AIBU to think someone who has killed while drink driving should be tried for murder/manslaughter?

[ihatesoftplay]

My friend was killed by a drink driver just over 18 months ago and he (the driver) was sentenced to 6.5 years in jail and banned from driving for 10 yesterday. "Driving dangerously at excessive speed and causing death."

He murdered her, using his car as a weapon. I cannot see the justice in this sentence.

I appreciate my emotions may be clouding my view, so I probably am BU, but I'm interested in your thoughts...

OneFlew I didn't realise when posting originally that the sentences are comparable, so in light of this information, I agree with you. Perhaps my OP should read AIBU to think these sentences are too lenient ?

Can I just say- I agree 100% that drink driving ought to be totally completely cracked down on - zero tolerance.

BUT....... people need to be aware that if they have a few glasses at dinner, then a glass as an aperitif, then you may still be over the limit the next morning on the way to work,or the school run. I was horrified recently to read that it takes 14 hours to clear a bottle of wine from your system..... that is 3 large glasses at a pub. I really REALLY do not think this is known as widely as it ought to be.

OP I agree with you.

It enrages me that repeat offenders till get their licences back.

Why oh why is removing a driving licence for life considered a step too far in this country? It is never done. You never hear of lifetime bans, only of 5 or 10 year bans.

It also makes me angry that if you kill someone by accident its manslaughter, but if you kill them in a car its death by dangerous driving and the sentence is much lighter. Oh and voila! after your prison sentence you get your licence back!

I also agree that drink driving is not taken as seriously as it ought to be. I was in Australia a few years back on holiday and there were police all over the main roads doing random breath checks. Totally normal according to my best friend who lives there. Why not here? I read of 'Christmas crackdowns' in the local paper.... never seen a bloody thing.

I'm not sure that they are OP - and if they're not I'd certainly like to see them increased to comparable manslaughter sentences, but then I think a LOT of crimes have absurdly low sentences.

I also agree with PPs that there is nowhere near enough prevention done - we had a known drink driver in our office and it took months for him to be caught because the police didn't want to waste police time waiting to catch him - we could only phone once he was in the car and they missed him repeatedly. Thankfully he was eventually caught before any real damage was done but it shook my faith in the priorities of the police.

Ok Terry, not the case in the UK, whilst it's usually around Christmas time, I've heard of multiple times where police have done routine stops near pubs and golf clubs

Wish they would here, MN. FIL is the only one of his friends who doesn't drink and drive after golf. Thanks goodness because he's utterly shit at driving sober. I think in N America driving is seen as a right and people believe that even if they are terrible, drunk or, in the case of my co-worker's DM, legally blind, they still drive.

I think if you cause a death while under the influence, there should be a minimum 10 year sentence (all behind bars) and a lifetime ban.

just to say there cannot ever be a zero limit as food and natural occuring alchool (produced by all forms of sugers in the body) means that there will never be a zero rating even in france with a zero limit isnt actully zero its a tiny pecentage that you can only go over by actully consuming booze

You must live very near me, I know exactly who you are speaking about and I also find it horrifying. From what I understand he was also injured, so they don't seem to have taken an alcohol reading, I think they just had his admission of the amount and the fact he smelled of alcohol to the medics. So he hasn't been convicted of an alcohol related driving offence. It really makes me sick to hear that sentence, I have driven that road thousands of times and, like your friend, drive carefully.

Locally we have a huge problem on these roads and, dare I say it, the procurator fiscal has been quick to avoid trials by reducing charges. I'm thinking of 2 quite high profile accidents involving multiple fatalities where the accused has plead to a lesser charge and avoided jail. I'm hoping the tide is turning and they will start coming down harder on dangerous drivers. I really don't think the sentence is harsh enough and don't believe people who recklessly or negligently cause an accident like this should be allowed to drive again.

I'm sorry about your friend.

The reason they can't have a zero limit is due to certain medicines, mouthwashes etc containing a minute amount of alcohol. It would show up in a reading and legally you would be charged even though you are in no way impaired. I'm glad Scotland changed the law though. There is no need for anyone to be driving under the influence. Sorry about your friend OP.

Yes Mairy - I namechanged because I figured some people would know who I was talking about and I didn't want to 'out' myself. I live just off the A98, about 10 miles from where the 'accident' happened. Absolutely horrifying.

Thank you all for the condolences, I can't imagine the pain her close friends and family are going through

No you are not be U. Causing death by dangerous driving (whether drunk or not) should be tried as manslaughter. To be tried for murder there needs to be an intent to cause GBH - I'm sure drunk drivers don't go out with that intention but they are certainly reckless in their behaviour and it would meet the test for manslaughter.

I tried to argue that any drinking and driving was wrong, on another MN thread, and was shouted down by several MNers who assured me that they were perfectly capable of having just one drink with a meal, and then driving home.

I was made to feel I was being utterly unreasonable. I'm glad to find that there are people who do agree with me.

Yes, as posters above have said, Murder is in cold blood with malice aforethought.

Manslaughter - perhaps.

The new lower, almost zero, limits in Scotland has been a really good thing. Makes things a lot clearer.

No drinking and driving the same day.

If you have even just a few drinks you will not be able to drive the next morning.

If you have a skinfull, forget driving the whole next day.

I still think most people are "obeying" as they don't think beyond getting caught/losing license, but at least they are much more aware than before and not driving which has to be a good thing.

Hopefully the rest of the UK will change sooner rather than later.

Amicissima - even all these years later, I remember my driving instructor asking me what the last thing that I should do before getting out of the car - and the correct answer was 'Check your mirror'.

I do my best to remember this.

We need much longer sentences for drinking and driving, plus another longer sentence for injuring or killing anyone while drunk and driving. To run consecutively, not at the same time.
And a lifetime ban
Sadly, alcohol is a huge part if many social activities here in the UK, and drink driving isn't really seen as a big deal and this is reflected in the sentencing

My feelings towards this are tempered very much by a local incident. Friends of my family lost their son when he was hit by a man who was 2.5 times over the drink drive limit. The drink driver was also a friend of DH's and mine from college. He was sentenced to 3.5 years (ultimately serving around half of this time). Both men, the drink driver and the man he killed were in their twenties.

The local community was outraged by how short the sentence was. The father of the deceased issued a statement and has since spoken at length in private and occasionally in public, about how he was absolutely not in favour of the sentence being appealed or lengthened. He stressed that there was no length of sentence which could make up for the loss of his darling boy. He knew that the drink driver was a young man who made a terrible, stupid, reckless, thoughtless, disgusting choice. He knew that he would suffer for that choice for the rest of his life and that was his true punishment. He didn't want that young man who was young and alive and healthy to languish in prison and for his family to suffer the loss of his future through one terrible, awful mistake. He asked that the drink driver spend his time inside to think of what he'd done and to promise himself and society that he would never, ever do something so terrible again and then to come out of prison and do something with his life, to live, to not let one terrible mistake ruin his life too. He wanted the laws around drink driving to change, he wanted people to learn from what his family were enduring and he wanted people to talk more about the real dangers of driving and the responsibility we all have as drivers.

My knee-jerk reaction at the time was that 3.5yrs, probably serving less than 2, was nothing for the precious life of a lovely young man. However, that young man's equally remarkable Dad made me see that when justice is and should be based on rehabilitation; length of sentence in this case wasn't the legacy he wanted to grow out of a terrible time.

No drinking at all when driving.
Drink drivers should lose their licence for life if caught and convicted. That would hopefully act as a determent.
Driving is not a right.

Saul that had crossed my mind, and I'm amazed at your friend's acceptance (not the right word - forgiveness didn't seem appropriate either) at what happened to his son. But. Where's the deterrent? Yes the killer has to live with his guilt, but the victim's family have to live with never seeing their son/daughter again. My friend will never grow old, get married, never have children, grandchildren, graduate, etc etc. I can understand your friend's thoughts up to a point, but I can't agree with him. Tough one :-(

The deterrent, for him (and I'm paraphrasing) comes from the changing of the law. Zero tolerance regardless of outcome. If you are caught drink driving, the repercussions should be grave. Taking away licenses, fining, community service. No question, make people face up to the risk, not just react to the event after it's happened. More time and effort put into educating about the risks and cracking down on any drink driving at all. His argument being that if you say you can drink x amount and drive, it's then that people slightly push the boundaries or have a different tolerance to Joe Normal and you find that gradual creep. Whereas from a starting point of NO alcohol before driving, there's no gradual nudging of the boundaries or "oh I'm probably under the limit". He is also quite keen on getting the country to crack down in general on the way we use alcohol, how we access it and cracking down on licensing laws. It's part of such a big picture and you'd have to change the whole thing. Otherwise, it's just punishment after the fact and as you say that life is never, ever going to be reinstated.

The threat of prison doesn't seem to be deterrent enough and I can't see length of sentences having too much of an effect on that. It's also, sadly, untenable given the current state of the prison service. As long as we legally condone drinking and getting behind the wheel, it will be perceived as an acceptable risk. It is never an acceptable risk and the law is quite frankly ridiculous in not acknowledging this.

The reason we have since 1957 had an offence called causing death by dangerous driving is that juries just would not convict drivers of manslaughter.

That's true, but I think attitudes have changed. I think the public are much less tolerant of drink driving these days.