Why isn't vehicular manslaughter murder?

[FireDancer]

In other words, only in a murder case is it federally mandated that a jury recommend a sentence but in some other cases and in some jurisdictions, they're also asked to recommend a sentence? I know my mom was involved as a juror in a trial for something other than murder where if the defendant had been found guilty, the jury would have been asked to recommend a sentence (the jury happened to find the defendant innocent in this case.)

No. Federally, only in capital cases must a jury other than the one that found the defendant guilty apply the sentence (not recommend, apply). Weather or not a jury recommends a sentence or applies a sentence to a defendant that they found guilty is determined either by state constitution or state or local statute, not federally. In all cases though the jury is presented with the acceptable parameters. I believe a sentence greater than the statutory maximum would fall afoul of at least the 8th amendment. I am no lawyer, but I have taken some law classes as an undergrad so I probably know just enough to be dangerous.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

I'm pretty sure that you're right about the 8th Amendment. I took a few Criminal Justice classes but for some reason we never learned that specific ruling so I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly

 

[N.Bailey]

Sometimes, jurors can recommend a sentence, especially for death penalty cases, but that's what it is, a recommendation. Only a judge can pass a sentence.

While I know this is more than exception than the rule and it was high profile which brought much attention to the case, this guy received 43 years (I don't believe he received the possibility of parole) after killing 5 members of one family when he decided to get behind the wheel after smoking dope and drinking for hours on end. That's about 8 1/2 years per victim (more than many get for premeditated murder and many do get parole).

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=8564049

This was not my family and I'm sure if it were, I'd feel he wasn't given what he was due. Monday night quarterbacking it though, I'm not sure I agree with the sentence. I do feel he should have been given a stiff prison term, but, I also feel he could really make a difference if given the opportunity to speak with select groups to tell his story. There are no "do overs" but I think it's crucial to use these incidences as a way of trying to help others so it doesn't happen again.

 

[C.Ann]

I don't really see that as a big change. Malicious intent, followed by death? Sounds like murder to me. And a lot different from drunk driving without malicious intent.

If charging someone with 1st or 2nd degree murder - as opposed to "vehicular manslaughter" - can result in the ability to inflict a much, much stiffer sentence on the murderer, I consider that a much needed change.. Drunk drivers are notorious for being repeat offenders.. The longer they spend in jail, the safer our streets will be..

I personally know of someone who received 18 months in jail for "vehicular manslaughter" - did her time - and is out drinking and driving again.. It's only a matter of time until she murders someone else..

 

[eliza61]

Thankfully the laws are changing - and it's long overdue.. Hopefully all states will soon follow suit..

Here is an example of just two people who have been convicted - one of 1st degree murder and one of 2nd degree murder..

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/123325/

IMO, 7 prior convictions of drunk driving pretty much automatically implies malicious intent. There is no way with that type of history you can know say you had no "intentions" of hurting any one. I don't buy "i never meant to harm anyone" story and glad to see some communities aren't either.

 

[Hercules10]

To be honest I wished they'd focus more on prevention then handing out harsher penalties after the damage is done. No-refusal stops should be mandatory and loss of license for repeat offenders.

After the fact, someone is dead and the driver has to live with it.

 

[bicker]

If charging someone with 1st or 2nd degree murder - as opposed to "vehicular manslaughter" - can result in the ability to inflict a much, much stiffer sentence on the murderer, I consider that a much needed change.

You missed the point: That sanction requires a finding of malicious intent. A prosecutor cannot apply that sanction on any ol' drunk driver, just because the prosecutor wants to exact more revenge on them.

The longer they spend in jail...

This raises another issue: Who's going to pay for that? Taxpayers. Don't forget that next time your taxes go up: Sometimes, it is to pay for things you like.

IMO, 7 prior convictions of drunk driving pretty much automatically implies malicious intent.

That's spurious, self-serving logic, asserting that something implies something else, for no other reason I can see other than you want the sanction associated with the something else implied on the something. Intent is something specific; it has meaning.

As soon as society loses all perspective (like equating bad judgment with deliberately planning on killing someone, or worse, raping and killing someone), then I don't hold much hope out for society. Society is supposed to be better than criminals.

 

[EMom]

The problem, I think, is it is not up to a jury to decide the punishment. It is the judge or a law in which the person is convicted under. The jury may make a recommendation.

In Texas, juries can (and often do) assess the sentence in DWI cases. It depends on whether it was a bench or jury trial, and if it was a jury trial....Was a request made for the jury to assess the sentence. If there is probation involved, the judge will set the conditions.

Years ago, a relative of mine was on a jury for an armed robbery case. The defendant had a prior conviction. The jury did convict him of this offense as well, but he gave some sob story and most of the jurors wanted to give him a probated sentence. A few wanted to give him a light sentence. My relative was incensed because he figured the next time this guy robbed some convenience store, (and there WOULD be a next time) someone was likely to get killed. He voted for the most severe sentence, but he was the only one. They voted several times, with no one budging. Finally he told them something along the lines of, "I can sit back here all day. I can stay here for weeks. I don't have anything more important to do than making sure this guy gets the maximum sentence. You might, but I don't. You can change your mind, but I won't. So either you vote for the maximum sentence or you tell the judge we're deadlocked and let him decide the verdict." No one wanted to be gritched at by the judge apparently, because all 11 changed their vote to the maximum sentence. That was one of the most worthwhile things my relative has ever done.

I don't have a problem taking the same position if I believe I am right. I won't compromise and give a lesser sentence just to get it over with.

 

[C.Ann]

This raises another issue: Who's going to pay for that? Taxpayers. Don't forget that next time your taxes go up: Sometimes, it is to pay for things you like. .

Having lost several family members due to the actions of repeat drunk drivers, I would be more than happy to pay extra taxes to keep these repeat offenders off the road and spare other families the horror of dealing with these senseless deaths..

We all have our priorities.. Some may choose to pay higher taxes for better schools; better water; townwide garbage pick-up; - whatever.. Given the choice, I would prefer to keep murderers off the road..

I have zero tolerance for people who drink and drive - and that will never change - regardless of how one chooses to argue the point..

I've stated my opinion and as far as I'm concerned, there's really nothing else to say..

 

[bicker]

We all have our priorities..

But societies make decisions based on consensus priorities, not individual priorities.

I have zero tolerance for people who drink and drive

The problem is that if you have zero tolerance for them, how much tolerance do you have for folks who premeditate rape and murder?

I've stated my opinion and as far as I'm concerned, there's really nothing else to say..

I respect your desire to not contribute further to the discussion.

 

[christineann]

Driving drunk is intentional even if the act of killing another while drunk is not. If I put a bullet in the cylinder of a revolver, spin it, point it at your face and pull the trigger, is it murder if the bullet fires? I didn't really intend to shoot you, but that's just how it worked out because of the risk I took and the potential danger I put you in.

My son is a rookie police officer, and though he mostly deals with violent crime in his area, he has worked fatalities caused by drunk drivers, and he said those are worse than most of the murders he has worked.

Two children who went to school with my kids grew up without their mother, a brilliant, kind physician who was killed at 4:00 on a Saturday afternoon by a drunk driver who had served 3 years in prison in Florida for an earlier felony DUI. He also killed the woman in his vehicle (her 3 year old witnessed it) and walked away. Apparently, "living with" the fact that he had killed previously didn't deter him from doing it again - twice.

 

[bicker]

This really shows the problem that we're having here, though, equating mistakes and bad judgment with actions more clearly intentional. Distorting reality claiming something is intended to cause harm when it isn't simply muddies the water; it doesn't clarify anything. What's worse is that such insistence on drawing vacuous parallels seem intended only to force clarity and balance to appear wrong.

Some rhetorical tactics being used in this discussion to support equating all drunk drivers with mass rapists and killers are beginning to remind me of those used during the recent Presidentential election.

 

[christineann]

As human beings, we have personal obligations to refrain from behaviors that endanger others. Those behaviors may include pointing a loaded gun at others, running stop lights, speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road or driving drunk - all choices.

 

[tinatark]

Driving drunk is intentional even if the act of killing another while drunk is not. ...

This was my argument about the Stallworth slap on the wrist for DUI manslaughter (or similar charge) recently - regardless of the other circumstances, he should have NEVER been on the road to begin with.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

If someone's mind wanders and they turn when they shouldn't or blow through a red light and kill me, I don't want them punished. They didn't mean to kill me. Accidents happen. And if they're halfway-decent people, they'll be beating themselves up over it for the rest of their life, anyway, which is more than punishment enough.

If someone purposely murders me, they can rot in jail.

Getting into a car when you're drunk and killing me falls somewhere in the middle. It's fine to be a drunk, but it doesn't excuse you from doing what you ought to do. You made the choice. At least be a semi-responsible drunk. But murder? I don't think so. The drunks are irresponsible, but I don't believe they INTEND to cause harm.

Murder implies some intention of harm, IMO.

Exactly what I was thinking! Thank you!

 

[bicker]

Review the differences between "may" and "do". And also between "choices" and "intentions".

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

This was my argument about the Stallworth slap on the wrist for DUI manslaughter (or similar charge) recently - regardless of the other circumstances, he should have NEVER been on the road to begin with.

Maybe he shouldn't have been on the road, but the guy that he hit definitely shouldn't have been walking on an Interstate. If he hadn't been breaking the law, he wouldn't have gotten hit. Why would you even be watching for pedestrians on the Interstate when it's illegal to walk on one? Whoever happened to be there at that time would have most likely hit him because they wouldn't have been expecting him to be there. It was just Stallworth's bad luck that he happened to be the one who hit him and he happened to have been drinking and using pot (poor decisions, but he would have most likely gotten where he was going just fine if the guy hadn't done something stupid which is probably why the family settled so quickly.) Say you just happen to be drinking and driving and some idiot (who doesn't happen to be drinking and driving) runs a red light and hits you and dies when he does it. Should you be charged with vehicular manslaughter? Like I said, I don't agree with drinking and driving and have NEVER done it myself but in that case, justice would not be served by having the person charged with more than DUI just because there happened to be an idiot on the road at the same time.