manslaughter possibly, murder definitely not as by definition murder is to cold bloodedly intentionally cause the death of another. a drink driver no matter how stupid never goes out to intentionally maim or kill another person. should be the penalties be harsher? id be inclined to say yes but it would need to be looked at on an individual basis, me driving home at 3am 3 or 4 times over the limit deserves whatever's coming, to be a small amount over late afternoon the day after then involved in a minor bump where an older member of society suffers a heart attack, would that really be worthy of being up for attempted murder or just a case of tragic circumstances?
chris
|
From what I can make of the law today grabbing a knife out of the kitchen drawer and stabbing someone with it isn't murder. Diminished responsibility or pleading guilty to a lesser charge seems to be what goes on. Drink driving won't lead to a murder charge in any circumstances I would have thought; death by dangerous driving etc but not murder.
|
It would restore our sense of "justice" if a case like this ended up with a murder conviction and a truly long sentence, but this case is going to appeal; politics is inevitably involved; and the case was a conviction of "second degree" murder - which doesn't exist in law in Britain.
When juries proved unwilling to convict drunk drivers who killed of manslaughter (maximum possible sentence life) - let alone murder - the charge of "causing death by" was introduced ("reckless or dangerous driving" in 1956; amended to "dangerous driving" in 1991), so these cases are invariably seen as different from other types of homicide.
Are drivers somehow in a different category from violent husbands, armed bank robbers and terrorists? Is an intention to kill/commit GBH at the wheel of a car different from these other categories of criminal where bare fists, a gun or a bomb are involved? Society seems to think so...
|
|
|
|
Alas, in the states, this is more about the reputation and future political career of the DA, than any attempt to reduce the death rate due to drink driving.
Its ironic, in a country that encourages the sanctity of murder by unfettered gun control, they are mixing it up with death by drunken driving.
Of cxourse thats because the DA would get a poor reputation by tackling gun control.
|
Someone was famously hanged merely for being present when someone else did the killing, and saying "Let him have it".
A bit like buying a drink for someone knowing he is going to drive?
|
If you view a car as a lethal weapon that you're licensed to drive then I think the sentences should be longer.
|
The US has a term which anybody who has been there will be familiar with called Moral Turpitude. Its definition is a bit vague but is considered to be something that is done with prior thought.
The first level of driving offence it applies to is driving while disqualified, and I agree with that. Anyone could make a mistake and drive while over the limit. But to get in a car and drive while banned (frequently from drunk driving) requires deliberate action. Anyone who kills while banned should be sentenced to life automatically.
Edited by Bill Payer on 05/01/2009 at 13:35
|
|
|
If you view a car as a lethal weapon that you're licensed (snip)
Whilst it may be used as a "lethal weapon", it isn't one unless it's used as such, in which case penalties may be given - just the same as my shot guns or rifles, or even some things in the kitchen or workshop (although these don't need to be licenced). Guidelines for sentencing seem to me to be generally appropriate.
|
|
Can't legally be murder as no "malice aforethought" in legal jargon. You have to intend to kill someone or inflict Grievous Bodily Harm to be convicted of murder.
|
|
|
>> If you view a car as a lethal weapon that you're licensed (snip) Whilst it may be used as a "lethal weapon" it isn't one unless it's used as such in which case penalties may be given - just the same as my shot guns or rifles or even some things in the kitchen or workshop (although these don't need to be licenced). Guidelines for sentencing seem to me to be generally appropriate.
That's not the whole picture though.
If you used your shotgun to intimidate people - eg by walking close behind someone pointing it at them - you would be committing a very serious crime and at the least have your licence removed. Yet you can tailgate another car with inpunity.
Guns and kitchen knives are lethal weapons merely if carried in public in inappropriate places. You don't have to actually "use" it as a weapon to be committing an offence.
It's not murder or even attempted murder, but a lot more serious than a mere motoring offence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cliff slightly off topic but when i studied law quite a while ago now there was a case (I am sure some other legal eagle could identify, forget the name) where some sailors were cast adrift for weeks on end, one was in a particularly bad way and the others finished him and ate him to stay alive. This was a 19th Century case and i know that these sailors were convicted of murder but don't know whether they hanged or were reprieved, will have to look it up. Clearly a case of murder though and one of the more notorious that students have to study.
|
Cliff slightly off topic but when i studied law quite a while ago now there was a case (I am sure some other legal eagle could identify forget the name) where some sailors were cast adrift for weeks on end one was in a particularly bad way and the others finished him and ate him to stay alive.
The case was R. v Dudley and Stephens: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_v._Dudley_%26_Stephens
They were sentenced to death, but that was commuted to six months imprisonment
|
|
How could I forget, thanks NW!
|
|
|
|
Maybe the backroomers should remember that fact in case they get stuck in snow drifts in the next few weeks, and start to feel a bit peckish ...
|
|
That does it, I'm never going to use the cross channel ferry again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
