Fool! Some people need to be killed, and now that I realize I can get off relatively lightly if I simply run them over with my car, I think I’ll devise a list. I must choose wisely, however, as this trick works best if I only use it once.
Lest you be labeled “accident proned”.
Actually, it’s simply because they’re drunk. It’s not an excuse, but it is the reason.
Been tried, doesn’t work. Looks like you’re 3 - 5 times better off with the drunk driving. Besides, it’s a lot more fun.
I think they should do a sentence to measure sentence length compared to the number of miles on the car.
The fact that you killed someone while driving drunk does not mean you killed someone because you were driving drunk.
Well, for one it does not allow you to kill nearly as many people as the new plan. Guess it depends on what your goals are.
But if I’m drunk then I might kill the wrong person.
Look, despite how outraged people get over this, it is still an unintentional homicide. It’s not, as I’m sure you’re sarcastically implying, people take this route because they want to kill someone for kicks and not get punished. So what is the sentence “light” in comparison with? If I’m drunk and I accidentally drop a hammer out the window killing someone, should I be charged with 1st degree murder?
IANAL nor do I play one on TV, but I am pretty sure the reason why the crime is so lightly punished is that there was never an intent to kill. The lack of I think its called mens rea (guilty mind) means basically, it was an accident. A soccer mom dealing with an unruly screaming 3 year old could be just as impaired by her situation as a drunk driver, do we send her to the big house for hitting someone?
Indeed, this is true. I actualy won a vehicular homicide trial once because, although my client was very drunk, that was not the cause of the collision.
He got he maximum sentence (1 year) for DUI, but the Judge found him not guilty of the vehicular homicide (we waived our right to a jury for obvious reasons)
FYI, he has become one of the most responsible citizens you could ever meet. A longer sentence might have actually caused more harm than good.
I was just discussing this with my husband, a safety officer, and he agrees that you probably won’t even see a fine (your company might have to explain that they have policies in place to prevent this, but you snuck through the cracks); once again, if you want to do shitty things and get away with them, do them while drunk. I am SO not agreeing with this mentality - unless someone poured all those drinks down your throat against your will, you’re still responsible for what you do while drunk.
You aren’t even making sense. If you really wanted to get away with it, you would kill someone driving while you were sober. Then you wouldn’t even get a DUI charge.
You think five years is light? Try 30 days.
ffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
This was the plot in an episdoe of Quincy ME season 7, episode 5.
Good point.
Yeah, well, the latest criminal on the news here isn’t famous, so he got the Non-Celebrity or Sports Star sentencing.
ETA: Forgot to say, I was discussing this with my husband, and he made the point that the guy who killed someone while driving drunk on a suspended license committed a crime when he drove to the bar, and you could argue that it was premeditated, because he drove to the bar with the intent to get drunk and drive home.
Or even:
Yup.
A common claim, but celebrities don’t actually get any better treatment than regular folk. In fact, in DUI cases, they get the same sentences but end up serving more of it than the average.
Or you could move to the State of Washington, the land of Compassionate Judges. The Seattle Times had two stories last week about the sentences meted out to several first degree murderers. Both sentences were for slighty over twenty years. And with parole, the actually time served will probably be in the range of 8 - 10 years.