Should the option of a murder charge be on the table for drunk drivers who kill?

[John Dibble]

Yes, it could certainly qualify as second degree murder, depraved indifference to human life, depending on the circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart_murder

Drunk driving isn't usually intending to do something reckless. The driver is in an intoxicated state where they aren't thinking clearly - it's not the same as the cases presented in the Wikipedia article you link where the person is assumed to be sober.

[Nym90]

Yes, it could certainly qualify as second degree murder, depraved indifference to human life, depending on the circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart_murder

Drunk driving isn't usually intending to do something reckless. The driver is in an intoxicated state where they aren't thinking clearly - it's not the same as the cases presented in the Wikipedia article you link where the person is assumed to be sober.

Well, I don't agree that getting drunk should be considered diminished capacity that would reduce criminal liability since it is a person's choice to get drunk, as opposed to mental illness or some other condition that the person has no control over.

I do think it depends on circumstances though. I don't think it should be considered murder in most cases, but if the person is extremely drunk and then drives, I think that's akin to firing a gun into the air and not caring where the bullet lands. Wanton disregard for life can still be considered murder even if the person didn't necessarily want someone to die.

[Smash255]

Yes, it could certainly qualify as second degree murder, depraved indifference to human life, depending on the circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart_murder

Drunk driving isn't usually intending to do something reckless. The driver is in an intoxicated state where they aren't thinking clearly - it's not the same as the cases presented in the Wikipedia article you link where the person is assumed to be sober.

Well, I don't agree that getting drunk should be considered diminished capacity that would reduce criminal liability since it is a person's choice to get drunk, as opposed to mental illness or some other condition that the person has no control over.

I do think it depends on circumstances though. I don't think it should be considered murder in most cases, but if the person is extremely drunk and then drives, I think that's akin to firing a gun into the air and not caring where the bullet lands. Wanton disregard for life can still be considered murder even if the person didn't necessarily want someone to die.

I agree, most cases I don't think it should be considered, but there are some that it fits such as this one when the driver was going over 100mph the wrong way on a Parkway.

[John Dibble]

Yes, it could certainly qualify as second degree murder, depraved indifference to human life, depending on the circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart_murder

Drunk driving isn't usually intending to do something reckless. The driver is in an intoxicated state where they aren't thinking clearly - it's not the same as the cases presented in the Wikipedia article you link where the person is assumed to be sober.

Well, I don't agree that getting drunk should be considered diminished capacity that would reduce criminal liability since it is a person's choice to get drunk, as opposed to mental illness or some other condition that the person has no control over.

I do think it depends on circumstances though. I don't think it should be considered murder in most cases, but if the person is extremely drunk and then drives, I think that's akin to firing a gun into the air and not caring where the bullet lands. Wanton disregard for life can still be considered murder even if the person didn't necessarily want someone to die.

Even if it's a choice to get drunk, you don't think straight when you are drunk. It's not like people get drunk with the intention of driving drunk. Sure, it's not an excuse since you chose to get drunk, but I don't think it fits the criteria of "callous disregard for human life". A drunk person who thinks he or she is able to drive ok is just drying to do an activity that they are normally able to do just fine, but because they put themselves in an intoxicated state their judgement is affected. We punish it because they do have a choice in being intoxicated, but we separate it from crimes where the person's judgement is not negatively affected by anything and they still disregard human life.

Now if you could show that the person knows they're going to drive after getting drunk then I think you'd have a case because they would knowingly be doing something that could put others at risk.

[Smash255]

Yes, it could certainly qualify as second degree murder, depraved indifference to human life, depending on the circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart_murder

Drunk driving isn't usually intending to do something reckless. The driver is in an intoxicated state where they aren't thinking clearly - it's not the same as the cases presented in the Wikipedia article you link where the person is assumed to be sober.

Well, I don't agree that getting drunk should be considered diminished capacity that would reduce criminal liability since it is a person's choice to get drunk, as opposed to mental illness or some other condition that the person has no control over.

I do think it depends on circumstances though. I don't think it should be considered murder in most cases, but if the person is extremely drunk and then drives, I think that's akin to firing a gun into the air and not caring where the bullet lands. Wanton disregard for life can still be considered murder even if the person didn't necessarily want someone to die.

Even if it's a choice to get drunk, you don't think straight when you are drunk. It's not like people get drunk with the intention of driving drunk. Sure, it's not an excuse since you chose to get drunk, but I don't think it fits the criteria of "callous disregard for human life". A drunk person who thinks he or she is able to drive ok is just drying to do an activity that they are normally able to do just fine, but because they put themselves in an intoxicated state their judgement is affected. We punish it because they do have a choice in being intoxicated, but we separate it from crimes where the person's judgement is not negatively affected by anything and they still disregard human life.

Now if you could show that the person knows they're going to drive after getting drunk then I think you'd have a case because they would knowingly be doing something that could put others at risk.

If someone who was sober was going over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway would you think that qualifies for callous disregard for human life?

[John Dibble]

If someone who was sober was going over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway would you think that qualifies for callous disregard for human life?

Absolutely.

[Smash255]

If someone who was sober was going over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway would you think that qualifies for callous disregard for human life?

Absolutely.

So if they do that when they are drunk why should the penalty be any less?

[John Dibble]

If someone who was sober was going over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway would you think that qualifies for callous disregard for human life?

Absolutely.

So if they do that when they are drunk why should the penalty be any less?

Because their judgment and motor skills are affected, so they probably wouldn't realize what they are doing. It isn't done with ill intent. The sober person on the other hand is doing it on purpose - that meets the qualifications for callous disregard for human life.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Only when it's intentional, or malicious, like purposefully driving on the wrong side of the road/highway.

When is drinking alcohol until you are intoxicated and incapable of functioning properly unintentional?

What person who is old enough to drive doesn't understand the consequences of drinking too much, and driving?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Yes (D)

[John Dibble]

Only when it's intentional, or malicious, like purposefully driving on the wrong side of the road/highway.

When is drinking alcohol until you are intoxicated and incapable of functioning properly unintentional?

In most cases. Have a few drinks and your judgment is affected, so you think you're okay for a few more, and then maybe a few more. Many people just don't know when to stop.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most people do understand that, but a lot of drunk people just don't think of it at the time because, well, they're drunk.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Only when it's intentional, or malicious, like purposefully driving on the wrong side of the road/highway.

When is drinking alcohol until you are intoxicated and incapable of functioning properly unintentional?

In most cases. Have a few drinks and your judgment is affected, so you think you're okay for a few more, and then maybe a few more. Many people just don't know when to stop.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most people do understand that, but a lot of drunk people just don't think of it at the time because, well, they're drunk.

Neither thing excuses their behavior, or lifts their responsibility.

[Smash255]

If someone who was sober was going over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway would you think that qualifies for callous disregard for human life?

Absolutely.

So if they do that when they are drunk why should the penalty be any less?

Because their judgment and motor skills are affected, so they probably wouldn't realize what they are doing. It isn't done with ill intent. The sober person on the other hand is doing it on purpose - that meets the qualifications for callous disregard for human life.

Regardless if driving over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway is done sober or drunk it is still callous disregard for human life.  Just because your doing it hammered isn't an excuse and doesn't mean it isn't callous disregard for human life.   

[John Dibble]

Neither thing excuses their behavior, or lifts their responsibility.

Which is why they still get punished - I haven't argued that they shouldn't be, just that there is a difference between intentional and unintentional acts. We don't have a one size fits all murder charge, if you haven't noticed. There's degrees of murder, which are further separated from degrees of manslaughter. This is because the system of law we go by rightfully recognizes the difference between the intentional and the unintentional, as well as planned actions and spur of the moment actions.

Regardless if driving over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway is done sober or drunk it is still callous disregard for human life.  Just because your doing it hammered isn't an excuse and doesn't mean it isn't callous disregard for human life.   

Wrong. Callous in this sense means "insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic".

Someone who drives 100 mph on the wrong side of a crowded parkway while sober is doing it with full knowledge of what they are doing. They would know that they are risking lives and they would be doing it without any sympathy for those whom they put at risk.

Someone who does the same thing while drunk most likely is so impaired that they don't realize that they are on the wrong side of the road. They aren't knowingly or intentionally doing something that is putting others at risk, they just happen to be doing it in their impaired state. They aren't unsympathetic, they are just unable to recognize that they can't properly operate their vehicle.

This applies to the majority of cases where the driver just has a few too many, not having intended to get inebriated to that point. If you could prove that the driver intended to get drunk and then drive immediately afterwards, your point might stand up in court.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Neither thing excuses their behavior, or lifts their responsibility.

Which is why they still get punished - I haven't argued that they shouldn't be, just that there is a difference between intentional and unintentional acts. We don't have a one size fits all murder charge, if you haven't noticed. There's degrees of murder, which are further separated from degrees of manslaughter. This is because the system of law we go by rightfully recognizes the difference between the intentional and the unintentional, as well as planned actions and spur of the moment actions.

Regardless if driving over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway is done sober or drunk it is still callous disregard for human life.  Just because your doing it hammered isn't an excuse and doesn't mean it isn't callous disregard for human life.   

Wrong. Callous in this sense means "insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic".

Someone who drives 100 mph on the wrong side of a crowded parkway while sober is doing it with full knowledge of what they are doing. They would know that they are risking lives and they would be doing it without any sympathy for those whom they put at risk.

Someone who does the same thing while drunk most likely is so impaired that they don't realize that they are on the wrong side of the road. They aren't knowingly or intentionally doing something that is putting others at risk, they just happen to be doing it in their impaired state. They aren't unsympathetic, they are just unable to recognize that they can't properly operate their vehicle.

This applies to the majority of cases where the driver just has a few too many, not having intended to get inebriated to that point. If you could prove that the driver intended to get drunk and then drive immediately afterwards, your point might stand up in court.

Getting drunk is an intentional act.

Getting drunk with the full knowledge that you will be driving home after drinking is an intentional act.

Everything that happens after that, comes about as a result of two deliberate acts.

[John Dibble]

Getting drunk is an intentional act.

Getting drunk with the full knowledge that you will be driving home after drinking is an intentional act.

Everything that happens after that, comes about as a result of two deliberate acts.

Again, it isn't usually intentional. Most people who go out to drink intend to have a few drinks with friends, not to go over the limit and get smashed. Sometimes they go too far without realizing it. That is not intentional. That's not to say that some people don't go out with the intention of getting drunk, but I don't believe that to be the majority of cases.

[Smash255]

Neither thing excuses their behavior, or lifts their responsibility.

Which is why they still get punished - I haven't argued that they shouldn't be, just that there is a difference between intentional and unintentional acts. We don't have a one size fits all murder charge, if you haven't noticed. There's degrees of murder, which are further separated from degrees of manslaughter. This is because the system of law we go by rightfully recognizes the difference between the intentional and the unintentional, as well as planned actions and spur of the moment actions.

Regardless if driving over 100 mph the wrong way on a Parkway is done sober or drunk it is still callous disregard for human life.  Just because your doing it hammered isn't an excuse and doesn't mean it isn't callous disregard for human life.   

Wrong. Callous in this sense means "insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic".

Someone who drives 100 mph on the wrong side of a crowded parkway while sober is doing it with full knowledge of what they are doing. They would know that they are risking lives and they would be doing it without any sympathy for those whom they put at risk.

Someone who does the same thing while drunk most likely is so impaired that they don't realize that they are on the wrong side of the road. They aren't knowingly or intentionally doing something that is putting others at risk, they just happen to be doing it in their impaired state. They aren't unsympathetic, they are just unable to recognize that they can't properly operate their vehicle.

This applies to the majority of cases where the driver just has a few too many, not having intended to get inebriated to that point. If you could prove that the driver intended to get drunk and then drive immediately afterwards, your point might stand up in court.

If you are drinking so much that you are so hammered that you are driving over 100mph on the wrong side of a Parkway you were drinking with the intent to get absolutely smashed. 

[John Dibble]

If you are drinking so much that you are so hammered that you are driving over 100mph on the wrong side of a Parkway you were drinking with the intent to get absolutely smashed. 

Or you just lost control after having a few drinks. Some people do have inherent problems with impulse control, which tend to get worse after having a few drinks. Combined with a highly social atmosphere where drinking is encouraged by others, like say a frat party, it only gets worse.

[nclib]

No (D), though it should certainly be a high charge. There's a difference between making a decision that could lead to someone being killed (or disregarding for the safety of others) than a direct choice to kill someone.