Old ambulance driver here: This is precisely how I feel about it. As far as the death penalty, I’m enthusiastically in favor of it.
IMO, the DUI driver decided to play God and send a person to their death. We as a society should accept his claim, and help him correct the mistake. We do this by sending him into the afterlife so he can find and return with his victim. If he fails, too bad, so sad. If he returns to us with the living victim, he goes free.
San Antonio, 80s and 90s. Since I’d rather keep my friend out of it no other details.
this. A lot of criminally negligent homicide is really horrible.
And this.
No. There shouldn’t be a death penalty.
Agreed. At its core, DUI causing death is an unintentional killing. It would be disproportionate punishment for death or life in prison for what is essentially negligent homicide. As another poster said, why not death or life in prison for texting while driving which causes a death?
I’m sorry for your loss, but I respectfully think that you are reacting emotionally. First, DUI is not a felony and therefore not covered under a felony murder theory.
Second, even if classified as a felony and covered under a state felony murder law, while DUI is certainly dangerous, the extremely small likelihood that a single instance of DUI could cause a death would seem to preclude such an act from showing the “reckless indifference” to human life necessary under Supreme Court precedent to impose the death penalty.
Finally, the intoxication should be a mitigating factor and not an aggravating one. While the individual who commits a typical felony murder is doing so knowingly, the decision to drive a car was done while under the influence and made the person not appreciate his or her actions so much. Not that it makes it okay, but the law punishes and should punish the guilty mind and the evil intent more than the negligent or idiotic ones.
No. It’s a really bad, stupid idea.
What has that got to do with a government killing its own citizens?
I recall an episode of Quincy, back in 1981, where a man decided to commit murder. To avoid being prosecuted for first degree murder, he committed the crime by killing someone with his car and then immediately drinking a lot of alcohol so the charge would be DUI. Not getting off scot-free, but not life in prison/death penalty either. Of course, Quincy figure it out.
No, for a first offense rehabilitation is the most logical and reasonable response. Most people who cause injuries while being drunk are negligent, ignorant, or sick. That’s not who you want to use state power to execute. Now, those that have gone through the rehabilitation program to completion, been deemed cured, and then return to drunk driving without having learned anything? They probably can’t be rehabilitated, and that’s the only type of person you can justify executing.
Again, though, the program would have to be far better than what is available now, with far more resources dedicated to ensuring that people that go through the program are actually rehabilitated. You can’t argue someone is beyond rehabilitation if no sufficient program exists to genuinely test that.
It’s important to note that execution is not an effective punishment or deterrent. Sure, guys on death row sure feel punished, but it wont effect the choices that lead them to being there because slapping a death penalty on a crime does nothing to alter the factors that lead to it. Execution is a means of ridding society of an individual for which there is no possible societal benefit. This can only be assessed as true if the problem itself has been attempted to be rectified by all feasible means and it has been demonstrated that it can’t be.
Usually, people can be rehabilitated and become functional members of society. In fact, the reason they get sick with something like alcoholism is usually because society failed them in some other manner. There is only justification (from a cold, 10,000 mile perspective) for execution where rehabilitation is not possible, and that is not a punishment, but society simply removing an obstruction to it’s continued well-being.
Nobody’s ever cured. Addicts are addicts for life.
Many years ago I represented a young man who drove drunk and killed a pedestrian. When I met him he was so remorseful he was suicidal. He also had quite an alcohol problem. By virtue of great lawyering and some luck, he was convicted of DUI but not Vehicular Homicide (judge trial). The judge gave him the maximum sentence, one year. (he would have served about 6 years for the original charge) I have stayed in touch with this man. He reached out to the victim’s family and apologized and they responded well. He speaks to young people at risk to urge them to avoid the mistakes he has made. He has a family and a successful career. He has never minimized the gravity of his mistake or made excuses for it. I don’t see how the death penalty would have helped very much.
Since even lots of red states are trying to move away from the death penalty, the question may be mostly moot by the time the offenders’ numbers are up.
I could get behind that.
This is the best comment on the thread and it’s been ignored. Why should a DUI carry a different sentence than other types of criminally negligent homicide. Is DUI really a couple of orders of magnitude worse than leaving your 2-year old inside the pool enclosure while you go inside to answer a phone call? Than a hazing death at a frat? Than knowing the smoke detectors in your building don’t work and willfully concealing that fact from the residents?
I can’t see why the drunk frat boy who kills someone drunk-driving deserves death but none of those people do.
Well, it does stop a murderer from killing again.
I dont think any drunk drivers mean to kill anyone, and thus it is never Murder 1 aka Premeditated murder and thus no, not worthy pf the death penalty. I am not sure if a prison sentence on the first offence is the right solution, even.
I’m not really a strong supporter of capital punishment even for cases of murder, so probably not.
I dated a girl with a DUI that had a thing she had to blow in just to start her car and sometimes randomly when we were already in traffic at a stop light. I hate big brother but it’s pretty obvious that such a device would save a lot of lives (thousands?) if it were mandated for all vehicles.
No death penalty for anyone.
I don’t believe in the death penalty under any circumstance, but drunk drivers should be required to pay their own medical bills from the crash 100% out of pocket.
Does insurance (medical or auto) pay out for DUI accidents? I’ve always just assumed that it didn’t.