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

[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 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 The Guzzi Widow and all others in similar positions....

Awww, thankyou darling that is very sweet, and to you 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

[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

[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..

[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.