Originally posted by Shallow Blue
22? That's not a girl. That's a woman. Sentence like an adult.

And drunk? That's neither an accident nor manslaughter. That's murder. Sentence like murder.

Sixty to life. Let the tw*tting bitch rot.

Accidental death due to reckless behaviour is not murder, at least not in most legal systems.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Accidental death due to reckless behaviour is not murder, at least not in most legal systems.

Legally speaking, no it isn't, which is why she wasn't convicted for that.

Morally speaking, IMO, it very much is if drunk driving is involved. That's not normal recklessness, that's intentionally putting yourself in a state in which you know you will be reckless, and then getting behind the wheel of a dangerous machine. It's not mere silliness, it's wilful disregard for the lives of others.

Originally posted by vivify
http://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/girl-who-tweeted-2-drunk-2-care-before-killing-two-in-crash-sentenced-to-24-years/

"Girl who tweeted ‘2 drunk 2 care’ before killing two best friends in a wrong-way car crash has been sentenced to 24 years in prison.

"Kayla Mendoza, 22, boasted on social media about being drunk before she killed Kaitlyn Ferrante and Mar ...[text shortened]... ges, and prior to sentencing she tearfully read a letter to the families of Kaitlyn and Marisa."

She was certainly reckless and the result was incredibly tragic, but I think 24 years is harsh. I think 10 years would do the trick given the lack of intent.

Edit: Bruce Kimball, the Olympic silver medalist who drove drunk and killed 2 pedestrians, was sentenced to 17 years, but served only 5.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
22? That's not a girl. That's a woman. Sentence like an adult.

And drunk? That's neither an accident nor manslaughter. That's murder. Sentence like murder.

Sixty to life. Let the tw*tting bitch rot.

Accidentally causing death while driving drunk is traditionally considered involuntary manslaughter, not murder.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Legally speaking, no it isn't, which is why she wasn't convicted for that.

Morally speaking, IMO, it very much is if drunk driving is involved. That's not normal recklessness, that's intentionally putting yourself in a state in which you know you will be reckless, and then getting behind the wheel of a dangerous machine. It's not mere silliness, it's wilful disregard for the lives of others.

Recklessness is more than mere "silliness." Recklessness means knowing of a substantial risk to human life and choosing to engage in that risky behavior voluntarily. This describes drunk driving to a T.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Legally speaking, no it isn't, which is why she wasn't convicted for that.

that's intentionally putting yourself in a state in which you know you will be reckless

Not necessarily. Many people who drive drunk truly believe that they are under control of themselves; "Please, I drive drunk all the time", or "I've been worse, this is nothing". Drunk drivers often don't think they are being reckless, even though they are.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Legally speaking, no it isn't, which is why she wasn't convicted for that.

Morally speaking, IMO, it very much is if drunk driving is involved. That's not normal recklessness, that's intentionally putting yourself in a state in which you know you will be reckless, and then getting behind the wheel of a dangerous machine. It's not mere silliness, it's wilful disregard for the lives of others.

Most reckless behaviour does not result in people getting killed. What should be done with these people?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
22? That's not a girl. That's a woman. Sentence like an adult.

And drunk? That's neither an accident nor manslaughter. That's murder. Sentence like murder.

Sixty to life. Let the tw*tting bitch rot.

From just a print story, it is really hard to figure out how contrite the woman really was, or how completely uncaring she was to begin with.

I have to trust that the judge took such things into consideration in the sentencing, and the prosecutor did so in charging. Murder is over the top. I hope you never make a mistake that costs a life.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Most reckless behaviour does not result in people getting killed. What should be done with these people?

The entire list of complicating and mitigating factors ought to be considered. That's why we have judges and trials.

Originally posted by vivify
Not necessarily. Many people who drive drunk truly believe that they are under control of themselves; "Please, I drive drunk all the time", or "I've been worse, this is nothing". Drunk drivers often don't think they are being reckless, even though they are.

What you write is true, and I might add that it is not always the drunk driver who causes an accident, although he/she is usually charged for it. Often a cold sober driver, not skilled, or not paying attention may cause an accident with an intoxicated driver. It is unfortunate that the intoxicated driver may not be at fault, but takes the blame in most cases.

Originally posted by vivify
Not necessarily. Many people who drive drunk truly believe that they are under control of themselves; "Please, I drive drunk all the time", or "I've been worse, this is nothing". Drunk drivers often don't think they are being reckless, even though they are.

Yes, and that's often brought up as a mitigating circumstance.

My point is that it should be an aggravating one.

It's not as if the effect of alcohol on human behaviour is one of the great secrets of this world. We all know about it. You don't accidentally get yourself sloshed on Long Island Ice Teas and then drive home. You know full well what you're getting yourself into, the moment you take that first sip.
Drunk driving should not be acceptable under any circumstance, and killing someone while driving drunk should be treated more seriously than it is now. Thinking you're safe driving drunk is not an excuse; it makes your crime worse.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yes, and that's often brought up as a mitigating circumstance.

My point is that it should be an aggravating one.

It's not as if the effect of alcohol on human behaviour is one of the great secrets of this world. We all know about it. You don't accidentally get yourself sloshed on Long Island Ice Teas and then drive home. You know full well ...[text shortened]... than it is now. Thinking you're safe driving drunk is not an excuse; it makes your crime worse.

Think about this. We know that some of the worst accidents involve people driving and blowing three or even four times the legal limit. In short, many fatal accidents are caused by people who are very nearly unconscious behind the wheel.

It may well be, that those people who think they are relatively "safe" drivers when driving after a couple of beers or cocktails are generally right. We have no way of measuring how many people safely get away with driving under the influence. Many people who are truly knee walking drunk don't have accidents either, and many who drive totally stone cold sober cause deaths by bad driving. It is easy to pile on to a cause which has been not very well researched and which is highly emotional instead of logical.

IMHO, the response to drunk driving is not logical or responsible. It makes no sense to continually define down drunkenness with ever lower measurements of what intoxication is.

.08 blood alcohol is not a realistic measure of drunkenness, but an easy way for cities, towns and states to raise revenue.

I would be much more in favor of heavy punishments for people who actually do harm while driving drunk or who are caught with excessively high Blood alcohol measurements. The standard is set too low, and is unrealistic in defining intoxication.

I don't recommend driving at all under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants, but are we realistic in expectations that the laws passed are actually effective in protecting the public?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yes, and that's often brought up as a mitigating circumstance.

My point is that it should be an aggravating one.

It is indeed interesting to note how legal systems differ.

Under South African law (Roman Dutch) drunkenness is a mitigating factor in any action, due to the "reduced responsibility and hence accountability."

Under German law, drunkenness is always an aggravating factor, precisely for the reasons mentioned in this forum.

The results, on the road and elsewhere, speak for themselves. Nobody in his right mind would even consider drinking and driving in Germany, in spite of being a beer loving nation!