to ask why drunk driving sentencing depends on whether or not someone got hurt/killed.

[ICBINEG]

So I stagger out of the pub utterly pissed and set off to drive home.

Meanwhile Bob Jones is walking home from work.

As our paths intersect I kill Bob through dangerous driving.

I get 10 years in jail.

But what if Bob bumps into Bill on his way out of the office and sets off 5 mins later.

Now Bob and I fail to cross paths and Bob lives!

I am caught by the police and spectacularly fail a breath test.

I get 6 months in jail.

AIBU to expect that given my actions were identical in both cases, I should be just as culpable in both cases, and should in fact receive the same sentence?

Australia? Oh wait that's been done...

Maybe you could meet the sentences in the middle. Everyone who goes out drunk and dangerous in a car gets a set sentence. Whether or not they kill anyone and whether or not the person they kill has family or not.

We could ramp that sentence up over the years to phase out drunk driving.

I agree with you, we should punish actions and intent not outcomes. I really dislike the statements family can read out in court to show how affected they have been - it is almost saying that it is less bad to kill a sad and lonely person than a popular, successful one. I wish we had a better system for victim support, but don't think it should be so mixed up with the justice system and revenge (that isn't so healthy for anyone). I had a friend who died in an accident and her family were desperate to blame someone, anyone - I don't know whether that is natural or in some way a product of our culture, but it didn't lessen their pain.

A criminal doesn't know how their victim will respond to being attacked, for example, so I don't think that if they attack somebody who can't leave the house afterwards they should be punished more than if their victim just brushes it off and moves on. Obviously selecting vulnerable people aside, the victim's reaction should not be relevant and the attacker should be punished for what they did.

(I didn't get in )

It's not about making the victim feel better, it's about recognisiong the suffering they have undergone AND punishing the offender for their actions.

But it really depends on the offence doesn't it? Going to prison for dealing drugs arguably doesn't have an identifiable victim but can still have a jail term attached to it.

Drunk driving is an horrible stupid horrendous offence but to compare it to attempted murder I think detracts from the seriousness of the offence of attempted murder. It's doesn't seem right to punish someone for something that could have happened, you could take that to total extremes and end up with absurd outcomes.

...but then, why stop at dangerous drivers??? Speed kills loads of people too. As does leaving inadequate braking distance b/w yourself and the car in front (motorway pileup anyone?).

Should everyone who speeds or leaves to small a gap be sent down for attempted murder too?

...too small a gap...

2nd time in 2 threads. I'm not literate enough today, off to do housework.

The problem with your example of turning up to a house with intent to commit murder is that intent is not necessarily a constant thing .i.e. the would be murderer could change their mind at any point up to pulling the trigger.

IIRC you cannot get attempted Manslaughter as manslaughter, in simple terms, is causing death without the necessary intent for murder.

And no the sentence should be no different if the deceased has no remaining family. The punishment is for extinguishing a life.

There has been some research done that shows that if you offer people the chance for revenge those that decline recover far faster and more fully than those that engage.

Something to do with reliving the decision and not putting it behind them.

Revenge is a very toxic thing to get mixed up in it all.

And WTAF is justice anyway? Is time in jail some how a just exchange for killing someone?

The more I think about it the less I believe in the concept of justice when applied to anything other than monetary value/possessions.

If someone pinches something then sure give it back to me....that is just.

If someone kills me? There can be no justice.

So lets just do what we can...keep people who would hurt us off the streets and not pretend that it is about justice or punishment.

A dangerous driver wouldn't have the necessary intent for Attempted Murder. Attempted Murder requires an intention to kill so it is not the same as being reckless as to potential harm or behaving in a generally dangerous manner.

People who drive to close to you, don't intend to kill you, in fact they probably think they are such marvelous drivers that no possible harm will come to you.

That's a really interesting concept ICB, not sure I agree but definitely something to think about.

The problem with banning people from driving, is how often do you hear of someone caught driving while banned for the umpteenth time. And what do they do? Ban them again.

Well they haven't kept the ban before (and that's only the times they're caught) are they likely to again?

I don't really know what the answer is because I'm not sure prison is the answer. Someway else?

But on the same level, you have the person doing 60 in the 30 limit. Goes down the road, people turn and say "how stupid"... nothing happens. Another person does 40 in the 30 limit and hits and kills someone, they're then up for manslaughter. There is an element of bad luck as well as stupidity.

Justice in the sense of punishment for a crime also serves the purpose of reinforcing social norms / accepted codes of behaviour i.e. if you harm someone then you break society's rules so society as a whole will censure you through the formal process of the justice system.

It also prevents a descent into vigilanteism (sp?) as there is a formal process for seeking revenge rather than a personal one.

With the many other driving offences, speeding, tailgating, ignoring mirrors etc. there is an element of common practice to consider.

As I said up thread, you can categorise things that might get people killed by both likelihood and how common the behaviour actually is.

So speeding does kill but the majority of drivers have done it at some point. So if someone kills someone driving at 75 on the motorway would all say 'shit that could have been me poor sod' and would probably imagine it harsh if it is treated as anything other than an accident.

If they kill someone driving at 110 on the motorway in the rain then we think they should be done for death by dangerous driving.

So there is a scale of commonness of behaviour against likelihood of causing death that we all naturally have that tells us how we would treat someone that this happened to.

Drunk driving is something that most people do not do and that most people think caries a reasonable risk of killing someone.

Therefore we should be all of it.

That doesn't mean we have to be all over forgetting to check a mirror.

chaz indeed but surely all people drink driving have put society at risk by the same amount...and all people drink driving have broken societies rules by the same amount...

So why do we treat them so very differently based on luck?

My FIL was killed by a drunk driver. Well, he spent 3 months in a coma and started to recover before dying of complications associated with the "accident".

I would like to see all drunk drivers punished the same. The potential to cause serious damage is there. The recklessness is there. I think it should be immaterial whether or not someone is actually killed or seriously injured.

What really gets my goat though is that the woman who was driving got away with it because it took so long for her to be identified and by then DMIL didn't want to have to go through it all again. Which I understand but get chills thinking there is no reason at all why she won't do the same thing again.

She destroyed a family and her only loss was some cash to fix her car back up.

trazzle so sorry to hear that.

Thanks.

I know I'm not necessarily thinking practically about it though!!!

I just really struggle with drink driving because I cannot imagine one single occasion when it would be necessary. Either get a cab or show some restraint!

Trazzle sorry for your loss

Drink drivers have broken the drink driving rule
Drink drivers who cause death have broken the don't drink and drive and don't kill people rules.

Yes, it might well be luck but punishment works on what you have done not on what might have been. One of the problems is where do you draw the line with punishing people for what might have happened or what they might do.

I do regard drink drivers as the scum of the earth because it is an easily preventable danger that everyone is aware of.

Trazzle, sorry for your loss.

chaz yes but ALL drink drivers have broken the drink driving rule ON PURPOSE with intent.

No drink driver has broken the don't kill people rule ON PURPOSE with intent.

So given we do not bang up people who cause death by pure accident (who have also broken the don't kill people rule) the whole system seems inconsistent.

They were reckless as to harm i.e. they did something that is known to impair their ability to drive so it isn't classed as an accident because there was a deliberate act of "self-sabotage" IYSWIM.

Oh gods yes...I am not at all suggesting deaths by dangerous driving are accidents. Just that the ones that don't cause death are no less culpable than those that do.

In practical terms, what sentence would you set that was serious enough so that victims' families didn't feel a lack of justice, yet lenient enough to be able to administer on a large scale?

What about drunk people in general? Some people end up in fights and even killing someone in a drunken brawl. Most don't. Should all drunk people be punished for being more liable to getting wound up and potentially ending up killing someone in a fight?

A is driving along the road erratically and drunk, mounts the pavement and hits B

Or

A is driving along the road erratically and drunk, mounts the pavement and C leaps across saving B in time

So why is 1 worse than 2?
I don't think it is
You can add me to the list of people who think things should change and that drunk drivers should get harsher penalties. Something akin to attempted murder with better wording