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...

I agree with everyone.

But what about yakking on the phone and texting while driving. I see this day in and day out, many many times a day. All those people should be charged with manslaughter too if someone dies as a result of them being out of control of their vehicle.

Someone I know extremely vaguely was hit by a hit and run drunk driver on his way to work in the morning recently. He was injured and had to go to hospital. The driver was caught when she crashed again a few miles further on. This was before 8am.

BarbarianMum You may be right about that when drink is involved - not if it isn't. But if you make sentences too severe for public tolerance juries will nullify the law. You may remember (I mean from books not personally ) that when stealing anything from a shop worth two shillings was a capital offence juries regularly found that expensive items were worth one halfpenny less than that - it was the retail trade that urged parliament to make the law less harsh!

At least there was a trial and a sentence.

David Bartholemew was killed by a woman who was using her mobile phone while driving. The CPS declined to prosecute. He was only a biker, after all, and she was police.

www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10221551.Special_Constable_on_phone_when_she_collided_with_biker_David_Bartholomew/

I think there should always be a prison sentence when your driving causes a death, even if it's a very short one. People go to prison for speeding when no-one is harmed. A death should be recognised and have consequences.

Imustgodown, what about in cases of death by careless driving as opposed to death by dangerous driving?

I know of a local case involving a police officer who killed a motorcyclist and it was deemed 'death by careless driving'. No prison sentence. In cases where the careless driving is momentary inattention with no aggravating factors, the requirement is usually a community order. There are two other types of careless driving with the maximum penalty being 3 years prison sentence.

I think it's so hard when it's so emotive but I don't think you can say all deaths caused by driving necessitate a prison sentence.

I think there should always be a prison sentence when your driving causes a death, even if it's a very short one.

People should not go to prison for an innocent mistake or a lapse in concentration. Everyone who drives makes mistakes, and it's down to pure luck much of the time as to weather you are involved in a fatal accident or a near miss.

Of course drink driving is neither a mistake of a lapse in concentration, it's a pre meditated decision and should be dealt with very severely.

Let's be honest, many people drive like CUNTS as a matter of course.

It's really not about drink driving specifically. I was driving today, passing a crash in the right slip lane of motorway, in a procession of about five or six cars at around 40mph, one of the cars towards the front of the queue thought it was a good idea to weave into the right lane where the crash was.

On the way back home similar thing a car exiting the motorway a little more slowly than most of us would have liked, so several cars weaved around it, crossing back into the main motorway and other pointless risks.

People shoot red lights, drive too fast round blind bends, and are generally totally reckless to the fact that a motor vehicle is a killer machine.

If you put up an emotive 'drink driving is terrible' argument then people will say 'oh yes, so terrible', but the reality is the the majority of road deaths are caused by stupid driving - MOST of them were completely avoidable. And that's a much bigger issue.

"People should not go to prison for an innocent mistake or a lapse in concentration."

Yes they should. Driving a car is not a trivial matter, a 'lapse of concentration' is not acceptable. When people start treating driving a deadly vehicle seriously, then perhaps road deaths will fall.

If you say you have never ever had a momentary lapse in concentration whilst driving, you've either only driven 600m or you're a liar.

It is human to make mistakes.

Yes they should. Driving a car is not a trivial matter, a 'lapse of concentration' is not acceptable. When people start treating driving a deadly vehicle seriously, then perhaps road deaths will fall.

Do you drive? Have you ever made an error whilst driving? Could, if you'd been unlucky, that same error lead to a fatality?

Even if you've ever had a very minor low speed accident, parking in a supermarket car park, had the person you hit been elderly, they could have had a fatal heart attack as a result. And you'd be going to prison!

^

And this is why long sentences for driving deaths won't happen. People will be placing themselves in the killer motorist's shoes and saying 'it could have been me that killed that person' (and probably right, most people drive like cunts), and let them off.

It's not a case of driving like cunts. Even cautious drivers make errors. And any error, even a minor one, can result in death if you get unlucky.

Do we really want to jail someone who is reversing into a car park space, and fails to see someone in their blind spot. If it's an elderly person, they are too slow to get out of your way, you hit them, they fall over, bang their head on the kerb and die. Yet some other idiot can drive thru the car park at 30 mph, and luckily not hit anyone.

I think I'm a safe driver, over 30 yrs, no points on licence, and only 1 fault accident. Changed lanes, checked before I changed, but just didn't see a much smaller car over my left shoulder. Luckily the accident only resulted in minor damage so no great harm done. But had it been a motorcyclist I hit instead of another car, I could have killed them. Just good luck stopped a minor mishap becoming a fatality.

I don't see how jailing me would be a benefit to society.

I agree. The charge of 'death by careless driving' allows for those instances where there is a momentary lapse of concentration with no aggravating factors. That's the sort of thing that can happen to anybody. You turn into a new road at the point that the sun is just coming up and it's dazzling. It takes a second for you to pull down your sun shade as it surprises you. Or your baby suddenly screams and it makes you jump. Or there's a crack of lightning/thunder and it startles you momentarily. Or your passenger drops a hot drink in their lap and shouts out and you glance across to see what's happened. Or you're looking at the road markings because they've put in temporary measures due to roadworks and it's all unfamiliar and during any of these moments a small child runs out in the road or you don't spot the motorcyclist.

In those sort of cases, there is absolutely no good reason to jail that person. That's why the different charge exists and why the penalty is a community order, loss of licence for a fixed period and a fine. It's a terrible, serious thing when it does result in the loss of life but prison in those cases, achieves absolutely nothing.

I think they should be charged with manslaughter, but then I think anyone involved in an accident while drink driving should be charged with attempted manslaughter.

If someone gets in a car knowing they're unfit to drive, then the book should be thrown at them.

When people start treating driving a deadly vehicle seriously, then perhaps road deaths will fall.

My personal view is that the other road users need to be accountable too - the cyclist in dark clothing with no lights, the pissed pedestrian who runs out into the road - they have just as much responsibility and should be charged if they cause an accident.

So in other words you want to prosecute people for NOT drunk driving.

Seriously, why do people in charge of deadly killer machines always try to turn it around to 'butwhatabout'? A cyclist or a pedestrian create a threat primarily to themselves. Car drivers pose a risk to others.

YANBU. I'd like to see a zero tolerance law on drinking and driving and a mandatory 10 year sentence for breaching it and a mandatory life sentence for anyone who breaks it and kills or severely injures another person.

So in other words you want to prosecute people for NOT drunk driving.

No, not to do with Drink Driving, you dragged the conversation away from that with your statement "but the reality is the the majority of road deaths are caused by stupid driving" and I was replying to that

Car drivers don't have the monopoly on stupid behaviour, but often pay the price for others actions or lack.

My belief is that all people should be responsible for their behavior on the roads.

I'd like to see a zero tolerance law on drinking and driving and a mandatory 10 year sentence for breaching it and a mandatory life sentence for anyone who breaks it and kills or severely injures another person

What if jurors find that draconian, and refuse to find guilty ?

But it is to do with Drink Driving, IKnow, because if you tell pedestrains that they will be prosecuted for causing an accident while drunk, then they might say 'well in that case I will just drive'. Drunken pedestrians are a danger to themselves and it would be pretty bloody stupid to introduce laws to further punish them for their self-destructive behaviour.

Sentences should certainly be tougher but I also think anyone using a mobile phone whilst driving should be jailed. Not points, not fines,..Jailed!
The penalties for using a phone are ridiculous and yet apparently it is more dangerous than drink driving!

"My personal view is that the other road users need to be accountable too - the cyclist in dark clothing with no lights, the pissed pedestrian who runs out into the road - they have just as much responsibility and should be charged if they cause an accident."

The most likely result of an accident between 1/2 a ton of fast moving metal and a pissed pedestrian is a hospitalised or dead pedestrian and some bent metal. I don't see what prosecuting them would add, if they survive. The accountability comes in the form of the car driver not being held responsible.

but I also think anyone using a mobile phone whilst driving should be jailed

No, why spend money on these braindead morons ?

If I were King, I'd confiscate the car and sell it at auction. And before anyone whines "but what if the car is borrowed ?" - tough. Sue the driver for the cost of the car. Might encourage a bit more care all around.

It really is that simple.

I've got a great feature on my phone. When it connects to the cars bluetooth, it knows I am driving, and diverts calls to voicemail and replies with a text "Sorry, I'm busy driving - I will get back to you when it is safe to do so."

The most likely result of an accident between 1/2 a ton of fast moving metal and a pissed pedestrian is a hospitalised or dead pedestrian and some bent metal.

closer to a tonne, and you underestimate the tensile strength of steel. Bearing in mind the bit that will hit you will be ABS plastic, which takes some deforming

"What if jurors find that draconian, and refuse to find guilty ?"

Apart from a knee-jerk "shame on them if they do"? If I'm really honest with you, I don't know Lurking. I'd like the country to be given the opportunity to find out if this would happen. If it did we'd need to reconsider the law I suppose. As it stands I feel that the law is in serious need of an overhaul.

My family have had to bury a much loved young person due to the drunk driver of another vehicle. That person walked away unscathed. Truthfully, if I found him I'd make sure he never walked again.