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

[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