Death Penalty for DUI related death?

[jewe]

He showed intention to do something stupid, but I wouldn't classify it as a first degree murder, so the dp would not be justified to me.

[muddy22193]

jewe said:

He showed intention to do something stupid, but I wouldn't classify it as a first degree murder, so the dp would not be justified to me.

If a fatality is involved combined with another illegal act such as speeding, crossing a center line, failure to maintain control of the vehicle, then I believe it would be an option. Would it be handed down? More than likely not but stranger things have happened.

[jewe]

I disagree as there will always be casualties in traffic. There will always be people who are speeding. I think that everybody has ever violated a traffic law, so it's in no way an option to get the dp for that, evne tohugh someone might get killed.

[onetwobomb]

DUI causing death isn't premeditated murder, therefore it could not carry a death sentence.

[muddy22193]

jewe said:

I disagree as there will always be casualties in traffic. There will always be people who are speeding. I think that everybody has ever violated a traffic law, so it's in no way an option to get the dp for that, evne tohugh someone might get killed.

I find your post to be misleading. There aren't always fatalities in car accidents.
However, if alcohol or illegal drugs are involved and are determined to be the major contributer to the accident, then yes I stand by all of my previous statements on this same subject.
We can agree to disagree as I don't see this going very much farther.

[jewe]

onetwobomb said:

DUI causing death isn't premeditated murder, therefore it could not carry a death sentence.

thank you, just as I tried to explain as it was not someones intention to kill somebody.

[josephdphillips]

muddy22193 said:

jewe said:

He showed intention to do something stupid, but I wouldn't classify it as a first degree murder, so the dp would not be justified to me.

If a fatality is involved combined with another illegal act such as speeding, crossing a center line, failure to maintain control of the vehicle, then I believe it would be an option. Would it be handed down? More than likely not but stranger things have happened.

I could make a case for capital murder out of an egregious case of drunk driving. The central issues to me are (a) the level of intoxication and (b) the choice to drive a vehicle when doing so is more than likely to result in a fatal accident.

Premeditation to kill forms when someone deliberately gets so drunk, and deliberately operates a motor vehicle, to the point where someone's death is likely.

It's the same principle as bringing a loaded gun to a robbery. The robber can't claim he "panicked" and didn't mean to kill someone. He premeditates both murder and non-murder by loading his gun with ammunition.

[californian]

josephdphillips said:

muddy22193 said:

If a fatality is involved combined with another illegal act such as speeding, crossing a center line, failure to maintain control of the vehicle, then I believe it would be an option. Would it be handed down? More than likely not but stranger things have happened.

I could make a case for capital murder out of an egregious case of drunk driving. The central issues to me are (a) the level of intoxication and (b) the choice to drive a vehicle when doing so is more than likely to result in a fatal accident.

Premeditation to kill forms when someone deliberately gets so drunk, and deliberately operates a motor vehicle, to the point where someone's death is likely.

It's the same principle as bringing a loaded gun to a robbery. The robber can't claim he "panicked" and didn't mean to kill someone. He premeditates both murder and non-murder by loading his gun with ammunition.

Joseph, with your Dickensian attitude, you could make a DP case out of a starving orphan stealing a loaf of bread.

[onetwobomb]

josephdphillips said:

muddy22193 said:

If a fatality is involved combined with another illegal act such as speeding, crossing a center line, failure to maintain control of the vehicle, then I believe it would be an option. Would it be handed down? More than likely not but stranger things have happened.

I could make a case for capital murder out of an egregious case of drunk driving. The central issues to me are (a) the level of intoxication and (b) the choice to drive a vehicle when doing so is more than likely to result in a fatal accident.

Premeditation to kill forms when someone deliberately gets so drunk, and deliberately operates a motor vehicle, to the point where someone's death is likely.

It's the same principle as bringing a loaded gun to a robbery. The robber can't claim he "panicked" and didn't mean to kill someone. He premeditates both murder and non-murder by loading his gun with ammunition.

Good point, but if you're so drunk that you can't form an intent to kill, and you are about to do something that isn't normally illegal like driving and someone dies as a result of it, there really isn't premeditation. But if someone is drunk and kidnaps, rapes and kills someone, then that's a different story because if you planned to do all of that, you can't be THAT drunk. But as an example, there was this one guy from Rochester Hills (just a few miles from where I live) that was 5 TIMES over the legal alcohol limit to drive (legal limit is .08, he was .4) and he ended up killing a woman and her 2 children. I could see him being charged with 3 counts of 2nd degree murder, but not premeditated murder (which is required for the DP).

[josephdphillips]

onetwobomb said:

Good point, but if you're so drunk that you can't form an intent to kill, and you are about to do something that isn't normally illegal like driving and someone dies as a result of it, there really isn't premeditation. But if someone is drunk and kidnaps, rapes and kills someone, then that's a different story because if you planned to do all of that, you can't be THAT drunk. But as an example, there was this one guy from Rochester Hills (just a few miles from where I live) that was 5 TIMES over the legal alcohol limit to drive (legal limit is .08, he was .4) and he ended up killing a woman and her 2 children. I could see him being charged with 3 counts of 2nd degree murder, but not premeditated murder (which is required for the DP).

How 2nd degree murder doesn't involve premeditation is beyond me. It certainly does in California.

Capital murder here only requires premeditation and malice. People don't become intoxicated by accident. It's a decision one makes to take that first drink, a decision to take the second, and a decision to refrain from counting how many drinks one is consuming.

It's also a conscious decision to drive to a place where one can become intoxicated, with the full intention of driving after the drinking is completed.

All of these decisions collectively comprise premeditation.

We all premeditate, every day. We decide to act in such a way that we do not kill people, even when angry, even when we think we might get away with murder.

Someone who chooses to become intoxicated and chooses to operate a motor vehicle is choosing someone else's life isn't worth living.

Furthermore, these choices are clearly known to be illegal and wrong, prior to being made. That's malice.

Premeditation + malice = first-degree murder, in California.

[phatkat]

My roommate went to an intervention program for a DUI not too long ago, and he shared with me some surprising things about Ohio law. For example, you can get a DUI even if you're UNDER the legal limit, if they determine that you were not driving responsibly. They can even get you for something, I think he called it ODI, if you're driving while tired or under the influence of legal medication, as long as the cops decide you were being reckless.

So, if a state can take DUI to those levels, I do NOT think they can enforce the death penalty for DUI-related fatalities!! I mean, if I go to the bar and drink half a beer and drive home an hour later, slide on a wet spot or swerve to avoid an animal, hit someone and God forbid kill them, even if I am way under the legal limit, they could determine that I had been drinking that night and had impaired judgment, and IF they had DP for DUIs, I could be sentenced to death. Or what if I pop one of my migraine pills - which make me a little spacey but that's preferable to me driving with a migraine! Hardly fair!!

[josephdphillips]

phatkat said:

My roommate went to an intervention program for a DUI not too long ago, and he shared with me some surprising things about Ohio law. For example, you can get a DUI even if you're UNDER the legal limit, if they determine that you were not driving responsibly. They can even get you for something, I think he called it ODI, if you're driving while tired or under the influence of legal medication, as long as the cops decide you were being reckless. So, if a state can take DUI to those levels, I do NOT think they can enforce the death penalty for DUI-related fatalities!! I mean, if I go to the bar and drink half a beer and drive home an hour later, slide on a wet spot or swerve to avoid an animal, hit someone and God forbid kill them, even if I am way under the legal limit, they could determine that I had been drinking that night and had impaired judgment, and IF they had DP for DUIs, I could be sentenced to death. Or what if I pop one of my migraine pills - which make me a little spacey but that's preferable to me driving with a migraine! Hardly fair!!

It's perfectly fair under the following circumstances:

1. You ingest much more than the legal limit for alcohol consumption

2. You elect to operate a motor vehicle

3. A reasonable person would consider it likely that the combination of (1) and (2) would produce death or serious bodily injury to someone.

First-degree murder only requires malice and premeditation in California and many other states. In the case of drunk driving, premeditation is formed in (a) choosing to become drunk and (2) choosing to operate a motor vehicle while drunk with the knowledge that (3) you have no right to do so.

The same would be true in taking migraine medication. If the bottle clearly states that you should NOT drive while taking such medication, and you ignore the warning and choose to ingest the medication and operate a motor vehicle, you are criminally liable for any deaths that follow from such operation.

[phatkat]

I disagree with your reasoning on what constitutes malice and premeditation, but that argument has been made by others.

My point was that in Ohio, you can be UNDER the legal limit. You can pass a breathylizer but still get a DUI *if* the cop determines that your driving wasn't up to par. I think that's a bit crazy, but if that constitutes a DUI in Ohio and someone dies in an accident, a person who isn't even legally drunk could get murder pinned on them. It's unlikely but technically possible.

As for my meds, I'm actually not sure if there is a warning on them or not; then again, there is a warning for EVERYTHING on everything these days, so I wouldn't be surprised. I can drive on them just fine, a cold makes me more drowsy than my drugs, and with a migraine I'd be a thousand times more likely to lose control. BUT if I did something careless while driving because I have those tendencies because I'm human, and I happened to pop one of those little pills a few minutes beforehand, I could get an extra charge slapped on. I try not to do ANYTHING with a migraine besides curl up and cry, but I have felt them coming on while driving before. Got a speeding ticket once, actually, because I was trying to get home to my bed before it became crippling.

[onetwobomb]

That's true, but if you are drunk and get behind the wheel you aren't planning on killing anyone. One could say it is similar to felony murder, but them again, driving isn't a felony.

[Jherek99]

If you did make it DP eligible, how many juries would be willing to convict?

[onetwobomb]

I don't think I would send someone who committed a DUI related death to death row. Life sounds a little better.

[Dave]

I know I wouldn't I agree with phatkat it isn't fair you can get nailed with a dui and not be drunk at all it happend to a friend of mine.

[Anony+]

davec said:

I know I wouldn't I agree with phatkat it isn't fair you can get nailed with a dui and not be drunk at all it happend to a friend of mine.

"not be drunk at all." To get a DUI, they had to at least be driving under the influence so that it is less safe for them to drive. So maybe they're not rip roaring, peeing in their pants drunk, but the alcohol had to have made them a less safe driver if they were busted for DUI. And I have no problem busting someone under those circumstances.

[Anony+]

FYI, here is Georgia's DUI statute (at least the first section of it where the crime is defined). Subsection 1 is the "less safe driver" section, where the state has to prove that you were less safe b/c of your BAC. Section 5 has the "legal limit" section, where you're presumed to be DUI if you're at or above the limit. It's obviously much easier to prosecute under section 5 than it is under section 1:

§ 40-6-391. Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicating substances; penalties; publication of notice of conviction for persons convicted for second time; endangering a child


(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any moving vehicle while:

(1) Under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive;

(2) Under the influence of any drug to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive;

(3) Under the intentional influence of any glue, aerosol, or other toxic vapor to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive;

(4) Under the combined influence of any two or more of the substances specified in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive;

(5) The person's alcohol concentration is 0.08 grams or more at any time within three hours after such driving or being in actual physical control from alcohol consumed before such driving or being in actual physical control ended; or

(6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section, there is any amount of marijuana or a controlled substance, as defined in Code Section 16-13-21, present in the person's blood or urine, or both, including the metabolites and derivatives of each or both without regard to whether or not any alcohol is present in the person's breath or blood.

[gabriel]

People that get wasted should not get to slide because they were drunk. I say fry em.

[phatkat]

allison said:

davec said:

I know I wouldn't I agree with phatkat it isn't fair you can get nailed with a dui and not be drunk at all it happend to a friend of mine.

"not be drunk at all." To get a DUI, they had to at least be driving under the influence so that it is less safe for them to drive. So maybe they're not rip roaring, peeing in their pants drunk, but the alcohol had to have made them a less safe driver if they were busted for DUI. And I have no problem busting someone under those circumstances.

My point was, that doesn't even need to be proven. Say I go to the bar, stay for an hour or two and drink half a beer. Technically, I wouldn't be intoxicated at all. Now I'm driving home, and some cop tailgates me, causing me to go over the line because I'm blinded by his headlights. (They do that, *deleted* me off to no end!) Now, all he has to do is get an admission that I was coming from the bar or that I had drank at all that night, and he can decide that my swerving was due to drinking. That more than likely is NOT true, but all that matters is that I had a drink and I wasn't driving well enough for his taste.

Sorry, as a person who likes to have a little baileys in my coffee or a glass of wine when I go out to eat, that all-too-possible scenario bothers me.

[josephdphillips]

phatkat said:

allison said:

"not be drunk at all." To get a DUI, they had to at least be driving under the influence so that it is less safe for them to drive. So maybe they're not rip roaring, peeing in their pants drunk, but the alcohol had to have made them a less safe driver if they were busted for DUI. And I have no problem busting someone under those circumstances.

My point was, that doesn't even need to be proven. Say I go to the bar, stay for an hour or two and drink half a beer. Technically, I wouldn't be intoxicated at all. Now I'm driving home, and some cop tailgates me, causing me to go over the line because I'm blinded by his headlights. (They do that, *deleted* me off to no end!) Now, all he has to do is get an admission that I was coming from the bar or that I had drank at all that night, and he can decide that my swerving was due to drinking. That more than likely is NOT true, but all that matters is that I had a drink and I wasn't driving well enough for his taste. Sorry, as a person who likes to have a little baileys in my coffee or a glass of wine when I go out to eat, that all-too-possible scenario bothers me.

Then don't drink and drive. Simple.

[Deleted]

First post here.......I am a pro....however, the thought of sentencing someone to death row for a DUI would just be the start of a big can of worms.....

Alcohol+driving does not equal premeditated murder as they aren't driving specifically to kill another individual. Yes, it can be a result from the individual's decisions they chose to make.....

But, if that is the case....anything that impairs your driving + driving would fall under that category. Talking on the cell phone, eating or drinking that morning cup of coffee, the lady who is checking her makeup, or even the parent that turned around to look in the back seat at their child who may be screaming or crying, the 18 year old who is flipping thru his book of Cd's for a specific one or "tweaking his stereo".

All of those "impairments" do happen on a daily basis on our nation's freeway's and people have been killed due to other drivers being "impaired"......they may not have been drunk......but do you reward these driver's with death row too? Like I said.....I have pro beliefs....but there is a certain point where the application of this penalty crosses the line.

[Anony+]

phatkat said:

allison said:

"not be drunk at all." To get a DUI, they had to at least be driving under the influence so that it is less safe for them to drive. So maybe they're not rip roaring, peeing in their pants drunk, but the alcohol had to have made them a less safe driver if they were busted for DUI. And I have no problem busting someone under those circumstances.

My point was, that doesn't even need to be proven. Say I go to the bar, stay for an hour or two and drink half a beer. Technically, I wouldn't be intoxicated at all. Now I'm driving home, and some cop tailgates me, causing me to go over the line because I'm blinded by his headlights. (They do that, *deleted* me off to no end!) Now, all he has to do is get an admission that I was coming from the bar or that I had drank at all that night, and he can decide that my swerving was due to drinking. That more than likely is NOT true, but all that matters is that I had a drink and I wasn't driving well enough for his taste.

Sorry, as a person who likes to have a little baileys in my coffee or a glass of wine when I go out to eat, that all-too-possible scenario bothers me.

Yes, it DOES need to be proven. If you take it to court, the State has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that one half of a drink caused you to swerve and be a less safe driver. Your attorney, if he's worth anything, will show that it was the headlights in your eyes (and how you can be blinded by headlights in your rear view mirror to the point that you swerve is beyond me) that caused you to swerve, and it had nothing to do with your drinking. No jury in their right mind would convict you of DUI under those circumstances.

And I agree with Joe. Don't drink and drive.

[phatkat]

allison said:

phatkat said:

My point was, that doesn't even need to be proven. Say I go to the bar, stay for an hour or two and drink half a beer. Technically, I wouldn't be intoxicated at all. Now I'm driving home, and some cop tailgates me, causing me to go over the line because I'm blinded by his headlights. (They do that, *deleted* me off to no end!) Now, all he has to do is get an admission that I was coming from the bar or that I had drank at all that night, and he can decide that my swerving was due to drinking. That more than likely is NOT true, but all that matters is that I had a drink and I wasn't driving well enough for his taste.

Sorry, as a person who likes to have a little baileys in my coffee or a glass of wine when I go out to eat, that all-too-possible scenario bothers me.

Yes, it DOES need to be proven. If you take it to court, the State has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that one half of a drink caused you to swerve and be a less safe driver. Your attorney, if he's worth anything, will show that it was the headlights in your eyes (and how you can be blinded by headlights in your rear view mirror to the point that you swerve is beyond me) that caused you to swerve, and it had nothing to do with your drinking. No jury in their right mind would convict you of DUI under those circumstances.

And I agree with Joe. Don't drink and drive.

It's very easy to be blinded by headlights in your mirror when you drive a little tiny car that sits lower than most police cars. It happened to me and I got pulled over, completely sober, on suspicions of a DUI.

So some of you really REALLY think that someone can't go out on a special occasion, have a big meal with a glass of wine, and drive home? Sheesh.

[josephdphillips]

phatkat said:

So some of you really REALLY think that someone can't go out on a special occasion, have a big meal with a glass of wine, and drive home? Sheesh.

If I lived in a state with zero tolerance for alcohol (California is such a state, depending), I would not have a glass of wine with anything and then drive.

[Anony+]

phatkat said:

So some of you really REALLY think that someone can't go out on a special occasion, have a big meal with a glass of wine, and drive home? Sheesh.

No, I don't think that at all. If your driving is even one iota impaired by you having a glass of wine, then yes, you shouldn't have a drink and then drive. If you are not at all impaired by drinking a glass, then you can have one.

As you said, you got pulled over on SUSPICION of DUI. Did you get arrested and were you convicted of DUI? No. If you had had one drink, would you have been arrested? Maybe. Would you have been convicted? Absolutely not, if the drinking did not contribute to your swerving. And the officer would have done some field sobriety tests to see if the alcohol was affecting you at all, so he/she would have known if a DUI arrest was called for.

Don't forget that the state has to PROVE that the alcohol contributed to your swerving/accident/reckless driving. It's not easy to prove when your BAC is below a .08. It's got to be obvious, or no jury would convict. So a cop isn't going to waste his time arresting you if there's no connection between the alcohol and your driving.

[Deleted]

I am for the DP for DUI if the DUI is a felony, and in the course of this DUI, you killed one or more persons. The aggrevating factors: Felony (in some states, the 3rd DUI conviction is a felony - so if this is a 4th DUI, it is a felony). Also, by this time, the offender knows he/she cannot drink and drive so they knowly committed the Felony that resulted in death.

[onetwobomb]

phatkat said:

allison said:

Yes, it DOES need to be proven. If you take it to court, the State has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that one half of a drink caused you to swerve and be a less safe driver. Your attorney, if he's worth anything, will show that it was the headlights in your eyes (and how you can be blinded by headlights in your rear view mirror to the point that you swerve is beyond me) that caused you to swerve, and it had nothing to do with your drinking. No jury in their right mind would convict you of DUI under those circumstances.

And I agree with Joe. Don't drink and drive.

It's very easy to be blinded by headlights in your mirror when you drive a little tiny car that sits lower than most police cars. It happened to me and I got pulled over, completely sober, on suspicions of a DUI.

So some of you really REALLY think that someone can't go out on a special occasion, have a big meal with a glass of wine, and drive home? Sheesh.

If you have had too much to drink (which is usually over the legal blood/alcohol limit to drive) then no, you shouldn't be able to drive home as you are a danger to yourself and others.