Medical insurance almost certainly would. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an exclusion for not covering “stupid stuff you do.”
Auto liability coverage most definitely pays the other guy for what harm you caused by driving drunk. (although most drunk drivers seem to have woefully low limits). As to whether it would pay to fix the drunk’s car, I confess I’ve never looked. I suspect if you buy collision coverage you would be covered, but I don’t think there is anything from preventing a company from excluding that risk from a policy.
Several states classify DUI as a felony under certain circumstances. Multiple repeat DUI offenses is one such circumstance. Under law in the present day the fact that the instance in which my fiance was killed was the fourth DUI for this offender means it would have been a 2nd degree felony charge even without causing injury or death. Other circumstances elevating a DUI to a felony may include causing injury or death, while carrying a minor child as a passenger, or while driving with a suspended license among other reasons.
However back in the good ol’ days DUI penalties were substantially less and felony charges were not so common, even for third or subsequent offences. I understand and accept that this offender could not and should not have been charged under the felony murder rule as the law stood at that time. Doesn’t mean I think the law should not be changed.
Yeah, right. And then all anyone accused of murder would have to do to avoid the death penalty is say “yes, I did it, but I was drunk (or high) at the time.”
Should someone high on PCP who kills someone get a lighter sentence?
It’s already the case in some states that drug or alcohol intoxication may reduce the conviction from murder to manslaughter.
Murder is a specific intent offence: the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to kill.
If the accused was intoxicated, either by drugs or alcohol, to the point where they could not form an intention to kill, they can only be convicted of manslaughter in those states which recognise intoxication as negating the specific intent to kill.
If that defence is accepted, the result is that the death sentence is off the table.
If you had one person who killed someone intentionally because they are a psychopath, or as part of an insurance scheme, or out of rage/jealousy, that person has a broken moral compass and they’re much more likely to kill again than the average person. The risk of them doing so again is high and they pose an ongoing danger to society.
On the other hand, if a person was generally nonviolent and killed someone when they were literally out of their mind and completely unaware of what they were doing, then as long as they stayed away from such drugs their chances of committing another homicide are relatively low and with successful drug rehabilitation they aren’t necessarily a huge risk.
So yes, I believe negligent behavior, while potentially leading to terrible consequences, is still not as bad as ill intent.
There’s a reason why mens rea is considered when evaluating criminal severity.