View Poll Results: Should drunk drivers get the death penalty if they kill someone?
Yes 22 14.19%
No. That's too harsh of a punishment. 133 85.81%
Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:24 PM
scarface54345 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 29

Should drunk drivers get the death penalty if they kill someone?


Should drunk drivers get the death penalty if they kill someone?
  #2  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:22 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,008
Why don't you just go back and read the thread you started in April on this very topic?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=874356
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #3  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:46 PM
Disheavel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,526
I think they should be convicted of pre-meditated murder. But death penalty is a bit much as well as outdated.

Anyone drunk driving should similarly lose their license and driving ability for life... and their car confiscated as a dangerous weapon. There is 0 reason to be drunk driving any longer. If they need a car for their location, they are welcome to move rather than walk.

So while I agree strongly that most drinking and driving offenses need to have greatly increased penalties, killing someone is never the right solution.
  #4  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:59 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,778
No, but because I oppose the death penalty in general not because I think "That's too harsh of a punishment" just for this specific crime.
  #5  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:00 PM
Peter Morris's Avatar
Peter Morris is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,489
Nobody should get the death penalty.
  #6  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:17 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,337
If they have driven drunk repeatedly before, and have a long history of legal trouble because of it, and have already harmed pedestrians before while driving drunk, and are unrepentant about DUI and say they'd do it again, no remorse - then maybe, yes.
  #7  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:57 PM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,819
Thing is, you’re driving on a dark stormy night, changing the radio station, and someone wearing dark clothing emerges from the bushes and runs across the street. You hit that person and kill them. It’s a tragic accident. Do the exact the same thing, and blow a smidge above the per se limit, and it’s a vehicular homicide.

Is that “difference” worth another life?
  #8  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:29 PM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disheavel View Post
I think they should be convicted of pre-meditated murder. But death penalty is a bit much as well as outdated.
I'm glad you vote against the death penalty for drunken drivers who kill someone, but I'm sorry, a premeditated murder charge is also wrong. Premeditated murder means the perpetrator planned to kill someone. I do not believe drunken drivers plan to kill their victims. Yes, they are aware drunken driving can kill someone, but that's not the same as malevolently planning to kill a person.
  #9  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:43 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,673
Sure, as long as we also execute people when people cause a deadly accident and had been:
- Texting
- Changing the radio station
- Stressed after a long day at work
- Operating with less than a full 8 hours of sleep
- Yelling at the kids in the back seat
- Over the age of 60

In all these cases, there is a clear reduction in driving performance compared to the baseline and yet the driver chooses to operate heavy machinery anyway. Clearly, they deserve the death penalty if they choose to put other lives at risk for their own convenience. Or not.

I do in fact think that extra penalties are deserved (including loss of license) when a person shows a willful indifference to the safety of others through actions like drinking and driving. And that the same is true of people that text and drive, or drive when underslept, etc.
  #10  
Old 06-07-2019, 08:01 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
I would argue that someone texting and driving is more culpable than the drunk driver. We could argue that the drunk driver made bad decisions because of alcohol. The texting driver has no such excuse; fully sober and deciding not to drive anyway.
  #11  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:30 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Sure, as long as we also execute people when people cause a deadly accident and had been:
- Texting
- Changing the radio station
- Stressed after a long day at work
- Operating with less than a full 8 hours of sleep
- Yelling at the kids in the back seat
- Over the age of 60
That last one makes no sense, because drivers in their 60s have the lowest accident rate of any age group. Even drivers over 80 have lower accident rate than teenage drivers.

All others you list (and drunk driving) should be prosecuted as 2nd degree murder, in my opinion. But I oppose the death penalty for any crime.

Last edited by scr4; 06-07-2019 at 09:32 PM.
  #12  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:51 PM
elfkin477 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 22,628
I wouldn't give them the death penalty, because the vast majority don't set out to kill people. I think reckless disregard for human life is generally second degree murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
That last one makes no sense, because drivers in their 60s have the lowest accident rate of any age group. Even drivers over 80 have lower accident rate than teenage drivers.
Lowest by what metric: total accidents per age group, or accidents per mile driven? If it's the former, 80-year-olds drive a lot less than teenagers so...
  #13  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:12 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
That last one makes no sense, because drivers in their 60s have the lowest accident rate of any age group.
60 is a bit low, I'll grant. But the data you presented doesn't reject the hypothesis that age by itself is a risk factor. Those 60-69 year old drivers are almost certainly engaging in fewer risky activities than teenage drivers, including other items in my list. Looking only at the overall accident rate by age would be double-counting those items.

That the 70-79 bracket starts going up again supports the idea that somewhere in this range, inevitable deterioration in factors like reaction time, eyesight, and snap judgment start to overtake factors like experience and risk avoidance. They are not at peak physical performance, just as someone with even mild sleep deprivation or has had a single glass of beer is not at peak performance.
  #14  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:19 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfkin477 View Post
Lowest by what metric: total accidents per age group, or accidents per mile driven? If it's the former, 80-year-olds drive a lot less than teenagers so...
I provided a cite, it's right there. Crashes per mile driven in the age group.

Last edited by scr4; 06-07-2019 at 10:20 PM.
  #15  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:40 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
That the 70-79 bracket starts going up again supports the idea that somewhere in this range, inevitable deterioration in factors like reaction time, eyesight, and snap judgment start to overtake factors like experience and risk avoidance. They are not at peak physical performance, just as someone with even mild sleep deprivation or has had a single glass of beer is not at peak performance.
If physical performance is the concern, we should test every driver every couple of years and take away their licenses if they fail. If someone drives without a license and kills someone else, that should be treated as murder. I'm all for that.
  #16  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:51 AM
Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 9,481
A person can avoid being drunk much more easily than they can avoid being 60, 70, or 80. And losing the ability to drive is losing a huge part of being a typical American. I think the law should be much more accommodating about aging than driving under the influence. That could include being more lenient on senior drivers who cause accidents, which may or may not be appropriate, but it could also include lots of other elements of traffic and vehicle design. In any case, using older drivers as a data point for lenience on driving intoxicated isn't entirely fair.

What would be ideal is if driving under the influence was very likely to incur stiff penalties, so the downside was more predictable. I think the great majority of drunk driving episodes don't cause accidents or penalties. It'd be great if there were more technological fixes for this, like greater vehicle intelligence to detect alcohol vapor around the driver, driving behaviors, and the like.

When people die as the result of other people's actions, there will often be consequences. Drunk drivers who kill should face bad things. I don't like the death penalty for anything, though.
  #17  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:20 AM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 10,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier View Post
It'd be great if there were more technological fixes for this, like greater vehicle intelligence to detect alcohol vapor around the driver, driving behaviors, and the like.
Many times part of the penalty for either first or subsequent conviction (depending upon state) is the requirement for an interlock device that must be installed & blown into before the vehicle can be started.

Now imagine that this was a required device on all new cars, & maybe even required to be retrofitted into older cars after x years. Drunk driving will be virtually wiped out within one generation of new cars. That many more devices will drive the cost down, probably to under $100 each. That's a fraction of one percent of the cost of a new car.

As a parallel, look at seatbelt usage which has gone up dramatically in a generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Seat belt use rates in the United States has been rising steadily since 1983, from 14% to 90% in 2016.
The big difference is that your seatbelt usage, or lack thereof, has very low impact on my injury/survivability outcome for an accident in which I'm not in your vehicle. The same cannot be said if you're driving impaired.
  #18  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:56 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Many times part of the penalty for either first or subsequent conviction (depending upon state) is the requirement for an interlock device that must be installed & blown into before the vehicle can be started.

Now imagine that this was a required device on all new cars, & maybe even required to be retrofitted into older cars after x years. Drunk driving will be virtually wiped out within one generation of new cars. That many more devices will drive the cost down, probably to under $100 each. That's a fraction of one percent of the cost of a new car.

As a parallel, look at seatbelt usage which has gone up dramatically in a generation.

The big difference is that your seatbelt usage, or lack thereof, has very low impact on my injury/survivability outcome for an accident in which I'm not in your vehicle. The same cannot be said if you're driving impaired.
That’s a horrible idea. You’re going to punish 99.99% of innocent people. Those devices still have to be serviced. And, they’re not easy to operate.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #19  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:11 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Many times part of the penalty for either first or subsequent conviction (depending upon state) is the requirement for an interlock device that must be installed & blown into before the vehicle can be started.

Now imagine that this was a required device on all new cars, & maybe even required to be retrofitted into older cars after x years. Drunk driving will be virtually wiped out within one generation of new cars. That many more devices will drive the cost down, probably to under $100 each. That's a fraction of one percent of the cost of a new car.
In the Times today someone wrote that part of their job was blowing into this device for their boss, who always got drunk at work (I think it was food service) and drove home. So not quite foolproof.

Since cars already recognize erratic driving, such as drifting out of a lane, a better idea would be to program new cars to recognize drunk driving, and produce some kind of beware signal - and maybe even call 911 if it got good enough.
  #20  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:13 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Sure, as long as we also execute people when people cause a deadly accident and had been:

- Operating with less than a full 8 hours of sleep
8 hours of sleep is the average (more or less) required. Some people need more, some less. So, really bad item.
  #21  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:15 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
8 hours of sleep is the average (more or less) required. Some people need more, some less. So, really bad item.
Perhaps it hasn't been clear, but my point about the list isn't to actually advocate for execution or exceptionally harsh penalties for this stuff.

My point is this: there is no driver, at all, who hasn't weighed the decision to drive against some level of degraded performance, however small. If you have driven when even just a little bit tired, then you have decided that your convenience is worth more than the safety of others. If you have done anything in your car that isn't driving--fiddling with the radio, eating, even just speaking with a passenger--then you have put your own convenience above the safety of others. If you have driven with degraded senses, such as slowed reaction time or with poor night vision, then you have put your convenience above the safety of others.

All of these decisions are fundamentally the same as when someone decides to drive drunk, just at varying scales. Some of them are relatively innocuous and considered acceptable, such as talking with a passenger. Some of them are as bad as driving drunk and yet for some reason considered acceptable, such as driving while being extremely underslept.

I am also not saying we should treat drunk driving any less harshly than we already are. Just that we are doing ourselves a disservice by not putting all of these things on a spectrum. Demonizing drunk driving in particular feels less productive than it should be because it ignores all sorts of other degraded driving. It's one of the worst forms, certainly, but there are many other things close to it on the spectrum.

Texting and driving gets some attention, but the penalties for that should be as harsh as a DUI, and as far as I know that's not generally the case. It still doesn't feel like there is a coherent, general approach to fighting degraded driving. I hope true self-driving comes sooner rather than later since I don't really expect a seismic shift in attitudes here.
  #22  
Old 06-10-2019, 01:38 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Perhaps it hasn't been clear, but my point about the list isn't to actually advocate for execution or exceptionally harsh penalties for this stuff.

My point is this: there is no driver, at all, who hasn't weighed the decision to drive against some level of degraded performance, however small. If you have driven when even just a little bit tired, then you have decided that your convenience is worth more than the safety of others. If you have done anything in your car that isn't driving--fiddling with the radio, eating, even just speaking with a passenger--then you have put your own convenience above the safety of others. If you have driven with degraded senses, such as slowed reaction time or with poor night vision, then you have put your convenience above the safety of others.

All of these decisions are fundamentally the same as when someone decides to drive drunk, just at varying scales. Some of them are relatively innocuous and considered acceptable, such as talking with a passenger. Some of them are as bad as driving drunk and yet for some reason considered acceptable, such as driving while being extremely underslept.

I am also not saying we should treat drunk driving any less harshly than we already are. Just that we are doing ourselves a disservice by not putting all of these things on a spectrum. Demonizing drunk driving in particular feels less productive than it should be because it ignores all sorts of other degraded driving. It's one of the worst forms, certainly, but there are many other things close to it on the spectrum.

Texting and driving gets some attention, but the penalties for that should be as harsh as a DUI, and as far as I know that's not generally the case. It still doesn't feel like there is a coherent, general approach to fighting degraded driving. I hope true self-driving comes sooner rather than later since I don't really expect a seismic shift in attitudes here.
I don't know about other states, but in California distracted driving is already an offense. The cops used it to ticket cellphone drivers before the laws went into effect.
The difference between drunk driving (and texting) and the others is that they have such a high probability of causing unsafe driving that you don't need to wait until the unsafe driving happens. In California, by the way, you are not allowed to hold a phone or even touch it except to initiate something like the GPS. Not that people pay attention to the law.
As I said above, cars should be able to detect unsafe driving long before they are ready to drive themselves.
  #23  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:07 AM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
In California, by the way, you are not allowed to hold a phone or even touch it except to initiate something like the GPS. Not that people pay attention to the law.
The penalties are so small that they are effectively zero: $20 for the first violation, $50 for the second, and no points on the license. Compare to DUIs, that cost thousands and can result in jailtime for multiple offenses, no to mention their effect on insurance. If the penalties were based solely on their effect on driving, one would expect them to be similar. From looking around, it appears that most states only impose token penalties for texting and driving.

Is it because it's easier to generate moral outrage against drunks than teens that can't put down their phones? Maybe--if so, that's actually encouraging to some extent, because the outrage against drunk driving did ramp up over time, so maybe the same can be true of other forms of distracted driving. But it took decades. It would be nice if we could just skip to the end and generate outrage in actual proportion to the level of distractedness.

You may well be right about cars detecting distracted driving. It's easy to detect repeated drifting out of one's lane, slow reaction to braking, etc. A few false positives aren't a disaster here, though one can imagine some people getting unlucky under unusual circumstances. I'd rather not my car call 911 on me just because I drove through a construction zone and the car thought I couldn't stay in my lane.
  #24  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:54 AM
Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
The penalties are so small that they are effectively zero: $20 for the first violation, $50 for the second, and no points on the license. Compare to DUIs, that cost thousands and can result in jailtime for multiple offenses, no to mention their effect on insurance. If the penalties were based solely on their effect on driving, one would expect them to be similar. From looking around, it appears that most states only impose token penalties for texting and driving.
That's patently wrong. Officially in California it's $20 but it winds up being around $150 on first offense due to massive court fees and add-ons they get you with on the bill. Plus you do get points if it's your third offense.

I know this because I got dinged with one. There was an accident on a nearby roadway and while I was stuck in traffic that hadn't moved in a fewl minutes I decided to look at my phone while everything was dead-stopped and my car was in park. Then a cop on a motorcycle deliberately drove straight down the line between all the stopped cars and looked down to see who was looking at their phones while stopped. Then afterwards he flagged those cars and about me and four other cars got pulled over immediately when traffic started moving again and presumably all of us got the same ticket for using a phone "while driving".

Apparently looking it up now you can actually fight it if you claim your vehicle wasn't moving since it only applies to vehicles in motion but the fact the cop knowingly went down the line flagging people to pull over means that's a tactic they all use and will claim the vehicle was in motion if you fight it.
  #25  
Old 06-10-2019, 06:49 AM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 963
Distracted driving is dangerous and should have penalties. But normal drivers can look at the radio for a second or two and look back at the road. Drunks won't sober up in a few seconds.
I think Disheavel is right. There is no excuse for driving drunk. The problem is that penalties for impaired driving aren't strong enough deterrents and too many people are willing to listen to sob stories from drunks instead of pleas for justice from the victims.

Significant discussion today. A kid from NE Indiana drove drunk Friday night and crashed into an Amish buggy. Three children have died.
  #26  
Old 06-10-2019, 06:42 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
But normal drivers can look at the radio for a second or two and look back at the road.
No, they can't. During those couple of seconds, the distracted driver is worse than any drunk. You can go from an apparently clear lane to initiating a fatal accident in two seconds. The only difference is the duration of exposure. A person that spends 5 minutes over the course of a 4-hour drive messing with their radio is worse (in terms of their impact on public safety) than a drunk going on a 5-minute drive from the bar to home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
That's patently wrong. Officially in California it's $20 but it winds up being around $150 on first offense due to massive court fees and add-ons they get you with on the bill. Plus you do get points if it's your third offense.
That's still a token amount compared to DUI penalties. Distracted drivers kill thousands per year. The penalties should commensurate, if not higher (because societal trends appear to be in favor of distracted driving and against drunk driving).
  #27  
Old 06-10-2019, 06:42 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarface54345 View Post
Should drunk drivers get the death penalty if they kill someone?
I voted no. IMO it's similar to criminal negligence causing death or manslaughter. The driver did not intend to kill someone, but they committed an action that any reasonable person knew could kill someone.

I don't think that warrants the death penalty. I think it warrants a long time in prison, permanent loss of license, and restitution... with the first two applying even if nobody got hurt.
  #28  
Old 06-10-2019, 06:51 PM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 10,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
That’s a horrible idea. You’re going to punish 99.99% of innocent people.
No, I'm going to save 10,000+ lives per year.

I remember people bitching about seatbelt laws when they came out, but it looks like the vast, vast majority wear them now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
And, they’re not easy to operate.
According to this company, they're pretty easy. I also don't see why they can't be modified to only require a breath before starting & not during driving when it's a new car OEM. My state requires an annual safety inspection, it would just be one more thing on that list.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
In the Times today someone wrote that part of their job was blowing into this device for their boss, who always got drunk at work (I think it was food service) and drove home. So not quite foolproof.
Just like a bartender can be criminally charged with serving an obviously drunk patron who then gets into an accident, I'd think that employee would have legal liability if the boss crashes.

Last edited by Spiderman; 06-10-2019 at 06:52 PM.
  #29  
Old 06-10-2019, 06:53 PM
Baker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tottering-on-the-Brink
Posts: 20,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Distracted drivers kill thousands per year. The penalties should commensurate, if not higher (because societal trends appear to be in favor of distracted driving and against drunk driving).
My father was killed by a distracted driver, The guy took his eyes away from driving to put a CD in the player, then, when he looked up again, my dad was there on his motorcycle, and got sandwiched between the asshole who struck him, and the truck in front. There were no charges my family was told about, maybe he got a ticket, and hopefully his insurance was badly dinged, or cancelled. I will never forgive him. Hope the music was worth it.. Should have been manslaughter at the least, if not murder.
__________________
Never give up, never surrender!
  #30  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:36 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baker View Post
My father was killed by a distracted driver, The guy took his eyes away from driving to put a CD in the player, then, when he looked up again, my dad was there on his motorcycle, and got sandwiched between the asshole who struck him, and the truck in front.
I'm truly sorry to hear that.

I'm not here to tell anyone what their attitudes toward drunk driving or distracted driving should be. Just that they should be similar. Every time you do something that's not driving, you should think: "Would I drive drunk? No? Then I probably shouldn't be doing this, either." When your eyes or attention aren't on the road, it's worse than driving drunk. That you aren't doing it 100% of the time isn't even close to a valid excuse.
  #31  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:40 AM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 14,617
I need a third choice; it depends. No record at all and its the first recorded time you have driven drunk and maybe say 5-10 years? You are a repeat offender, you have several DUIs on record, a couple accidents, and your license is currently revoked and you are fleeing the police; fry them.

But in the interest of full disclosure I am in general fine with the death penalty.

Last edited by kopek; 06-11-2019 at 10:42 AM.
  #32  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:16 AM
MeanJoe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,278
I'd probably fall into the "It Depends" category too. I am not opposed to the death penalty, I believe some crimes are so egregious that one should pay with one's life. But I also acknowledge the injustice in our justice system and the unfair application of death penalty sentences. But if I take that out of the equation, if you are drunk per the legal blood alcohol limit, and you choose to drive and as a result of that decision you cause an accident that takes the life of an innocent person then the death penalty should be a sentencing option depending upon circumstances - at minimum life in prison with no parole. I do not know if legally this is pre-meditated murder or not, nor what classification this should apply to that includes the death penalty as an option. Not terribly interested in the legal definitions here. To me it is simply the fact that in 2019 there is zero-absolutely-no-one who is not aware that drunk driving is illegal and has not seen in either the news or heard from others that when drunk driving you are impaired and may kill an innocent person(s). You knew it and the consequences, you did it anyway, now you pay for it. I won't weep if the sentence imposed is the death penalty*.

*Assuming a fair justice system and application of the law.
__________________
Father to sassy girls. Husband to a mad wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
  #33  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:59 PM
TBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9,068
They should face manslaughter charges, with the same potential penalties as any other form of manslaughter would garner. For the first offense, anyway. I'd say for multiple offenses (at later dates, not just more charges for wiping out more people in a single "accident"), it should go up to a murder charge, and again, face similar penalties. If the jurisdiction has the death penalty, then sure.
  #34  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:44 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
I think that California has gotten it right, a thing that I have recently learned. Upon being convicted of DUI, offenders sign the Watson advisement, which states:
Quote:
I understand that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, impairs my ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. I understand that it is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. I understand that 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.
(bolding mine)

That seems fair. You get one warning and then it's murder if you do it again and kill someone. California doesn't have the death penalty, so I guess that makes it a life sentence at most, which I'm OK with.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-12-2019 at 05:45 PM.
  #35  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:00 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,707
Those in favor of murder charges being brought against drunk-drivers who knowingly drive drunk and ultimately kill someone as a result, tell me what the difference(s) is between that and a sleep-deprived person doing the exact same thing resulting in the exact same outcome? Should the sleep-deprived driver who knowingly got behind the wheel, well aware that his/her driving abilities may be negatively impacted, who ends up killing an innocent person, be put in prison for the rest of their lives? Why or why not?
(If this has already been asked, please just ignore)
  #36  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:35 PM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 10,497
Are there any objective criteria for sleep deprivation?
I rarely get 8 hrs of sleep in a night. What if you're in bed for 8 hrs but don't get a good night's sleep? Worried about something, too hot/cold, snoring roommate, unusual surroundings/other than your own bed/hotel room? How do they factor into it? What about driving fatigue (driving too long) vs. true sleep deprivation?

With DUI there is both a BAC concentration & field sobriety tests.

Would a tired person fail field 'sleep depriviation' tests, or would the shot of adrenaline that most people get from a traffic stop be enough to wake them up so that they can balance on one foot or walk heel-to-toe, etc.?
  #37  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:11 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,707
In my hypothetical, BAC and field sobriety tests (unfortunately) never enter into the picture. The drunk driver gets behind the wheel despite knowing they shouldn't and they kill someone. The sleep-deprived driver gets behind the wheel despite knowing they shouldn't and they kill someone. Are these people guilty of the same or very similar crimes? Why or why not?

Last edited by Ambivalid; 06-12-2019 at 09:12 PM.
  #38  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:26 PM
chizzuk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I think that California has gotten it right, a thing that I have recently learned. Upon being convicted of DUI, offenders sign the Watson advisement, which states:

(bolding mine)

That seems fair. You get one warning and then it's murder if you do it again and kill someone. California doesn't have the death penalty, so I guess that makes it a life sentence at most, which I'm OK with.
This happened with the guy who killed Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart 10 years ago. It was his 2nd or 3rd DUI and they charged (and convicted) him with 2nd degree murder. He's doing 51 years to life. That seems about right to me.
  #39  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:49 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,707
Mythbusters did an episode several years ago comparing the effects of sleep deprivation vs the effects of alcohol on driving performace. Guess which one caused them to drive the worst?

https://www.sleepfoundation.org/arti...milar-are-they

Quote:
Drowsy driving is dangerous because sleep deprivation can have similar effects on your body as drinking alcohol. Being awake for 18 hours straight makes you drive like you have a blood alcohol level of .05 (for reference, .08 is considered drunk). If you’ve been awake for a full 24 hours and drive—say, after a night where you just couldn’t fall asleep—it’s like you have a blood alcohol level of .10.

Last edited by Ambivalid; 06-12-2019 at 09:51 PM.
  #40  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:45 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
In my hypothetical, BAC and field sobriety tests (unfortunately) never enter into the picture. The drunk driver gets behind the wheel despite knowing they shouldn't and they kill someone. The sleep-deprived driver gets behind the wheel despite knowing they shouldn't and they kill someone. Are these people guilty of the same or very similar crimes? Why or why not?
I am not sure if people are equally informed about the dangers of sleep-deprived driving. Like I see DUI warnings plastered everywhere.

And... my god, if I had called into work sleepy every time my kids had a colicky night, I'd have been fired 10 times over. Or when I had to get up way too early to attend morning formation in the military. Right or wrong, society encourages sleep deprivation, and until that changes we're not gonna execute people for doing it.
  #41  
Old 06-13-2019, 07:43 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,727
Capital punishment is nothing more than revenge. Revenge is for children. A society of children is Lord of the Flies. I don't want to live in a society like that. You like the death penalty so much, go kill yourself.
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #42  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:23 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeanJoe View Post
I'd probably fall into the "It Depends" category too. I am not opposed to the death penalty, I believe some crimes are so egregious that one should pay with one's life. But I also acknowledge the injustice in our justice system and the unfair application of death penalty sentences. But if I take that out of the equation, if you are drunk per the legal blood alcohol limit, and you choose to drive and as a result of that decision you cause an accident that takes the life of an innocent person then the death penalty should be a sentencing option depending upon circumstances - at minimum life in prison with no parole. I do not know if legally this is pre-meditated murder or not, nor what classification this should apply to that includes the death penalty as an option. Not terribly interested in the legal definitions here. To me it is simply the fact that in 2019 there is zero-absolutely-no-one who is not aware that drunk driving is illegal and has not seen in either the news or heard from others that when drunk driving you are impaired and may kill an innocent person(s). You knew it and the consequences, you did it anyway, now you pay for it. I won't weep if the sentence imposed is the death penalty*.

*Assuming a fair justice system and application of the law.
You'd feel the same way about speeders too though right? A person who deliberately speeds over the limit and causes death would be similarly judged right?
  #43  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:28 AM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,130
A more informatively worded poll would have been "For those who support the death penalty, etc"
  #44  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:16 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
I need a third choice; it depends. No record at all and its the first recorded time you have driven drunk and maybe say 5-10 years? You are a repeat offender, you have several DUIs on record, a couple accidents, and your license is currently revoked and you are fleeing the police; fry them.

But in the interest of full disclosure I am in general fine with the death penalty.
+1

There are people with 10 or more drunk driving offense on their record, who have had their licenses suspended or revoked, and who still drive drunk. Those people are not going t stop and will not be rehabilitated. The only way to stop them is to kill them.
  #45  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:21 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
+1

There are people with 10 or more drunk driving offense on their record, who have had their licenses suspended or revoked, and who still drive drunk. Those people are not going t stop and will not be rehabilitated. The only way to stop them is to kill them.
You going to do it? Or are you going to ask someone else to do it? Poking out their eyes or chopping off their hands and feet would keep them from driving, and it'd be even more savage than murdering a defenseless human being. Got anything against those solutions?
  #46  
Old 06-16-2019, 11:44 AM
Annie-Xmas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,091
No, I'm not going to do it.

Are you going to feed, clothe and house the killer for the rest of their life. Are you willing to take responsibility to see they never drink and/or drive again?
  #47  
Old 06-16-2019, 01:07 PM
LiveFree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 181
Death penalty for drunk driving......no. But the penalty should be a LOT MORE HARSH than it currently is.

And I believe in the death penalty under certain circumstances.
  #48  
Old 06-16-2019, 03:07 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Are you going to feed, clothe and house the killer for the rest of their life.
So somebody should murder them, just not the people who want them dead. That doesn't seem right. So yeah, if I think someone is a persistent, irredeemable threat to society I'm willing to do what i must, pay what i must, to maintain the safe quality of life i want. Just as i might pay extra for a safer car, cleaner air and drinking water, and functional roads. I see no point in murdering another person to make any of that happen.
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #49  
Old 06-16-2019, 03:58 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,978
I don't support capital punishment, so... No.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017