you can "safely" drink is rational. In District courts the length of the nation you will hear people saying "I only had 1/2/3 etc drinks" as they plead guilty. Far far simpler to have zero level.

We can't have variable laws - too uncertain eg. you can ride faster than me cos you are younger, or bike is safer etc. Unenforceable.

Incidentally, if Prohibition is so unsuccessful, how do your explain the lack of alcohol consumption in Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia etc.......? There are hundreds of millions there who no doubt would enjoy a tipple, alcohol is avaiable......but hardly used.........?

[McJim]

Voluntarily getting intoxicated and then taking control of a deadly weapon (motor vehicle) in a public place is tantamount to firing shots from a gun at random into a crowd.

If firing random shots at a crowd and killing someone is just manslaughter then driving drunk should be manslaughter.

However I suspect killing a few people at random with a gun would count as murder so murder it must be - just because the deadly weapon is a car doesn't make any difference to me.

[Genestho]

Voluntarily getting intoxicated and then taking control of a deadly weapon (motor vehicle) in a public place is tantamount to firing shots from a gun at random into a crowd.

If firing random shots at a crowd and killing someone is just manslaughter then driving drunk should be manslaughter.

However I suspect killing a few people at random with a gun would count as murder so murder it must be - just because the deadly weapon is a car doesn't make any difference to me.

Bingo, it becomes a loaded gun

[scumdog]

In District courts the length of the nation you will hear people saying "I only had 1/2/3 etc drinks" as they plead guilty. Far far simpler to have zero level.
.........?


Ah, a standard measure is 3 Winston...

Sometimes it's jugs, sometimes it's rtds, sometimes it's stubbies but it's always "I only had three, straight-up, only three'.

With such precision accuracy it's a wonder we still need evidential breath testing machines..:msn-wink:

[jrandom]

However I suspect killing a few people at random with a gun would count as murder so murder it must be - just because the deadly weapon is a car doesn't make any difference to me.

The designed purpose of a gun is to kill things.

The designed purpose of a car is to transport things.

Anything can be used for something other than its intended purpose, but it's fair to say that one generally has that intended purpose in mind for an item when one takes control of it.

I think you'd find that that argument would carry a fair bit of weight with a jury when it came to the 'intention' question vis-a-vis a murder charge.

[jrandom]

... if Prohibition is so unsuccessful, how do your explain the lack of alcohol consumption in Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia etc.......?

Religious programming from birth.

You'll never (or very rarely) convince a rational adult who hasn't been mentally prepared in the same way to live by the same precepts.

[scumdog]

The designed purpose of a gun is to kill things.

The designed purpose of a car is to transport things.

And the sad thing is these cars that are not intended to be killing devices do just that so many more times than the guns which some claim are only there to kill things...

[jrandom]

And the sad thing is these cars that are not intended to be killing devices do just that so many more times than the guns which some claim are only there to kill things...

Too true.

If we could ban cars from the road entirely, and move ourselves on two wheels and our freight by train, I wouldn't be crying myself to sleep.

In fact, as of a couple weeks ago, I no longer own a car, and have no plans on changing that. Cars are, in multiple ways, a social evil.

But I'm still uncomfortable about the crime of 'murder' applying to driving causing death where the driver didn't intend to (and would have preferred not to) kill. The distinction between murder and manslaughter needs to be retained for situations like that, IMHO.

But, right now, we lock vicious murderers up for something under 20 years, and people convicted of manslaughter away for, realistically, up to 4 or 5. I see no reason not to double those figures.

[Mikkel]

Nice arguments Mikkel but you are mixing complex social issues (Prohibition) with a simple social harm - drunk/drugged drivers. The community in virtually every nation in the world has already accepted intoxicated driving is unlawful. So that argument is already finished. All that differs is the level of tolerance.

Removing the doubt of how much you can "safely" drink is rational. In District courts the length of the nation you will hear people saying "I only had 1/2/3 etc drinks" as they plead guilty. Far far simpler to have zero level.

Yes, but you and I both know that we can easily have two beers and operate a motorvehicle with a reasonable level of competence. A law that flies in the face of that fact is begging to be broken - just like the speed limit in some places.

As you say intoxicated driving is unlawful - beyond the limit, not within the limit. As such it is not a case of zero tolerance. If NZ should do anything it would be to lower the limit to 0.5% blood alcohol and then stop being fucking pussies about enforcing the penalties. Something is not working properly when a person can have 8 charges of driving while disqualified and 5 charges of drink driving to their name...

Setting the limit to 0.0% is prohibition and will not work - because prohibition never does.


We can't have variable laws - too uncertain eg. you can ride faster than me cos you are younger, or bike is safer etc. Unenforceable.

I agree and I didn't call for anything like that. I just noted it as part of the "this is not a black & white world" argument.

If you read my posts I'm sure you'll find that I have expressed great disregard for unenforceable legislation.


And the sad thing is these cars that are not intended to be killing devices do just that so many more times than the guns which some claim are only there to kill things...

Well, that's because we are lucky enough to live in a nice, calm and sheltered corner of the world. If you bemoan that fact I think you'll find Dafur or Afghanistan a bit more to your liking. ;)

[Winston001]

Just as a matter of general interest, the average world tolerance appears to be about 0.05 (250mg). A number of countries (in Africa) have no stated limit so they rely on laws we used to have - general signs of intoxication, walk the line etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_under_the_influence

[Winston001]

Yes, but you and I both know that we can easily have two beers and operate a motorvehicle with a reasonable level of competence. A law that flies in the face of that fact is begging to be broken - just like the speed limit in some places.

As you say intoxicated driving is unlawful - beyond the limit, not within the limit. As such it is not a case of zero tolerance. If NZ should do anything it would be to lower the limit to 0.5% blood alcohol and then stop being fucking pussies about enforcing the penalties. Something is not working properly when a person can have 8 charges of driving while disqualified and 5 charges of drink driving to their name...

Setting the limit to 0.0% is prohibition and will not work - because prohibition never does.

;)

Au contraire prohibition does work. You aren't allowed to commit burglary, assault, murder etc, those who do are condemned by society. Yet thousands of years ago, such deeds were accepted as part of life - the strong ruled. No more.

I do agree about penalties, they need to be stronger.

And just because a law might for you and me beg to be broken, there are thousands of others who obey it at the same moment. Social acceptance of the law is essential and thats one of the reasons making marijuana illegal ain't working. Not that I'm keen on it these days, my views have changed.

[McJim]

Not that I'm keen on it these days, my views have changed.
*cough* *cough* ya dude, I hear ya....pass the spliff..:rofl:

[piston broke]

i must have been guilty of driving,riding over the limit at least 100 times by now.
sad but true.
when i started driving 25+ years ago it wasn't really an issue.
i would say more of the crashes i have had were when i was sober by large %
not to say i was right to be drunk behind the bars or wheel.
sadly i have spent many of 100's of k's driving when i probably shouldn't have.
but i've never,had a crash where i have hurt anyone other than me.
in my real young days, i nearly got home once but hit a powerpole going into my folks place,i couldn't pick the bike up as the engine was against the post,i eventually passed out tryin to lift it with my folks watchin me.sadly the cops didn't go past and see me and kick my arse

ed i'm a bit wiser now and don't drive,ride after more than 3 beers in as many hrs,i hope thats reasonable

[Mikkel]

Au contraire prohibition does work. You aren't allowed to commit burglary, assault, murder etc, those who do are condemned by society. Yet thousands of years ago, such deeds were accepted as part of life - the strong ruled. No more.

Outlawing willful behaviour that causes injury or loss to another individual is the very basis for having laws.

You are, I believe, now trolling. You know full well that by prohibition is implied the outlawing of a practice that in and of itself does not cause injury or loss to anyone else. It may be a practice that to some extent is perceived to increase the likelihood of accidental causing injury or loss, but then we are again back at intent versus accident.


And just because a law might for you and me beg to be broken, there are thousands of others who obey it at the same moment. Social acceptance of the law is essential and thats one of the reasons making marijuana illegal ain't working. Not that I'm keen on it these days, my views have changed.

Now, with fear of getting off-topic, this is a subject of real interest to me.

I think that the introduction of silly laws that can not be enforced even if they ought to is causing irreperable damage simply based upon the fact that the public looses faith in the law community.
Just like you and I loose respect for a cop who gives you a bogus ticket on one of his bad days and are left with a feeling of why aren't they out fighting real crime, etc.

Every time you break the law, no matter how minor the offense, and realise that you are not a bad person for doing so nor are you actually causing any hurt or loss to anyone else, each and every time you will loose a little bit of respect for the law. When all respect for the law has been erroded away (probably no later than the age of 20 and most likely long before that unless you've lead a priviledged life) you are effectively down to your morals and whatever fear you may have of lawful repercussions invoked by your behaviour.

[RocKai]

Everytime you break the law, while drink driving is of course serious. Hey, but what about "Sleep and drive"??? Has anyone debated about that yet? It's as bloody dangerous as drink and drive. Should that be put under murder charge as well? I don't think so. You don't choose to be tired and sleepy when you get behind the wheel, as well as it's not against the law like drunk and drive, and you might think that you could get across town like that. And what is the maximum term for manslaughter while driving anyway?

[Genestho]

Everytime you break the law, while drink driving is of course serious. Hey, but what about "Sleep and drive"??? Has anyone debated about that yet? It's as bloody dangerous as drink and drive. Should that be put under murder charge as well? I don't think so. You don't choose to be tired and sleepy when you get behind the wheel, as well as it's not against the law like drunk and drive, and you might think that you could get across town like that. And what is the maximum term for manslaughter while driving anyway?


"Quite often" a drunk driver falls asleep at the wheel, I don't have the figures for that, although I'm sure I can find them fairly easily....

I know the guy that killed my hubby and mates, was asleep when he knocked them down like skittles, although very drunk and 4 priors.
He never woke to see the carnage he had caused to four families...
Lord knows what wet bus ticket he would've been slapped with but we don't have to concern ourselves with that..

IMHO..When you fall sleep at the wheel you're not ingesting something that will cause you to fall asleep.
There is another distinction there, although in saying that..
I also believe that falling asleep at the wheel minus ingested substances is preventable...

[Lissa]

The problem in this country is the way we are drinking and the social part alcohol plays in our lives (sounds like an ad!). But people who repeatedly drink and drive are the most self-destructive people who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Alcohol can change people, some people become more violent and aggressive, and some choose to drink and drive. There are alot of ways that Alcohol can lead to accidents, domestic and physical abuse and murder.

I know of a man who lived a one minute walk from a pub, just around a corner who was too friggin lazy to walk, so he drove drunk out of the car park and hit a bus. That could easily have been a tragic accident had it been a motorbike or a small car he had hit.

If people drink and drive they shouldnt even be allowed to own a vehicle, as they are incapable of being able to control themselves. They make me sick. Getting into a vehicle drunk and killing someone should be classed as murder. Life is full of choices and life is so precious why destroy someones life by your own selfishness all because they want a drink.

[Winston001]

....And what is the maximum term for manslaughter while driving anyway?

Life imprisonment.



Outlawing willful behaviour that causes injury or loss to another individual is the very basis for having laws.

You are, I believe, now trolling....


Now, with fear of getting off-topic, this is a subject of real interest to me.

I think that the introduction of silly laws that can not be enforced even if they ought to is causing irreparable damage ..........When all respect for the law has been erroded away you are effectively down to your morals and whatever fear you may have of lawful repercussions invoked by your behaviour.

Not deliberately trolling, just like arguing - for the full half hour. :D EBA law deals with wilful behaviour that causes injury/loss/tragedy. Granted, the behaviour doesn't always lead to this but society has decided the risk is high. All thats left to debate is where the line is drawn - 400mg or zero.

I say zero for the sake of simplicity and to avoid people thinking they can risk a certain number of drinks. You say 250mg and it looks like a lot of other countries agree with you. Fair enough. Wrong but ok....... :devil2:

As to the philosophy of law - jurisprudence, here is a link http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JllGk3D30owC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=jurisprudence&ots=lc0sQRz0cy&sig=Rg6bLVvs4ayh2frcBPwmFH1cyok#PPA248,M1

[Usarka]

If people drink and drive they shouldnt even be allowed to own a vehicle, as they are incapable of being able to control themselves. They make me sick. Getting into a vehicle drunk and killing someone should be classed as murder. Life is full of choices and life is so precious why destroy someones life by your own selfishness all because they want a drink.

So if people speed and drive they are incapable of being able to control themselves and also should be done for murder if they kill someone....?

The current penalties seem indicate that these two acts as of similar seriousness, and this probably reflects the "majority" view of NZ, so lets hit both of them up.

[Mikkel]

self-destructive people who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Erhm, that's a contradiction I think :scratch:


Wrong but ok....... :devil2:

Am not, you are fuhle! :rofl:

Nothing quite like being the devil's advocate is there? ;)

[HenryDorsetCase]

Not deliberately trolling, just like arguing - for the full half hour.

No you don't.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/teMlv3ripSM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/teMlv3ripSM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[slowpoke]

I'm suprised at the black and white mentality regarding some of this discussion....awww shit, no I'm not.

Life is all about shades of grey, with every situation different from the next. To make blanket statements regarding laws or certain types of behaviour is just asking for a case or person to step forward that straddles wherever you've drawn the line.

Every drink driver in an accident is a murderer? Someone blows 0.01mg/l over the limit they are a murderer, the next guy blows 0.01 under and it's an accident. It's farcical, especially when you throw mandatory sentencing into the mix.

What of the person who sleeps it off in the carpark, wakes up and drives off in the morning, has an accident and is still over the limit. Is he a murderer? He deliberately tried to do the right thing.

And surely drink driving is a symptom, as is domestic violence amongst others, of an inability of society to cope with alcohol. Why not ban the cause itself: alcohol? Surely if a substance is known to be harmful it's the Governments duty of care to remove the hazard?

Besides how can you expect someone to display good judgenment when the very thing that they are legally allowed (and often encouraged) to consume is known to impair judgement? It's like allowing people to use pepper but then making sneezing illegal. They are inextricably linked, one begets the other.

Edit: I like a beer as much as the next bloke, and I'm thankful it's not but there really is no defence as to why alcohol is still legal. It is the root cause of a lot of problems, where most if not all "solutions" only address the effect.

[98tls]

Until the lawmakers make the punishment for drink driving a punishment then the carnage will continue,there inability to do so is beyond belief,millons spent on ads etc but no punishment to back it up,pathetic really.Guys with 4-5 convictions are still being handed out a paltry few months pd,if per chance they kill someone it jumps up to an even more pathetic 2-3 years of which they will only do 1/2 anyway.Hard to understand really.

[LBD]

On the one hand we have a group of KBers who accept the situation of being prepared to ride on the road with others who have had their judgment impaired with even legal amounts of alchol, the same who may make you an injured victim of their impaired judgment. You will not have the choice to accept or reject the harmful consequences…

On the other hand we have a vast majority of KBers who would strongly object to approaches by any members of the zealous religiously inclined types because they are attempting to impose their beliefs and opinions onto others, even though it is in a harmless manner that you can chose to accept or reject…

Many KBers will have a foot in both camps…is that not contradictory?

[HenryDorsetCase]

On the one hand we have a group of KBers who accept the situation of being prepared to ride on the road with others who have had their judgment impaired with even legal amounts of alchol, the same who may make you an injured victim of their impaired judgment. You will not have the choice to accept or reject the harmful consequences…

On the other hand we have a vast majority of KBers who would strongly object to approaches by any members of the zealous religiously inclined types because they are attempting to impose their beliefs and opinions onto others, even though it is in a harmless manner that you can chose to accept or reject…

Many KBers will have a foot in both camps…is that not contradictory?

No it isnt

see my previous post with a youtube link as to why not.

[Winston001]

No it isnt



Look, I told you once!

[EatOrBeEaten]

Everybody knows that alcohol impairs your ability to drive. Everybody. In this decade there can be no human being in the western world who is not aware of this. Therefore, anybody who drinks alcohol and gets behind the wheel is aware that they are impaired and will not be driving to the full limit of their capabilities. They are aware that they are more likely to cause an accident. They are aware that they are more likely to kill and injure themselves or others than if they were sober.

When you make the decision to drive under the influence you have chosen to put yourself and other road users at increased risk. As a result, if you cause an injury or a death to someone else under the influence, then the fact you consciously decided to put others at risk should be reflected in the sentence handed down to you.

There really is no fucking excuse, none at all, for killing someone because a driver couldn't say no to a few beers.

[Winston001]

So if people speed and drive they are incapable of being able to control themselves and also should be done for murder if they kill someone....?

Yes. But its very rare because the intent to kill has to be proven. Usually a manslaughter charge. No alcohol or drugs required.


Life is all about shades of grey, with every situation different from the next. To make blanket statements regarding laws or certain types of behaviour is just asking for a case or person to step forward that straddles wherever you've drawn the line.

Well said and that's why we have discretion in terms of charges laid, and sentencing. One size does not fit all.


Every drink driver in an accident is a murderer? Someone blows 0.01mg/l over the limit they are a murderer, the next guy blows 0.01 under and it's an accident. It's farcical, especially when you throw mandatory sentencing into the mix.

Excellent point and illustrates why zero alcohol is the much clearer option.


What of the person who sleeps it off in the carpark, wakes up and drives off in the morning, has an accident and is still over the limit. Is he a murderer? He deliberately tried to do the right thing.

Not in my opinion.


And surely drink driving is a symptom, as is domestic violence amongst others, of an inability of society to cope with alcohol. Why not ban the cause itself: alcohol? Surely if a substance is known to be harmful it's the Governments duty of care to remove the hazard?

The community acceptance of alcohol is the reason why we don't have harsher drink/drive laws. Unless that changes, the penalties will stay the same.


However, just discussing the topic exaggerates the problem. Don't know the stats but it seems like there are far less drinking drivers today than there used to be. So possibly the ones who are caught only represent a very small section of the community - and there will always be lawbreakers.

Incidentally, how can we ever prevent a person (outside a prison) from driving a vehicle if they decide they want to? We do not want to live in a police state.

[98tls]

Yes. But its very rare because the intent to kill has to be proven. Usually a manslaughter charge. No alcohol or drugs required.



Well said and that's why we have discretion in terms of charges laid, and sentencing. One size does not fit all.



Excellent point and illustrates why zero alcohol is the much clearer option.



Not in my opinion.



The community acceptance of alcohol is the reason why we don't have harsher drink/drive laws. Unless that changes, the penalties will stay the same.


However, just discussing the topic exaggerates the problem. Don't know the stats but it seems like there are far less drinking drivers today than there used to be. So possibly the ones who are caught only represent a very small section of the community - and there will always be lawbreakers.

Incidentally, how can we ever prevent a person (outside a prison) from driving a vehicle if they decide they want to? We do not want to live in a police state. Good post mate,theres a device that can be fitted rendering a car in-operable if booze is detected,i imagine car makers would cry to expensive etc but have often wondered if built on a mass scale if it wouldnt be cheaper to be goverment funded to every vehicle in the long run.

[EatOrBeEaten]

The community acceptance of alcohol is the reason why we don't have harsher drink/drive laws. Unless that changes, the penalties will stay the same.


However, just discussing the topic exaggerates the problem. Don't know the stats but it seems like there are far less drinking drivers today than there used to be. So possibly the ones who are caught only represent a very small section of the community - and there will always be lawbreakers.

Incidentally, how can we ever prevent a person (outside a prison) from driving a vehicle if they decide they want to? We do not want to live in a police state.

You can't, just like if someone REALLY wants to rape or murder then we can't really stop them. What stops the vast majority of people from rape and murder is the threat of consequences, the moral code of our society and personal ethics. If drink-driving was seen as socially abhorrent and carried a stiff penalty then would as many people do it?

[Usarka]

Hey I'm not arguing that drink driving is ok, just that it's hypocritical of many who ride at excessive speeds that are viewed dangerous by most of the population to say another group that we deem dangerous should be tried for murder if they fuck up.

If you start messing with the murder laws to include activities that carry risk but don't have intent then you're opening a can of worms that could swim up your arse crack and bite you on the roots of your pubes.....

[Mikkel]

And surely drink driving is a symptom, as is domestic violence amongst others, of an inability of society to cope with alcohol. Why not ban the cause itself: alcohol? Surely if a substance is known to be harmful it's the Governments duty of care to remove the hazard?

Besides how can you expect someone to display good judgenment when the very thing that they are legally allowed (and often encouraged) to consume is known to impair judgement? It's like allowing people to use pepper but then making sneezing illegal. They are inextricably linked, one begets the other.

Edit: I like a beer as much as the next bloke, and I'm thankful it's not but there really is no defence as to why alcohol is still legal. It is the root cause of a lot of problems, where most if not all "solutions" only address the effect.

Yes, I agree let's remove anything dangerous, tricky or tempting from our lives. It really is unfair of life to pose all of these difficult choices for the individual to deal with, let's pray that society some day gets it act together and ban everything that is bad (in anyone's opinion whatsoever), life would be much better then.

For the dim-witted that was sarcasm.

I'm sorry but you can not relegate any of the blame for wife beating or drink driving upon alcohol itself. There is a thing called individual resposibility and society is already doing way too much to remove it from our existence entirely.

[McJim]

It's another symptom of the carcentricity of New Zealand. Cars are a right not a privilege in the eyes of many here. Many of us are used to countries where a viable option is available. Everyone goes out together, gets pissed and then shares Taxis, tubes and night buses home after the pubs shut.

Unless you have serious quantities of disposable income getting home from say Central Auckland to Botany Downs at 3:00am is completely out of the question. Since New Zealand's economy is based on absolute subsistance salaries this means people WILL drink and drive. We need meaty salaries to drive the economy.... that and a decent public transport system!

[98tls]

Hey I'm not arguing that drink driving is ok, just that it's hypocritical of many who ride at excessive speeds that are viewed dangerous by most of the population to say another group that we deem dangerous should be tried for murder if they fuck up.

If you start messing with the murder laws to include activities that carry risk but don't have intent then you're opening a can of worms that could swim up your arse crack and bite you on the roots of your pubes.....
How can you compare spending the time (premeditated) pissing up then driving to oversteeping the speed limit?

[McJim]

I'm sorry but you can not relegate any of the blame for wife beating or drink driving upon alcohol itself. There is a thing called individual resposibility and society is already doing way too much to remove it from our existence entirely.

So you've never had a pint of Wife Beater (Stella Artois) then? :rofl:

[Usarka]

How can you compare spending the time (premeditated) pissing up then driving to oversteeping the speed limit?

Define overstepping. Most of the population would say anything over 120 is dangerous. And anything over this speed is premeditated, you don't accidentally go over 120 (and if you do then you aren't in control and shouldn't be riding/driving). Of course I don't go this fast so am just giving my outside opinion.

As an aside I've been trying to dig up some stats unsuccessfully, but so far, in Nelson only, in 2005:


Crashes with alcohol as a factor: 9%
Crashes with speed as a factor: 18%


According to the stats, speeding is twice more likely to result in an accident. And as we all know it is more likely to cause a bigger mess (semi p/t).

My point is that if we make drink driving a murder charge, and if this significantly reduces offences then there WILL be a new bogey man and a precedent will have been set where intent to kill is not a pre-requisite for a murder charge.

[Usarka]

So you've never had a pint of Wife Beater (Stella Artois) then? :rofl:

Stella and singlets - a bad combination.

[98tls]

Define overstepping. Most of the population would say anything over 120 is dangerous. And anything over this speed is premeditated, you don't accidentally go over 120 (and if you do then you aren't in control and shouldn't be riding/driving). Of course I don't go this fast so am just giving my outside opinion.

As an aside I've been trying to dig up some stats unsuccessfully, but so far, in Nelson only, in 2005:


Crashes with alcohol as a factor: 9%
Crashes with speed as a factor: 18%


According to the stats, speeding is twice more likely to result in an accident. And as we all know it is more likely to cause a bigger mess (semi p/t).

My point is that if we make drink driving a murder charge, and if this significantly reduces offences then there WILL be a new bogey man and a precedent will have been set where intent to kill is not a pre-requisite for a murder charge. Fair call and interesting.

[Mikkel]

So you've never had a pint of Wife Beater (Stella Artois) then? :rofl:

Goes well with cider, snakebite don't you know ;)

Well, I suppose women would be free from being slapped around if they just learned to shut up for a second every now and again :rolleyes: p/t

What inspires people to beat up their spouses I shall never understand. What I do know however is that no matter how much and what I have to drink I have never ever felt in any way inclined to beat up anyone, my partner included. Violent people who lead repressed lives are going to "pop" sooner or later, just because alcohol may prompt this by lowering their inhibitions doesn't mean they wouldn't go and do the same anyway a couple of days later.



Crashes with alcohol as a factor: 9%
Crashes with speed as a factor: 18%



Haven't we already covered that speed is always a factor in any crash. If you aren't moving you can't crash into to anything.

So with that in mind I am surprised that only 18% of crashes involved speed, or are we talking about the amphetamine kind here?

If not, then we can conclude that if you are speeding then you are 82% unlikely to have a crash (I fucking love statistics... Bismarck was right ya know).

[98tls]

Goes well with cider, snakebite don't you know ;)

Well, I suppose women would be free from being slapped around if they just learned to shut up for a second every now and again :rolleyes: p/t

What inspires people to beat up their spouses I shall never understand. What I do know however is that no matter how much and what I have to drink I have never ever felt in any way inclined to beat up anyone, my partner included. Violent people who lead repressed lives are going to "pop" sooner or later, just because alcohol may prompt this by lowering their inhibitions doesn't mean they wouldn't go and do the same anyway a couple of days later.



Haven't we already covered that speed is always a factor in any crash. If you aren't moving you can't crash into to anything.

So with that in mind I am surprised that only 18% of crashes involved speed, or are we talking about the amphetamine kind here?

If not, then we can conclude that if you are speeding then you are 82% unlikely to have a crash (I fucking love statistics... Bismarck was right ya know). Bullshit,whilst lying on the BBQ seat outside the bar at the March Hare you were not moving but still managed to crash onto the floor.

[McJim]

Bismarck was right ya know).

Bismarck was a herring....:rofl:

[98tls]

Bismarck was a herring....:rofl: Tell me that hedgehog evolution thing again Jimmy..

[candor]

Intent. If there has been but one prior conviction there must have been an inkling this is a crime for a reason. Do it again - that's wilful recklessness.
Problem is high rates of dog level IQ in recidivists due to alcohol syndrome. Dogs chase cats across roads - drink drivers... have their own version. Some have intent, but unless ignoring imediate advice not to drive etc I think its more often toying with suicide than we realise - not personally directed at strangers. Anxiety & depression are common in alcoholics on overseas drink drive rehab courses. Deep dysfunctions & antisocial attitudes aren't changed by fines & tv ads but thats our staple.

Some propaganda is being repeated here generally sourced from types like LTNZ and KISS (keep it simple) educators that any alcohol makes drivers less safe. Several studies have shown something called the grand rapids dip - that lower risk of crashing & culpability than a sobre person exists in one band of blood alcohol levels under 0.05. Dose, tolerance & mental state can result in less or no impairment or even better driving 4 some DD's.

In the long run 0.05 tends to promote disrespect for drink driving laws reviews suggest as it is only an infringement like a speeding ticket. It also does nothing to reduce the behaviour by the harmful high alcohol drink drivers, and prevails on Police time revenue raising when they could be doing loose patrols trouble shooting real drunks.

In Oz 0.05 is put to good use by polydrug drivers as they just add a wee dram, budget to ? pay their 150 bucks for being caught under 0.08, deftly avoid getting drug tested (since alcohol presence gives exemption) then cruise on through chequebook points with demerit despite their liquor / drug cocktail placing them at the same high risk as an extremely high alcohol reading that would normally invoke instant suspension. Its called impaired driving reward points, for cashing in at the funeral.

This mixing preference (seen in most deceased Kiwi drink drivers) is why lower limits in Japan didn't work (European road safety observatory) and why the Irish Medical Board & some say limits are now basicly redundant as a kingpin of policy.

Most countries value road safety more highly and penalties reflect this. Ours send the message its OK, we're forgiving (check over thread) & she'll be right.
If pollies did not think this, why were serious traffic offences suddenly deleted from the new 3 violent strikes bill? Maybe as they realised some drink drivers her have killed 7x & don't think they'd like to throw away the key.
To me tho 7x road killers are worse than 3x hands on assaulters.
Far.. far.... the Arab States would soon sort it with surgical precision.

[Winston001]

Some propaganda is being repeated here generally sourced from types like LTNZ and KISS (keep it simple) educators that any alcohol makes drivers less safe. Several studies have shown something called the grand rapids dip - that lower risk of crashing & culpability than a sober person exists in one band of blood alcohol levels under 0.05.

Interesting - source? The reason for zero alcohol level is to remove the assumption that drinking and driving is perfectly acceptable. At the moment having a limit of 0.08 says exactly that, and invites drivers to gamble they will be just below it.

Zero tells them to drink nothing. Everyone knows where they stand.




This mixing preference (seen in most deceased Kiwi drink drivers) is why lower limits in Japan didn't work (European road safety observatory) and why the Irish Medical Board & some say limits are now basicly redundant as a kingpin of policy.

Source? And recommended alternative law?

[Genestho]

Just got mine today, and there's a discussion on whether we should reduce the limit.... Academics and ALAC believe we should, reduce to 0.05 although many prefer zero.

I've grabbed a few excerpts...

"Unfortunately there is no direct relationship between countries with a reduced BAC and a reduced crash rate.
Studies show in Canada, Austria and Denmark, which have reduced BAC levels, have found that there is a honeymoon period when drivers are consious of the new limit and increased attention.
But, over time, unless there are significant ongoing changes to the drink driving environment, those who ignore the old limit start to ignore the new one too.

Studies on fatally injured drivers have found upto a quarter of fatalities are recidivist drink drivers, Suggesting there is a hardcore of drunk drivers who can't be relied on to be responsible, no matter what the limit might be."

Nice one NZ Police - good to see you trialling those Interlocking Devices!!!

[Winston001]

We can't be too far away from having the technology to not only link breath/alcohol with the ignition but also a valid drivers licence. You'd have to scan your licence (with a chip in it) before the car would start. If your licence was suspended, no start.

[Genestho]

We can't be too far away from having the technology to not only link breath/alcohol with the ignition but also a valid drivers licence. You'd have to scan your licence (with a chip in it) before the car would start. If your licence was suspended, no start.

Yep totally agree Winston, you continue to make good points, bring technology on... there has to be a physical co-relation of prevention, because quite clearly expecting them to be reponsible is an impossible task!

In a yet to be published article, there's some new investigation of research, they summarise the evidence of the contribution of neurocognitive and psycho biological mechanisms, to drink drive behaviour and recidivism, that will lead us to be able to use more targeted intervention technology for these groups.
I watch with interest....

[candor]

I hate technical stuf but the answers unfortunately do lie in the detail...
Trouble finding a full grand rapids link on net but it reported (pre other drug use prevalence) a risk dip between 0.01-0.04 BAC. Below italics quote is an excerpt from a review (p5 I think) at http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1093.pdf

The risk curve reported by Zador et al. also predicted lower risk for those with 0.01 g/dL BAC than for those with zero BAC, similar to the dip found in the Grand Rapids Study by Borkenstein et al. The authors noted that such a dip customarily is assumed to be due to “differing alcohol tolerance between crash-involved and non-crash-involved drivers.” Hurst reported that controlling for self-reported drinking frequency eliminated the dip in the Grand Rapids StuIn a re-analysis of the Grand Rapids data,

Hurst, Harte and Frith (1994) demonstrated that the relative risk curve changed substantially and an observed decrease or dip in risk at low BACs disappeared with an adjustment for drivers’ drinking frequency ie regular drinkers will be more safe at low BACs than any sobre drivers, but this is not applicable to non regular drinkers at low BACs who are simply about the same risk as sobre drivers if at low BACs.

This German study (lnk below) demonstrated that the risk between 0.05-0.08 has been exaggerated once confounding factors takin in account eg tendency of social drinkers leaving restaurants at night to be killed by severely drunk drivers. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15350695

No time just now to find Japan & Irish reference (that one is somewhere on European Road Safety Observatory website from memory).

Recommended alternate law to either 0.08 or O.05 Winston? So many options beyond limit focuses, and many are used worldwide. Change mix so tertiary prevention targets offenders much more here eg compulsory assesment / treatment & no driving without interlock + unproblematic other drug use (for trouble) till healthy road behaviours firmly foreseeable by assessors. Re limits (talking adults only) my personal opinion is that 0.08 is the best scientific one for achieving crash reduction - for sole drinkers in the general population ie most of us.

I think the insubstantial risks at low BACs don't warrant harrassment by state tax collectors. If they could hold water in establishing criminal negligence they'd make 0,05 criminal but they can't (due to a body of credible studies) - hence infringements are proposed as an inappropriate measure to discourage drinking full stop (backfires as other drugs substituted - moving targets). Being a 16 year old driver sobre is about 20x as risk raising as being a sensible under limit adult driver. A criminal limit of 0.03 or 0.05 should apply to past offenders as in some places - effectively encouraging non driving if drinking, plus a raft of other stuff. We need to stop pussyfooting - that'll be the day when we apply scarlet letter number plates like Ohio tho.

The International Council of Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety has in the past recommended imposition of a very low limit like 0.02 or so for illicit drug users who mix (a known big risk), or alternately penalising the illicit drug use in a broad brush approach to reduce averaged risks.

This becomes problematic (not a very focused road safety initiative just like 0.05) if tech is not used to differentiate between recent impairing use versus past inconsequential use eg of cannabis 10 hrs ago. Also risk ratings are raising for over 0.08 limit drivers versus others and under 0.08ers worldwide which was puzzling given safer cars etc until they noticed the increasing polydrugging. I'd suggest that polydruggers over 0.8 be treated as drivers over 1.3 (or whatever the instant suspension & highest penalty/intervention kick in level currently is).

[candor]

Studies on fatally injured drivers have found upto a quarter of fatalities are recidivist drink drivers, Suggesting there is a hardcore of drunk drivers who can't be relied on to be responsible, no matter what the limit might be."



Its more that a quarter in NZ - that is based only on convictions last 4 years I think and only looks at dead divers (not considering those killed by surviving recidivists_. Some research shows its more like over half such fatalities by recidivists (Bailey 1998 looked at loger term record giving much higher figure). Also those caught have usually driven drunk legion times per arrest so on that basis you could even stretch to say its almost all a recidivist based issue.
Mot & LTNZ won't make the true recidivism stats public info for obvious reasons. They also cancelled the traffic record assessment part of the current ongoing deceased drink & drug driver study.

[Usarka]

I'd personally rather see a holistic approach taken to addressing our alcohol culture (zero tolerance may be a part of this) rather than targeting one symptom. It's affecting more areas than just road safety - and if we don't have a balanced approach it's likely to cause problems elsewhere.



Intent. If there has been but one prior conviction there must have been an inkling this is a crime for a reason. Do it again - that's wilful recklessness..

Sure if someone has killed while driving drunk previously I'd agree with that.

But in reality 1,000's of kiwis probably drive pissed each week. That would suggest that actual crashes are quite a low percentage, and deaths even lower. I'd find it hard to accept that someone who regularly drives drunk without ever having had an accident is intending to kill someone when they drive.

BTW - I think if the topic was changed to "should there be a heavy mandatory sentence for repeat offenders" (even if this is had the same penalties as a murder charge) then there probably would be little argument, and a greater chance of getting a result.

Pees scout.

[Genestho]

I'd personally rather see a holistic approach taken to addressing our alcohol culture (zero tolerance may be a part of this) rather than targeting one symptom. It's affecting more areas than just road safety - and if we don't have a balanced approach it's likely to cause problems elsewhere.

Yep, The National Alcohol Plan has an extensive approach to all alcohol related harm, hope to receive feedback as I have made submissions, in one particular area...





But in reality 1,000's of kiwis probably drive pissed each week.
I agree and it's a most preventable choice to make

That would suggest that actual crashes are quite a low percentage, and deaths even lower. I'd find it hard to accept that someone who regularly drives drunk without ever having had an accident is intending to kill someone when they drive.

According to MOT stats
2008
Alcohol/Drugs were contributing factors in
128 fatalities
559 serious injuries
1,777 minors
Percentage of crashes with alcohol/drugs as the contributing factor
30% of fatalities
19% Serious
12% minor
$850 million it cost us, only a fifth of ALL crashes
But these are the choices made, one more for the road
And all preventable numbers!!
BTW - I think if the topic was changed to "should there be a heavy mandatory sentence for repeat offenders" (even if this is had the same penalties as a murder charge) then there probably would be little argument, and a greater chance of getting a result.

Pees scout.

Yea, nah... the thread title was in regards to info supplied, in 60 minutes segment, regarding a landmark murder charge in the states to spark debate, and guage opinions.. the posts have covered all the avenues of law, causation, and any possible or not...solutions...

However you are so right!...that'll be a great title for a thread in the future, cheers

[LBD]

No it isnt

see my previous post with a youtube link as to why not.

Yep all good...as good today as when I watched the originals back in the early 70's

[slowpoke]

Yes, I agree let's remove anything dangerous, tricky or tempting from our lives. It really is unfair of life to pose all of these difficult choices for the individual to deal with, let's pray that society some day gets it act together and ban everything that is bad (in anyone's opinion whatsoever), life would be much better then.

For the dim-witted that was sarcasm.

I'm sorry but you can not relegate any of the blame for wife beating or drink driving upon alcohol itself. There is a thing called individual resposibility and society is already doing way too much to remove it from our existence entirely.

Haha, bugger this "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" business, I reckon it's fuggin' great!

As I stated in my edit, I like (luuuuurve!) a beer myself, but if I sit down (over a beer) and think about the pro's and con's for banning alcohol it's a pretty one sided list. Luckily for me, but not lots of others, society is hedonistic and values the buzz, the loss of inhibitions, the tax generated, the beautification of aesthetically challenged people etc etc over reducing road deaths, general violence, health problems etc.

Personally I have no problems with alcohol and various assorted challenges in life. Someday I hope to remove the training wheels off my bike and with hard work, courage and an ounce of luck I hope to leave the familial home before I turn 45. I meet even meet a girl....(blush)

Seriously, I probably used the incorrect terminology regarding alcohol. It's not so much a "root cause" as an "enabler". It enables the losers who like to go 'round in groups and bash innocent pedestrians walking home, or enables the oxygen thieves dropping bricks off motorway overbridges, it enables the sacks of shit who take out their angst on the missus after a couple of bevvies too many. Alcohol removes their inhibitions and they actually do the things they've previously only thought about.

So it becomes a balancing act: hedonistic enjoyment of the many vs the pain and death of a few. Which is more important? Is the balance right?

Personal responsibility? It still doesn't compute to allow people to consume a beverage that is known to impair judgement and then expect them to show good judgement. Sure, most of us have no problems, even with the wobbly boots on, but there's a sizeable percentage who have no common sense even when stone cold sober.

[Genestho]

Its more that a quarter in NZ - that is based only on convictions last 4 years I think and only looks at dead divers (not considering those killed by surviving recidivists_. Some research shows its more like over half such fatalities by recidivists (Bailey 1998 looked at loger term record giving much higher figure). Also those caught have usually driven drunk legion times per arrest so on that basis you could even stretch to say its almost all a recidivist based issue.
Mot & LTNZ won't make the true recidivism stats public info for obvious reasons. They also cancelled the traffic record assessment part of the current ongoing deceased drink & drug driver study.

I find it interesting you say that, because the last time recidivism was addressed on a grand scale I believe was in 2001, am I correct in asking that, because of human rights issues, reccomendations were not followed through? Hands were tied?

Thats a stab in the dark question though based on recollection...is it strange that Baileys info is the only referencable available research? I do have other local info but not so many letters after the name of the author...

Not that it's outdated its still completely applicable, but can't find much more research in NZ than what he had made available.

Also a contact I have, with a few letters after his name was turned down in his Scoping paper on Issues etc of Recidivist drink drivers, which covered all aspects from law, behavioural, rehab, overseas research, bac limits...turned down...he has some bloody good ideas and stacks of reliable and attributable research.

I find it oddly misleading, that there is nothing available for the public on Recidivism figures.
And we know that would balance the debate back where it belongs...IMHO...

Gone and dragged my own thread RIGHT off topic now...eeeeeeeeek:girlfight:

[LBD]

So it becomes a balancing act: hedonistic enjoyment of the many vs the pain and death of a few. Which is more important? Is the balance right?



The scenario you describe above does not relate to drink driving. Having a zero tolerance to drink driving will not take away the hedonistic enjoyment of the many, it would only forceably promote a responsible attitude to drink driving, which we as a collective society have shown we cannot acheive with rational and now require a big stick to be waved at us.

Who would really suffer hardship from a zero tolerance to drink driving? I know there would be a great reduction to the alchol related deaths and injuries if this was the case.

[Usarka]

Who would really suffer hardship from a zero tolerance to drink driving? I know there would be a great reduction to the alchol related deaths and injuries if this was the case.

A couple of possible unintended scenarios:

1) Whitu has a couple of beers at the pub after work as he's been doing for years. Hey Whitu, it's illegal now bro you'll get busted. Well fuck it, if i'm going to get busted I might as well get really pissed.

2) Hey guys, want to catch up for a drink? Nah it's too far and we can't drive, how about everyone comes over to my place it's nice and close and a cabs real cheap or you can crash on the floor. What would have been a couple of drinks and then leave turns into a big home session. Everyone passes out around 4.30am. Except for jake who wants some eggs and smashes his wife in the face cause he's so pissed.

3) My grandparents who always have 1 small sherry after dinner come for a feed and say "bugger this PC nonsence we've been doing it since the war". They get busted on the way home, become housebound and bitter with the way the country is going, and kark it 6 months later.

[Genestho]

A couple of possible unintended scenarios:

1) Whitu has a couple of beers at the pub after work as he's been doing for years. Hey Whitu, it's illegal now bro you'll get busted. Well fuck it, if i'm going to get busted I might as well get really pissed.

2) Hey guys, want to catch up for a drink? Nah it's too far and we can't drive, how about everyone comes over to my place it's nice and close and a cabs real cheap or you can crash on the floor. What would have been a couple of drinks and then leave turns into a big home session. Everyone passes out around 4.30am. Except for jake who wants some eggs and smashes his wife in the face cause he's so pissed.

3) My grandparents who always have 1 small sherry after dinner come for a feed and say "bugger this PC nonsence we've been doing it since the war". They get busted on the way home, become housebound and bitter with the way the country is going, and kark it 6 months later.

LOL! Oh now you're taking the piss dude:bleh:
Tragedy in'it?
Lifes tough:eek:

[Usarka]

LOL! Oh now you're taking the piss dude:bleh:
Tragedy in'it?
Lifes tough:eek:

I've been stuck inside too long...... that's what not being able to ride or drive does to you, it makes you insane! :wacko:

[Genestho]

I've been stuck inside too long...... that's what not being able to ride or drive does to you, it makes you insane! :wacko:
Ahhh, well get a job ya lazy so in so.... J/K:sweatdrop

[Mikkel]

Bullshit,whilst lying on the BBQ seat outside the bar at the March Hare you were not moving but still managed to crash onto the floor.

You must have been hallucinating, what's in that tobacco of yours? No such thing has ever happened. If it had I sure as hell would have remembered it.

... I think.

Ok, I'm in let's ban this shit. ;) j/k

[BiK3RChiK]

and how many convictions does it take to be classified as many?

more that 3 IMO! EVER... although 1 is too many!!