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

**Usarka** · 23rd March 2009, 12:49

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** · 23rd March 2009, 12:50

Originally Posted by Mully

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** · 23rd March 2009, 13:00

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** · 23rd March 2009, 13:03

Originally Posted by Winston001

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 ([OT] 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.[/OT])

**Winston001** · 23rd March 2009, 13:19

Originally Posted by LBD

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.

Originally Posted by Mully

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** · 23rd March 2009, 13:28

Originally Posted by Winston001

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** · 23rd March 2009, 13:43

Originally Posted by Winston001

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** · 23rd March 2009, 13:52

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** · 23rd March 2009, 14:14

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"

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

When it is recidivus, yes!

Three strikes and you are out? Whats happening to "that"? John.

**Genestho** · 23rd March 2009, 14:27

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...

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

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

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

)

**HenryDorsetCase** · 23rd March 2009, 14:28

Originally Posted by 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.

Mr Sila was duly convicted of murder I think.