Why isn't vehicular manslaughter murder?

[eliza61]

I live in the Philly suburbs, so I'm watching the evening news and this drunk crosses the center lane on a highway killing a father of 3, critically injuring the daughter and his wife.

The guy had 7 previous DUI arrest including 3 priors where some one was also injured. How is this any different if he had a guy and shot some one while drunk?

So he'll go to jail for 18 months tops and be back out, drinking and driving once again. meanwhile 3 kids are now fatherless.

Sorry for the vent but this is madness.

 

[Hercules10]

Murder is intentional, manslaughter is usually accidental through (gross)negligence.

I.e. pointing a loaded gun and killing someone vs. cleaning a loaded gun while drunk and accidently killing someone.

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

I'm with you on this one. Someone extremely close to me and her 17 month old daughter were killed by a drunk driver in 2005. He's out of prison now. It makes me soooooooooooo mad he should be in there for life imo.

 

[aka-mad4themouse]

I don't know why this is the way it is but I understand your frustration. My DD's friend is in a full body cast and that girl's BBF was killed when the two were mowed down by another driver about 4 weeks ago.

The driver was high from huffing. She's been arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter. Her bail was set at $25,000. She's back out walking the streets. Christine isn't able to and Nicole never will. There's alot of anger over this case here. Unfortunately, this is the way that the law is written.

 

[EMom]

This is why if I am ever on a jury that convicts for drunk driving, (on any level) I will insist on the maximum punishment the law allows. I don't give a rat's hiney if the 11 other jurors want half the sentence I want, I will sit there until hell freezes over before I give an inch. Let them come over to my way of thinking. Pul-leeze. In Texas, if the driver gets 15 years, it would be a miracle if they actually served 5.

 

[AlaskaMOM]

The man who killed my son and his friend wasn't drunk (I don't think) but was just in a hurry. He was trying to pass a line of cars on a narrow road; cliff down to water on one side side and mountain on the other. And ended up over the center line basically running over the entire drivers side of my sons small car with his bigger truck.
I have been told they are thinking of charging him with negligent homocide. And I think wow after a couple of years he's out and back with his family, and my son is still gone, never to see his family again. It just doesn't seem like there is a "reasonable" punishment for what people do when they think they are better than the rest of us. ie "I should be able to drink and have a good time" "my time is more valuable than yours , so get out of my way"

Is there a difference between a person who decides to drink to impairment, then drives their weapon OR a person who is not incapicated by drugs or alcohol that decides to recklessly drive??

I don't really know, I'm just so sad that these tradgedies are so totally avoidable if the world would remember they are not the only one on the road.

 

[DisneyFed]

It depends on the State, and on the individual facts of the case...

But it rarely, if ever, seems fair to the victims...

I'm not going to go any farther into how I feel about it...

 

[bicker]

Intention definitely needs to play a role in justice. It is unacceptable to inflict the same sanctions on people who do something stupid as we impose on people who intend to cause harm.

 

[RNMOM]

I have wondered about this myself. I kinda think if you have a drinking problem and get behind the wheel drunk, that could be construed as intentional. JMHO.

Perhaps it would seem so bad if the penalty was greater. Why not 10-15 years? I should think they should have extra years tacked on for each DUI they have had too. Again, JMHO.

Why too do people who kill babies and young children always given shorter sentences??? I think a few years ago there was a boyfriend watching an infant who flung the baby by the feet knocking it's head on the floor and he only got like 3 years?? What? Murder is murder.

 

[LoraJ]

I have wondered about this myself. I kinda think if you have a drinking problem and get behind the wheel drunk, that could be construed as intentional. JMHO.

Perhaps it would seem so bad if the penalty was greater. Why not 10-15 years? I should think they should have extra years tacked on for each DUI they have had too. Again, JMHO.

Why too do people who kill babies and young children always given shorter sentences??? I think a few years ago there was a boyfriend watching an infant who flung the baby by the feet knocking it's head on the floor and he only got like 3 years?? What? Murder is murder.

I agree. I think there is a huge difference between someone who hits someone who ran into the street from behind park cars and gets hit and someone who hits a person because they were doing something reckless like drinking and driving or texting, watching a DVD, etc. If you are texting while you are driving and end up killing someone, you should go to jail for many years. Hooray for Utah for passing a law making texting & drving = to drinking and driving.

Sadly, no matter what laws there are, people will continue to be selfish and put others lives at risk.

 

[cabanafrau]

This is why if I am ever on a jury that convicts for drunk driving, (on any level) I will insist on the maximum punishment the law allows. I don't give a rat's hiney if the 11 other jurors want half the sentence I want, I will sit there until hell freezes over before I give an inch. Let them come over to my way of thinking. Pul-leeze. In Texas, if the driver gets 15 years, it would be a miracle if they actually served 5.

I understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately the jury doesn't sentence them, merely decide the facts of the case.

 

[TwingleMum]

I understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately the jury doesn't sentence them, merely decide the facts of the case.

Thats correct but you may end up on the civil jury and sock it to them financially with a big settlement to the victim or victim's family.

 

[mickeyboat]

Thats correct but you may end up on the civil jury and sock it to them financially with a big settlement to the victim or victim's family.

Except that doesn't really punish anyone but the insurance company.

 

[TwingleMum]

Except that doesn't really punish anyone but the insurance company.

Not always. I have seen where the defendant has lost homes, boats and bank accounts. And some insurance policies do not cover if you act negligently ie. drunk driving.

 

[eliza61]

Intention definitely needs to play a role in justice. It is unacceptable to inflict the same sanctions on people who do something stupid as we impose on people who intend to cause harm.

See that's what I can't get my lips around. When you have 7 drunk driving arrest, When you have already injured 5 other people prior, IMO you are no longer doing some thing stupid. You know full well at this point you cannot handle yourself behind the wheel after drinking.

So now he's killed some one, he still obviously thinks he's capable of driving, this is not stupid IMO at the least it's a total disregard for others, total indifference to safety and shows very much an intention to cause harm.

If you shoot a gun on NY's eve into the air and some one gets shot, you get charged (at least in southern NJ) with 3rd degree manslaughter. Sure you did not intend to kill anyone but your reckless and willful actions caused the death of some one. That carries a much stiffer penality than vehicular manslaughter or operating a motor vehicle recklessly which often lets the subject out that same night.

 

[luvmy3]

Murder is intentional, manslaughter is usually accidental through (gross)negligence.

I.e. pointing a loaded gun and killing someone vs. cleaning a loaded gun while drunk and accidently killing someone.

IMO when you kill someone because you were drunk behind the wheel that is intentional, that is no accident. Its a shame the law doesn't see it that way especially if there are prior DUIs or DWIs.

The man who killed my son and his friend wasn't drunk (I don't think) but was just in a hurry. He was trying to pass a line of cars on a narrow road; cliff down to water on one side side and mountain on the other. And ended up over the center line basically running over the entire drivers side of my sons small car with his bigger truck.
I have been told they are thinking of charging him with negligent homocide. And I think wow after a couple of years he's out and back with his family, and my son is still gone, never to see his family again. It just doesn't seem like there is a "reasonable" punishment for what people do when they think they are better than the rest of us. ie "I should be able to drink and have a good time" "my time is more valuable than yours , so get out of my way"

Is there a difference between a person who decides to drink to impairment, then drives their weapon OR a person who is not incapicated by drugs or alcohol that decides to recklessly drive??

I don't really know, I'm just so sad that these tradgedies are so totally avoidable if the world would remember they are not the only one on the road.

I'm so sorry about your son.

 

[bicker]

See that's what I can't get my lips around. When you have 7 drunk driving arrest, When you have already injured 5 other people prior, IMO you are no longer doing some thing stupid.

Then an assertion that included a condition, "people who do something stupid," wouldn't apply. Let's turn it around: If the driver had no significant history of drunk driving, could you "get your lips around" it then?

If you shoot a gun on NY's eve into the air and some one gets shot, you get charged (at least in southern NJ) with 3rd degree manslaughter. Sure you did not intend to kill anyone but your reckless and willful actions caused the death of some one. That carries a much stiffer penality than vehicular manslaughter or operating a motor vehicle recklessly which often lets the subject out that same night.

I think now you're talking nuances (at least as compared to the messages that you're replying to). "Should the penalties for manslaughter X be greater than or less than or equal to the penalties for manslaughter Y?" Surely folks can disagree about that, without disagreeing about whether the two crimes involved are manslaughter (versus murder).

 

[Hercules10]

IMO when you kill someone because you were drunk behind the wheel that is intentional, that is no accident. Its a shame the law doesn't see it that way especially if there are prior DUIs or DWIs.

Their intention was to drive. Not kill.

Speeding is also against the law and can kill. And I'm willing to bet everyone here has and does speed but no one will get charged with murder if they lose control @90mph and kill someone.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

I definitely can see both sides and I definitely used to think that it should be considered murder. However, someone who is driving drunk does not plan on killing someone when he/she gets in the car and so does not really meet the standard for murder. Also, there are cases where the "victim" is just as much to blame as the driver (Donte Stallworth, for instance) and the driver still gets charged with vehicular manslaughter. That driver definitely should not be charged with murder.

 

[turkeymama]

Their intention was to drive. Not kill.

Speeding is also against the law and can kill. And I'm willing to bet everyone here has and does speed but no one will get charged with murder if they lose control @90mph and kill someone.

I'm playing devil's advocate here.

What about an arsonist who sets fire to what he/she believes is an abandoned building. For the sake of argument, say a homeless person was living in the building, but the arsonist didn't know that. The homeless person dies. Wouldn't the arsonist end up being charged with murder in addition to the other charges, regardless of intent?

I agree with your point above, however.