Should drunk drivers get the death penalty if they kill a sober innocent person? This is assuming the drunk driver survives because they rarely do die in these crashes, and that’s ironic and unfair.
No.
No, they should get help, along with societal changes (i.e. self driving cars)
Do you want to also extend that to texting while driving? Which Is More Dangerous: DUI or Driving While Using a Cell Phone?
Yes. Hopefully in the manner which produces the most suffering and pain.
If the person they kill is “innocent,” why should it matter if their sober or not. If I’m in the back of an Uber after a night of heavy drinking, and some drunk runs a red light, crashing into the Uber car and I die, does the drunk get points because I’m not sober?
Anyway, I’m against the death penalty generally, so I’ll vote no.
Yes, they should get the death penalty. And there should be a specific penalty just for them: they all have to compete in a demolition derby, using cars equipped with blades and spikes and shit. It will continue until only one of them is left alive. The winner then must commit suicide by driving a nitromethane-powered dragster 300 mph off of a cliff.
Those have parachutes.
No, they should get the standard sentence for whatever their state calls criminally negligent homicide.
Doesn’t much matter whether the killer is driving drunk, texting while driving, playing with his gun, or leaving his smack out where a four-year-old can get to it.
The death penalty solves nothing. I doubt very many people kill someone the first time they drive drunk. They are likely habitually driving under the influence. The problem needs to be addressed at the first ticketed DUI. Education is important, too.
Is there any state that has the death penalty for manslaughter? If not, what’s special about impaired causing death?
We see here the thirst for vengeance. Perhaps an automatic confiscation of the car being driven by the drunk driver, with a prior DUI. Revocation of license, and a cooperative database among all states to prevent issuance of licenses in all states. At least a year of random timed monthly blood tests before the driver is permitted to apply for a license. The point of law isn’t supposed to be vengeance, but rather to protect the public from an identified dangerous behavior. A third case of DUI, or any failure would make the revocation permanent. I don’t need the driver dead. I need the driver off the road.
Tris
Usually when someone asks for justice, what they really want is either vengeance, or mercy.
Prison. I’m not sure they should get out of it, though.
well that depends on what you mean by solving. Had a friend whose sister was murdered by the sister’s husband. It was his third separate murder. Served time for each of the first two murders. Had he been executed for one of the first two murders one or two people would still be alive, other then him, he is still alive.
Details, please. Name of killer? Place, date, etc?
^This. Plus I am opposed to the death penalty, I don’t think any state should be in the business of killing its citizens.
I don’t support the death penalty for any crime.
There would have to be a much more significant consequence for a DUI where another person is killed. I’m not interested in vengeance either. If what you posted refers to a simple DUI, then I could go along with pretty much your entire post.
That’s really sad. Justice isn’t always just. The guy should have gotten a life w/o parole sentence.
So, not in favor of any draft or declarations of war for any reason?
Many years ago I was engaged and my fiance was killed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver who hit her was recently released after serving a short incarceration for this third DUI conviction. This experience has certainly affected my opinion on matters related to DUI sentencing.
I do not equate a death in a DUI related crash to negligent homicide. I liken it more to taking a loaded gun and randomly shooting it down a public road - an inherently dangerous reckless act that is a felony in and of itself and which should, IMHO, be prosecuted under a felony murder rule if it causes the death of a person.
As such I believe a first degree murder charge under a felony murder rule is the fair charge for causing death by drunk driving. Aggravating factors (as under relevant state or federal law) should be taken into account to determine a just sentence, up to and including death.
The correct answer is “No,”* because capital punishment has always been morally wrong under every circumstance, but leaving that aside for the moment, what do YOU think?
*(and on the basis that it has a correct answer, I’m going to petition for a change of venue to GQ)