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

**Genestho** · 23rd March 2009, 10:48

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/a...aspx?id=788320

**Skyryder** · 23rd March 2009, 11:27

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** · 23rd March 2009, 11:34

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 23rd March 2009, 11:40

Originally Posted by Cajun

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** · 23rd March 2009, 11:49

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** · 23rd March 2009, 11:59

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:04

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:07

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:26

Originally Posted by Mully

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:33

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:33

Originally Posted by The Guzzi Widow

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:38

Originally Posted by Winston001

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..

**Winston001** · 23rd March 2009, 12:40

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...."

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:40

Originally Posted by Winston001

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:48

Originally Posted by 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...."

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...