Drunk driving

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by fess, Nov 13, 2008.

  1. fess Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    97
    Both Bob & Fred have been drinking heavily. Both are very drunk. In their respective stupors, they each pass out at the wheel. Both swerve into oncoming traffic. Bob hits no one, runs off the road and bends his fender. Fred hits a mini van and kills a family of 4.

    Intent was the same, actions were the same, Fred was more unlucky (as was the family).

    Should their punihment be the same or different, should chance be a factor in the punishment?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wsionynw Master Queef Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Hmm, I'm not sure if it should but it is (at least here in the UK). Kind of like the difference between attempted murder and actual murder.

    The point is the guy that didn't kill anyone has the chance to learn from his mistake, after his ban and inflated insurance premium hopefully teach him a lesson. The guy that killed the family must be punished in the best way that serves the public interest (life time driving ban, long prison term).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. fess Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    97
    I see the same problem with murder v attempted murder. The attemped murder is typically a lower level crime than murder. So basically you're being rewarded for being a lousey shot. I think it should be all about intention.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Well I really don't think that anyone would think that Fred didn't do the worse crime in this situation. Fred killied 4 people which, in Amrerica, is a criminal offence of manslaughter in the second degree While DWI. Fred could get up to 5 years for each person he killed and another 10 years for the DWI.
     
  8. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Punish nothing. They should have equal punishment, which is nothing. Guess we kinda agree eh?
     
  9. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    If the Laws were built around intensions there would be no limit to abuses of power. Neither Bob nor Fred "intended" to fall asleep,let alone kill a family.
     
  10. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,034
    id thought about this question before and its interesting how much of our idea of justice is still based solely on revenge
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The consequences of the same actions were not the same.

    It looks like consequences matter, and not just intent. Doesn't it?
     
  12. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    You wouldn't punish drunk drivers? Seriously?
     
  13. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Actually there are three factors: negligence, intent and the act.

    The first guy had neither intent to kill nor did he actually kill any one, either through negligence or by purpose. In terms of DWI, if caught, he is as guilty as the second guy for that crime. But he can't be tried for a homicide he neither committed nor sought to commit.

    It used to be the second guy would get off lighter because of his intoxication but so many drunks were killing people it has been upped to a more serious crime most places.

    Some variations on a theme:

    "Criminal homicide is a malum in se crime, and every legal system contains some form of prohibition or regulation of criminal homicide.

    Homicidal crimes in some criminal jurisdictions include:

    Murder/murder in English law
    Felony murder
    Capital murder
    Manslaughter/manslaughter in English law
    Voluntary manslaughter
    Involuntary manslaughter
    Intoxicating manslaughter
    Death by dangerous driving
    Reckless manslaughter
    Criminal Homicide
    Culpable homicide (in Scots law)
    Negligent homicide
    Criminally negligent homicide"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Drunk driving and auto deaths? I always wondered ...there's a perception that drunkeness causes lots of auto accidents, but it that true? Percentage wise, do drunks cause more accidents than just regular ol' drivers?

    Let's see ...we have 1,000 drunks driving on the road; how many of them will have accidents?
    Then, ...we have 1.000 sober drivers on the road; how many of them will have accidents?

    I've been around drinkers most of my life, and none of them have had any serioius accidents. At the same time, I've also been around lots of non-drinkers who have had many serious accidents.

    So, .....of the gazillion drunk drivers, what's the chances of them being in a serious accident? And, ...of the gazillion non-drinkers, what's the chances of them being in a serious accident?

    In order to answer that first question about percentage, don't we first have to know how many drunks are driving on the road? And isn't it obvious that not all of them are involved in serious accidents? How many drunks are on the road? And how many of those drunks actually have accidents?

    Baron Max
     
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    And many of those accidents are caused by drunk drivers hitting the non drinkers usually causing serious injuries to the non drinking person more so than to themselves.
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    How many is "many"? And isn't that central to the discussion on drunk driving issues?

    And as you well know, "many" non-drinkers cause accidents. So ...we should ban all non-drinkers from driving, too?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  17. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    I think they look at the percentages of accidents including drunk drivers, and assume it is a lot higher than the percentage of drunk drivers on the road.

    I doubt their assumption is wrong, but it very well could be.
     
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    You know what they say about "assumptions"!

    But just take time to look around your town and all the bars and clubs that exist. There's gazillions of those bars and clubs, and they wouldn't be open for business if someone wasn't in there drinking. That's just one helluva lot of drinkers (maybe drunks) on the road at any one given time. They can't all be involved in fatal accidents. So, ...what's the percentages?

    Baron Max
     
  19. lcat Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Hi,

    New person here, weighing in.

    Baron Max -- you are on the internet. You must surely be aware that Google Is Your Friend?

    Me being new here and all, I'm not allowed to post links -- but go to Google Book Search and either search on "drunk driving statistics" or look for the book Paying the Tab
    By Philip J. Cook. Read pages 85-88 on that book preview, it answers most of your questions.

    For the question at the top of the thread:
    That both intent and effect are taken into account has a long legal precedent for punishment. Personally, I would happily kick either of those hypothetical men to death with my very own Doc Martens, but accepted legal practice would hav the man who actually caused fatalities punished far more severely. And since I do -reluctantly on occasion- support the rule of law, that has to stand.
     
  20. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I assure you, sir, Google is NOT my friend. In fact, I view most things on the Internet as my enemy and I do everything possible to kill the bastards! When i do find something on the Internet, I soon discover that it was wrong or just plain propaganda or worse, opinion!

    But those stats don't give the total number of drunks on the road, it give ONLY those who are involved in accidents. Without know how many drunks are driving, you can't figure out the percentage of drunks that are involved in accidents. I.e., there are gazillions of drunks on the road, but only a small percentage are involved in fatal accidents. How does that compare to sober drivers and sober accidents? See? You can't compare the two without more data.

    Baron Max
     
  21. fess Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    97
    Both had the intention of drinking to the point of where they were unable drive safely. That's a crime that should be punished.

    If only consequeces matter then the guy who has a blowout, loses control and hits a family should be equally punished.
    Luck should have no bearing on the justice system. The act of intentionally creating a dangerous situation should be the crime. The more danger, the more serious the crime
     
  22. lcat Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Baron, that is why I directed you to those pages in that book. It specifically addresses how studies have been done to figure out the percentage of drunk drivers on the road and how the proportion of drunk drivers in accidents compares.

    Since you do not seem to want to bestir yourself, what it essentially boils down to is, in a number of times and places organisations like the National Highway Safety Administration worked with the local police and simply stopped either every car or something like 1 out of every 4 cars to pass a checkpoint (depending on the study) to breathalyse the driver. (The deal for these was that drivers were given the right to refuse and 3% did, so as a worst-case scenario you could simply assume that those 3% were all over the limit; of those who did not refuse, if they failed at that checkpoint they weren't [necessarily] arrested, they just had to leave the car and find another way to get where they were going.) Anyway, using this method of sampling, they were able to determine that 17-20% of drivers on the roads on weekend nights between 10pm-3am had been drinking.

    If drinking made no difference to likelihood of being involved in an accident, then you would have expected that 17-20% of reportable accidents from that exact same time period and city would also involve drivers who had been drinking. This was not the case; looking at the accidents, although the drinking drivers made up max. 20% of drivers on the road, they were involved in 78% of fatality accidents and (searching FARS, because the book doesn't report on non-fatality accidents) they were involved in ~32% of non-fatality accidents.

    The thing this last bit tells me, is that not only are drivers who have been drinking more likely to be in accidents, those accidents are FAR more likely to involve a fatality.

    In the UK and the Netherlands, the various traffic regulatory bodies give figures of drinking drivers being roughly 4x more likely to be involved in a fatality accident than a non-drinking driver, derived using much the same methods.

    Answer your question?

    Oh, and, you may not kill the internets. If you know where to look, it's just too bloody useful. And if you aren't finding the real useful bits, it's your own fault for not knowing where or how to look.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    First, it's a very limited statistic. And most importantly, since those drunk drivers weren't allowed to continue driving, we have no stats on how many would have been involved in accidents. See? The stats give no numbers for what we should be seeking.

    If 10% of all non-drinking drivers on the road have accidents, we can be fairly sure of those numbers and stats.

    But of all of the drinkers on the road, how many of them will be in accidents? See? Until we know how many drunks are on the road, we can't tell what percentage will have accidents.

    So, again, ....how many drunks are actually on the road at any given time? becuase without that number, you're just one of those people that believes the propaganda of the anti-drinking crowd. You can believe it if you wish, but you can't justify it without knowing how many drunks there are on the road. Right?

    Baron Max
     

Share This Page