|
|
Post by dio on Nov 2, 2004 23:07:22 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no? ???
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaka on Nov 7, 2004 8:36:15 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no?  I've always advocated DP for DUI especially those under the influence of narcotic drugs. All in all an excellent idea, go NC! |
|
|
|
Post by Lawgirl on Nov 14, 2004 12:09:15 GMT -6
I'm not sure how I feel on that. I do know legally that there is an Intoxication defense for criminal conduct. It is used to show that the defendant was not fully capable when the crime was committed. For example, a man may not get premeditated murder b/c of his intoxication. So instead of getting the DP, he may get life in prison. On the other hand, it depends on the jury and the State SC. A jury did convict in State vs Adkins for Wayne Adkins to get the DP after killing Junior Adams under the influence. But the Tenn State SC decided no on the DP and that Adkins was not capable of premeditated murder while under the influence.
I'm not saying what's right and what's wrong. I'm just saying how our system works.
|
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 15, 2004 9:41:14 GMT -6
I'm not saying what's right and what's wrong. I'm just saying how our system works. I agree with your argument. I am of the opinion that once one drives to a bar and has the first drink, one has made a conscious choice and is thereafter personally responsible for whatever actions one does, even if it is a DUI accident with a fatality[ies]. The DUI excuse is just that, an excuse. The charge really should be DUIS: Driving Under the Influence of Stupidity, where stupidity is not an excuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Lawgirl on Nov 17, 2004 19:43:55 GMT -6
I agree. I have never understood the Intoxication defense. Granted, most of us have probably driven when we shouldn't have, but it doesn't make it right. I agree that we are in control of whether we drink or we don't. If we decide to drink, we have to be responsible for our actions.
Although the Intoxication defense does come into play when someone has been drugged. Then I find it to be a different story. If a girl is slipped a drug, she may not be responsible. Instead, the person who slipped it to her is. But that's a whole other issue
|
|
|
|
Post by markfrommer on Nov 20, 2004 13:27:58 GMT -6
Absolutely, the death penalty should be in the picture for DUI related fatalities, as well as for other traffic related fatalities where negligence, recklessness, or aggression are contributory. However, it is the responsibility of proponents of such changes to forsee the misapplication of the concept, and advocate a law that is scrupulously conceived. Any such cases should have to meet a high standard of proof, and facts are difficult to discern in traffic events. Negligence, recklessness, and aggression are the prevailing rules of the road in contemporary America, and occur in varying degrees that are easy to misrepresent after the fact. It should be mitigating when the fatality caused by DUI is that of a cohort whose own behavior was substantially contributory to their ultimate fate.
|
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jan 1, 2005 19:53:46 GMT -6
Absolutely, the death penalty should be in the picture for DUI related fatalities, as well as for other traffic related fatalities where negligence, recklessness, or aggression are contributory. However, it is the responsibility of proponents of such changes to forsee the misapplication of the concept, and advocate a law that is scrupulously conceived. Any such cases should have to meet a high standard of proof, and facts are difficult to discern in traffic events. Negligence, recklessness, and aggression are the prevailing rules of the road in contemporary America, and occur in varying degrees that are easy to misrepresent after the fact. It should be mitigating when the fatality caused by DUI is that of a cohort whose own behavior was substantially contributory to their ultimate fate. It's difficult enough to get convictions in DUI cases in most states. Additionally, while DUI is incredibily stupid, the crimes are not pre-meditated in that the victims and killer are strangers until the moment of the crash; the crimes aren't intentional as the drunk driver doesn't drive under the influence with the purpose of killing someone else; there's no gain on the part of the drunk driver and there's no plan. For an offender to be eligible for the death penalty the murder has to meet at least one, if not all of those elements. Some states have lost convictions for second degree murder involving reckless disregard for the safety of others and manslaughter. In most states, the penalties aren't enough to really put the fear of God into some of these people and that's the only way they will ever change. kma367 |
|
|
|
Post by martha on Jan 23, 2005 19:09:19 GMT -6
in Austria which is where i come from, drinking is never a defense unless one was given it without knowing (hardly likely) or on medication and didnt know that in combination with alcohol this would hae adverse effects.
the sentence for killing under the influence is three years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jan 29, 2005 16:57:03 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no? no. That law will never get passed anywhere in the US. driving drunk is horrible, but it lacks the intended malice and aggravating circumstances to be conidered a DP crime. Just imagine the legal and human rights action that would occur if a person was scheadualed to die for a DUI crash. not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by xray48 on Feb 7, 2005 22:27:15 GMT -6
I think that this would be going a little too far with the DP.
Suppose that some young mother is just leaving the parking lot of a grocery store, in her car. She turns around to see why one of the kids is fussing, and then takes off without looking and kills a little old lady, in a wheel chair. I think that would be negligent homicide. Do we burn her?
So? Is a drunk guilty of malice or negligence?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowy111 on Feb 8, 2005 9:33:13 GMT -6
no. That law will never get passed anywhere in the US. driving drunk is horrible, but it lacks the intended malice and aggravating circumstances to be conidered a DP crime. Just imagine the legal and human rights action that would occur if a person was scheadualed to die for a DUI crash. not going to happen. I don't know if I support the dp for dui but I do think these people should be punished much harder. I know a couple who lost their daughter from a guy with a long dui history. He ran a stop sign while running from police and slammed the side of her car. He was drunk and driving without a license. If someone is going to continue to drink and drive, why should they be let out? Even if force them into getting help you can make them change unless they want to. |
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Feb 8, 2005 13:02:05 GMT -6
I don't know if I support the dp for dui but I do think these people should be punished much harder. I know a couple who lost their daughter from a guy with a long dui history. He ran a stop sign while running from police and slammed the side of her car. He was drunk and driving without a license. If someone is going to continue to drink and drive, why should they be let out? Even if force them into getting help you can make them change unless they want to. I agree with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2005 21:56:32 GMT -6
I'm not sure how I feel on that. I do know legally that there is an Intoxication defense for criminal conduct. It is used to show that the defendant was not fully capable when the crime was committed. For example, a man may not get premeditated murder b/c of his intoxication. So instead of getting the DP, he may get life in prison. On the other hand, it depends on the jury and the State SC. A jury did convict in State vs Adkins for Wayne Adkins to get the DP after killing Junior Adams under the influence. But the Tenn State SC decided no on the DP and that Adkins was not capable of premeditated murder while under the influence. I'm not saying what's right and what's wrong. I'm just saying how our system works. You are partially correct. That defense is only available if someone was involuntarily intoxicated, as in someone slipping them something in their Pepsi. It is very difficult to become involuntarily intoxicated with alcohol because it is very noticeable. When you voluntarily intoxicate yourself it is not a valid defense. Some juries buy the BS about them being intoxicated, but research has shown that many rapists will drink before raping so they have an excuse. DUI is not a valid use of the DP. The punishment does not fit the crime and would be cruel and unusual. If you want crimes that should be eligible, rape and child molestation should be included. |
|
|
|
Post by england on Feb 18, 2005 8:20:04 GMT -6
hi, i live in england and i know of a few people who have knocked people down when drunk, they normally get a small fine, over here if you kill while drunk driving the maximum penalty is 5 years in prison, often a lot less than that. im all for the death penalty for drunk driverd who kill, but i live in britain where are laws are so relaxed that if you are only a little over the limit for drink driving you just get a warning...
totally bizzare
|
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on Mar 7, 2005 21:04:22 GMT -6
In New South Wales Where I live. Penalties available are up to 14 years for dangerous driving occasioning death. The guideline sentence is around 3 years. The sentence of 14 years I believe is available when people are drunk, on drugs speeding or driving in otherwise dangerous manner, or fleeing the police. I have also heard of people being charged with manslaughter in particurly bad cases. I believe they only charge someone with murder when it is that they have deliberately driven their ar at someone. I think the difference is forseeability. If get in your car at the pub after a night on the grog, chances are you will get home okay. However if you shoot someone you know that they will more than likely die without medical assistance.
Where I live, self inflicted intoxicationused to be a defense, however this law has been changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 4, 2005 15:02:33 GMT -6
It's difficult enough to get convictions in DUI cases in most states. Additionally, while DUI is incredibily stupid, the crimes are not pre-meditated in that the victims and killer are strangers until the moment of the crash; the crimes aren't intentional as the drunk driver doesn't drive under the influence with the purpose of killing someone else; there's no gain on the part of the drunk driver and there's no plan. For an offender to be eligible for the death penalty the murder has to meet at least one, if not all of those elements. Some states have lost convictions for second degree murder involving reckless disregard for the safety of others and manslaughter. In most states, the penalties aren't enough to really put the fear of God into some of these people and that's the only way they will ever change. kma367 The two requirements for first degree murder are met in many DUI cases, even if prosecutors are reluctant to go after drunks. Premeditation is simply deliberation prior to the criminal act. You leave one venue by automobile, arrive at another venue for the express purpose of getting drunk with no effort made to secure a legal means of arriving at the third venue. This handily meets the requirement for premeditation. Malice is an intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm. Since DUI is expressly illegal, this requirement is met. In California, at least, intent is not required to show either premeditation or malice. That you choose to become intoxicated and to the point where death is reasonably forseeable, and choose to operate a vehicle anyway, you are guilty of murder if you so cause another's death. |
|
|
|
Post by fallstorm on Apr 22, 2005 22:09:40 GMT -6
Hmm. Interesting question.
I'm not so sure I want first time DUI offenders to get the death penalty, even if they did kill someone. I think that's a little too harsh in my opinion. But, repeat offenders? Offenders on illegal drugs? Less of a problem there.
I know people that made the choice to drive drunk and even though none of them injured anyone (thank goodness), most of them won't touch the stuff at all now. I've also heard DUI offenders that did kill speak and they seem to be truly sorry and truly wrecked by what they've done. However, it could be argued that they are the exception and not the rule.
In my opinion, those that choose to drive while drunk should be punished much more harshly than they are now. I think the DP should be on the table for repeat offenders of any traffic offense that cause death. First-time offenders should serve a month or two in jail, especially if they harmed someone -- a few years if they killed someone. They should also have their licenses permaently revoked without the possiblity of going to another state.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on May 5, 2005 11:10:44 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no? Since most states can seem to get around to executing their murderers, I suspect that the DUI guys would die of old age long before being given a execution date. I do not agree with DP for DUI's. Longer prision terms for repeats would be nice though. Taking away their driver's license obviously doesn't do a thing to stop repeat DUI offenders from driving. |
|
|
|
Post by californian on Dec 31, 2005 12:54:26 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no? ??? I disagree. There is a lack of malice involved. Every drunk driver set out with the intention to get home safely and harm no one, while every capital murderer set out to kill someone. I can see locking them up for a good long time, but assigning the DP for such a crime is going way overboard, as well as legally dubious. |
|
|
|
Post by cynthiak on Dec 31, 2005 18:34:23 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no? ??? I disagree. There is a lack of malice involved. Every drunk driver set out with the intention to get home safely and harm no one, while every capital murderer set out to kill someone. I can see locking them up for a good long time, but assigning the DP for such a crime is going way overboard, as well as legally dubious. When they KNOW they are impaired and they still drive...too bad, so sad. Fry em! |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 31, 2005 18:37:57 GMT -6
When they KNOW they are impaired and they still drive...too bad, so sad. Fry em! I agree. In California, malice can be simply "an abandoned or malignant heart." Someone so drunk that the death of an innocent is a foreseeable event proximate to that drunkenness acts with malice, if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by californian on Dec 31, 2005 19:34:36 GMT -6
When they KNOW they are impaired and they still drive...too bad, so sad. Fry em! I agree. In California, malice can be simply "an abandoned or malignant heart." Someone so drunk that the death of an innocent is a foreseeable event proximate to that drunkenness acts with malice, if you ask me. "Malice aforethought" is a legal concept, not a Joe Phillips opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by laur on Jan 1, 2006 18:40:43 GMT -6
I disagree. There is a lack of malice involved. Every drunk driver set out with the intention to get home safely and harm no one, while every capital murderer set out to kill someone. I can see locking them up for a good long time, but assigning the DP for such a crime is going way overboard, as well as legally dubious. When they KNOW they are impaired and they still drive...too bad, so sad. Fry em! Exactly. Maybe that will stop drunk driving. |
|
|
|
Post by trogdor on Jan 2, 2006 14:48:10 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no? ??? NC has been trying this for at least 10 years. I lived in RDU from 1994 - 1999, and there was a lot of resistance to it then. As PRO as I am about the DP, I think the DP for DUI-related killings is wrong...unless one can show that someone intentionally got drunk with the intent of murdering total strangers with their automobile. I see LWOP as the most appropriate punishment for DUI-related killings . |
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Jan 2, 2006 17:02:13 GMT -6
I do not support the Death Penalty for merely drinking and driving...But if someone is hurt, then, yes, the guy does deserve to die. I was badly hurt by a drunk driver a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jan 2, 2006 19:45:10 GMT -6
I am not sure I am for the DP but neither am I sure I am not for the DP in a DUI case. My cousin was killed by a drunk driver he never even went court. It was something like his 7 time for drunk driving. He was rich and had a good lawyer. He was killed around a year later in another drunk driving incident. He was waiting to go to court for the wreck that my cousin was killed in. I think that the penalty should be much more severe and if someone is killed then even life should be considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by californian on Jan 2, 2006 19:57:03 GMT -6
All: I think one of the quickest ways to see the DP for special circumstances murder go away is to keep adding things to it like drunk driving.
(Probably) no one here has murdered anyone-and I'll bet everyone has driven after having had too much to drink.
Forget about it. Focus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2006 22:36:33 GMT -6
[ Exactly. Maybe that will stop drunk driving. [/quote]
It hasnt stopped murders why would it stop DUI.. No one goes out to drink to intentionally kill someone.
Heres a questin for all of you :: A murderer is judged insane and there for not in full control of his actions ( what generally happens?) A motorist under the influnce , is it not similar? and is alcohol not classed as a drug? I find it diffucult to believe any prosicution would find it easy to establish that a motorist premeditated a murder via the means of becomming drunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by jewe on Mar 14, 2006 5:26:20 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no? ??? i'm against that as it was not the intention of the driver to kill someone by using the car a the murder weapon. |
|
|
|
Post by muddy22193 on Mar 14, 2006 7:36:23 GMT -6
Recently saw an article which said the NC legislature was considering making the DP a sentence option for drunk drivers that wrecked and caused the death of a passenger in his/her vehicle or death of a passenger in the other vehichle.Not so sure I agree with that so I'm asking you how do you feel/yes or no? ??? i'm against that as it was not the intention of the driver to kill someone by using the car a the murder weapon. I think he did show intention as soon as he had the first drink, continued to drink and then got behind the wheel. I ould also hold the bartender accountable as he should have called a cab, gotten someone else to drive or taken the guy's car keys. |
|
