« Dirty Tricks Run In The Family | Main | Bush's Base? »
Drunk Driving Murderers
I saw an ad today from Mothers Against Drunk Driving who require more volunteers for their educational programs. It reminded me about some stuff I've been meaning to write about.
The questions I have to ask are: why are vehicular homicides caused by drunk drivers not treated as murder? Or at least as manslaughter? Why is the average sentence for death caused by drunk driving only a few years, if that? What, exactly, is the purpose of having a crime of vehicular homicide? What's wrong with charging the drunks under the various degrees of murder we already have on the books?
There can be no defence of ignorance anymore. There can be no adult or young adult in the Western world who doesn't know that alcohol impedes muscle control, that a drunk behind the wheel of a car is an offensive weapon looking for a victim. So, anyone getting into their car after drinking knows what he or she is doing -- making themselves into a semi-guided missile that misses targets only by chance. That makes the offence deliberate. Pouring yourself into a car after slugging back a dozen beers is exactly the same as walking into a crowded bar in a bad mood with a gun in your pocket.
There is no doubt that the guy in the bar will be prosecuted for murder if he pulls the piece and shoots someone dead. There should be no doubt that the drunk driver who kills will be treated in the same way.
But that ain't so today, and no-one can tell me why.
October 17, 2004 in Drunk Driving | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345191c469e200d83469352169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Drunk Driving Murderers:
Comments
Your comment comparing shooting someone and drinking and driving is interesting. Although any death resulting from drinking and driving is a tragedy; comparing it to a shooting is a bit misleading. People who drink and drive are irresponsible but I would say that they don't intend to hurt anyone when they get behind the wheel. You can't say the same thing about someone who pulls a gun and shoots someone.
Posted by: Rascal | Oct 18, 2004 2:32:40 PM
" they don't intend to hurt anyone when they get behind the wheel ... "
That is the excuse that is always trotted out. That is why, in my original post, I mentioned that no-one is now unaware of the results of drinking and driving. Therefore, anyone getting into their car drunk knows full well -- and is thereby culpable -- that they are committing a blunder that could cost someone their life.
The person who enters the bar does not intend to kill anyone, either. But circumstances and availabilty -- just like in the drunken driver case -- conspire to create the murder. I see no difference at all.
But thanks for the comment. I appreciate it.
Posted by: Jak King | Oct 18, 2004 2:36:34 PM
Maybe our hypothetical bar murderer didn't intend to kill when he entered the bar, but he surely intended to kill when he deliberately fired his weapon at someone. The legal crime of murder implies aforethought malice; killing someone through negligence, as in the case of our hypothetical drunk driver, is manslaughter.
Don't know about Canada, but Maryland laws seem too weak. Vehicular manslaughter is specifically defined as killing someone while operating a vehicle in a "grossly negligent manner" and carries the same penalty as normal manslaughter -- up to 10 years imprisonment. But a separate law bans homicide by motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and it carries only a 3 year max. The threshold for guilt is lower -- driving "negligently" rather than driving with "gross negligence" -- but the lower penalty is odd. Driving drunk should automatically be considered gross negligence, so vehicular homicide under the influence of alcohol should be treated the same as vehicular manslaughter.
Posted by: Peter Caress | Oct 18, 2004 3:58:09 PM
If the gunman in the bar is very drunk, he is only as aware as the drunk driver is when behind the wheel. I just don't see the difference and I am continually amazed at how easy it seems to be to find excuses for drunk drivers to be treated more lightly than other killers.
Let me repeat again. These days when you climb into a car while drunk you KNOW you are potentially about to kill someone. That should be enough to prove premeditated malice.
Posted by: Jak King | Oct 18, 2004 4:53:52 PM
We seem to be splitting hairs over definitions. Malice, in the sense I'm using it, means intent to harm another person. Someone who drives very recklessly (whether drunk or sober) is acting with shocking indifference towards other people's safety, but he isn't _hoping_ to harm another person. Someone (whether drunk or sober) who deliberately fires a weapon at someone else is clearly hoping to harm the other person. You can still argue that the drunk driver should be punished as severely as the guy in the bar, though I would disagree.
Posted by: Peter Caress | Oct 18, 2004 5:55:52 PM
Here's a twist for you. I'm going to build on your "man in a bar with a gun" example to explain why I detest "drunk driving" laws. The man in possession of the gun, even though it is a weapon potentially used to harm another human, is in violation of no law (well, in some states it IS a crime to bring a weapon into a bar, but I digress) and will not go to jail, have rediculous monetary fines imposed on him, etc.
Yet thousands [or millions?] of Americans find themselves behind bars, paying stiff fines, without a job, etc. simply for driving while intoxicated. They've not killed anyone, just as the man with a gun has not. Yet they are "criminals."
Sure, someone kills someone else while driving drunk, put 'em behind bars. The same goes for those who kill while driving sober. It's called murder. Driving while intoxicated, just like owning a gun that you never used on anyone else, is not. Yet we're ruining the lives of otherwise good, honest citizens because they, driving "drunk," had the potential to kill, because they were a "hazard."
Try rounding up all gun-owning Americans and locking them away because they "might" kill someone.
Posted by: Hugh | Oct 21, 2004 2:30:49 PM
Sorry to double post, but I was just looking again at the image in this entry. Try this: remove "drunk driving" and replace it with "owning a gun." Owning a gun is not a violent crime, nor is "drunk driving." KILLING SOMEONE while driving drunk or with your gun is, but not the act of driving intoxicated or simply owning a gun.
This is my problem with MADD and other groups of this sort. They grossly distort reality to make their point, as do the authorities themselves. The head of the Michigan State Police once said that drunk driving was "not a victimless crime." Yes, yes it is. Who's the victim? If I kill someone while doing so, then there's a victim. If I simply drive home "drunk" [in Michigan that means a BAC of .08 or higher, which is absolutely rediculous, but I won't get started on that] then there is not a victim. Nobody has been acted upon in any way.
Smokers may disagree, but I don't believe there is any single group ostracized by society at large more [in America, at least] than drinkers. Honestly.
Posted by: Hugh | Oct 21, 2004 2:37:42 PM
And if someone's driving recklessly, veering from one side of the road to the other, why give him a ticket? He hasn't harmed anyone yet, right? Same thing goes for a guy who drives at 90mph though a school zone in the morning. He hasn't hit a kid yet, has he? And why have driver's licenses at all? Let's presumptively assume that a 90-year-old who's legally blind can drive competently, until he crashes!
Hugh may take an extreme libertarian view on highway safety, but most people (including me) think that you should not be driving on a public road unless you're capable of driving safely. If you're quite drunk, you simply cannot drive safely. (I agree with him that the MADD slogan in the picture is obnoxious.)
Posted by: Peter Caress | Oct 22, 2004 7:23:58 AM
I have to agree with Hugh - the intent to cause harm should not be "read into" the fact that one climbs behind the wheel while intoxicated.
Here in Vancouver, it's permitted for the police to set up roadblocks and stop every car to ask if the driver has been drinking, with no probable cause to stop the cars whatsoever. That to me is like the police stopping every patron in the bar in your example, Jak, and asking whether they are about to shoot someone. They also ask where you've come from, where you're going, etc. (which I always refuse to answer).
As for licenses, here we are supposed to renew ours every 5 years, however they do not in any way test one's driving ability. Really the renewal attests to nothing more than the license holder's ability to stand in a long line up and pay $75. We're also required by law to inform the DMV of a change of address within 10 days of moving - it's little more than a registration system under the guise of, as usual, public safety...
Martin
Posted by: Martin | Oct 23, 2004 11:19:18 PM
Peter,
You've misconstrued my point. There's a difference b/w driving wrecklessly and driving "intoxicated." I live in a vacation community where the local police - and trust me, we have a disproportionate amount of them - derive the bulk of their income from DUI arrests. I know MANY people who've been arrested for this "crime," and I've likewise heard hundreds of horror stories from others who I may simply meet in a local bar.
(I'll say in the interest of full disclosure that I HAVE NOT been, so my anger toward such laws are not the result of my anger at getting "caught." Although the fact that I've driven home many times when I know that I was OK to make it home but still "legally drunk" attests to the fact that BACs are rediculous measures of ones ability to drive...)
Anyway, those who "veer from one side of the road to the other" or "drive 90 mph" while intoxicated probably are caught, are and should be put in jail, and should be even if sober.
YET, many of those I know and have talked to who have been arrested for a DUI did none of these things. One individual even told me that the cops [who had pulled him over when he flashed his brights to get them to turn their's off - a trick employed by the police here quite frequently] TOLD him his driving was fine. They only pulled him over b/c he flashed his lights - "wreckless driving," even though they were DRIVING with their brights on - which gave them "probable cause" and allowed them to give him a breath test. Without their little trick they never would have known he was a "drunk" driver.
And here in the US I think it is pretty much a given that the elderly ARE able to drive until they kill someone. A license is a "right" to them, something they can only be denied when they plow into a marketplace and kill nine people b/c they thought the gas pedal was the brake.
And since we're talking about "drunk" drivers and the elderly at the same time, how about those elderly who take a handful of pills each day, many of which probably say "do not operate a motor vehicle while taking," yet get in their car to drive to the store/post office/etc.? I've yet to see a politician or a group interested in the good of the community get behind getting them off the road...In fact, most Americans are openly hostile to those who make such a suggestion.
I would disagree with your assessment of my views on highway safety. I'm very quick to get upset at those who are anything BUT safe on the highway. I just don't believe that whether someone has a BAC of .01 or .09 has any more to do with "highway safety" than whether or not they've eaten meat on a particular day. But that is a discussion for another time...
Posted by: Hugh | Oct 29, 2004 7:29:44 AM