That’s probably better then whatever you’d get for premeditated murder though. I can’t tell you how many of my college friends got DWIs and I assure you none of them saw the inside of a prison.
Yes it is. I didn’t cite that case particularly because I haven’t read enough about that case to speak about it intelligently. Also, I’m more interested in people’s thoughts about the hypothetical.
Maximum prison time, no questions asked. I think all DWIs should be treated as seriously as premeditated murder, because that’s basically what you are doing when you decide to get behind the wheel when you are drunk.
Good thing I don’t write the laws!
It seems like a shaky moral issue to argue that a person who kills somebody else is less guilty if the victim is intoxicated.
As seriously as 1st degree murder? Seriously? I don’t agree. The blood alcohol level normally needed for a DUI charge in the U.S. is higher than it is in some countries but it is still fairly low. It is only .08 in most states which isn’t very much for experienced drinkers. The people that you see on video weaving all over the road usually have a much higher blood alcohol level than that. The OP never said how drunk the driver was. It could be marginal and he may made an effort not to be impaired at all but still was in the legal sense.
People get into accidents all the time and some of them have been drinking but it is not always a major contributing factor (you never hear about the cases where a soccer mom kills a person driving home from a bar by t-boning him at an intersection but that happens sometimes too). A difference between a BAL of .079 and .08 doesn’t mean very much in a physiological sense but you seem to be saying that it should be the difference between a fine and traffic ticket versus possible life in prison for premeditated murder.
I can’t get on board with that. We had a case here yesterday where a professional woman overran a stop sign just after a snow storm and hit an ambulance just the right way to flip it and kill the patient inside who was already sick and going for dialysis treatments. It is tragic and she should have been paying more attention but the real crime that was committed was overrunning a stop sign and not murder.
I admit that there should be some sort of sliding scale for “how drunk” a person was as to how severely they should be punished. Then again, I’m all for a 0.00% tolerance in the first place.
Maybe I was being a bit over zealous with saying it’s the same as premeditated murder. In order for that to hold, there’d have to be witnesses who heard the driver saying something like, “I’m as drunk as a skunk and I don’t care, I’m going to drive home anyway. Hope nobody gets in my way!”
At the end of the day, my point was that a DWI punishment should not be contingent upon whether or not anyone actually got hurt. The potential to hurt someone, IMHO, should be as severely punished as actually hurting someone.
It seems like even more of a shaky moral issue to argue that someone is automatically guilty of murder as opposed to something else just because they are legally intoxicated. There is no evidence presented in the OP that alcohol was a contributing factor at all. It is implied like it always is but no evidence is presented for that. For all we know, a large deer or moose could have jumped straight in front of them like they tend to do sometimes. An 18-wheeler could have side-swiped them into a ditch off of an Interstate highway causing the car to flip and burn. In those cases, it wouldn’t matter if the driver had been drinking or not.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is, are you responsible for the decisions you make, even while you are drunk? If we hold a person responsible for intoxicated driving, we should also hold a person responsible for making bad decisions while under the influence. Such as, getting into a car when you know the person driving is drunk.
This is exactly my stance.
Except I think we should write the laws! 
I think the very first DWI should be punishable by mandatory jail time, even if the driver didn’t cause an accident or hurt anyone.
O tolerance policies are never a good idea and it has been proven so in the past. Like the time I read about a kid getting suspended for taking a nail clipper to school. Because hey, it could be used as a weapon and we can’t be having any of that.
Is suppose it is a good thing. There is a legal difference between premeditated murder which creates a corpse by intent, and reckless endangerment (or whatever) that results only in the creation of a potentially hazardous condition. By your logic, anyone who drives while a little sleepy, or has loud kids in the car, or fiddles with their car stereo or heater, or is talking on a cell phone, or has a stressful job that occupies their mind on the way home from work, or is going through a stressful divorce…all should do time for murder. .08 BAC is legally drunk (and there is pressure to reduce it further). I think most people wouldn’t even be able to tell they were at .08 BAC, and I know damn well I’ve been more impaired from stress & fatigue than I am at .08. Now if you want to get after people cruising around at .2 or so, I’m with you–that’s pretty drunk.
Unrelated: I’m having trouble understanding the purpose of jail time. Are we looking to deter others? Are we hoping for rehabilitative punishment? Or are we just looking to puish for its own sake?
I’m no fan of drunk driving but… REALLY? Would you be as draconian if it was someone driving without fully defrosted windows? Improper tire pressure? Drowsiness? Not wearing glasses? Complete sober but just a really shitty driver? Somehow the impairment is alcohol and it makes it that much worse?
Yes really, more or less. As I followed up, there should probably be some sliding scale… but any level of distracted or impaired driving, whether it is through alcohol or some other means, should be punishable by mandatory jail time in most cases.
Do you hold yourself to these high standards? Have you ever gotten behind the wheel when you were feeling a little fatigued?
Sports Illustrated just ran a particularly poignant, detailed story about the case that will help you make a lot of sense about it. I voted for maximum jail under the circumstances.
I already voted for maximum sentence, but if I hadn’t, I sure would’ve after reading that. Jesus Christ. The guy had so many other options than to drive drunk – he didn’t bother with them. Brown trusted him – probably because he was his friend.
It shouldn’t matter if Brown was drunk too, or decided to get into the car knowing that his friend was drunk. That’s the same attitude that leads to blaming rape victims for the own attacks. If it’s wrong there, it’s wrong here too. Just because a person’s too trusting doesn’t mean you should be excused from freaking DUI manslaughter.
So every driver should go to jail. Sounds reasonable.