Should the results of a crime determine the seriousness of the crime?

[JLM]

Two drunks are involved in an accident while driving. In one the passenger is thrown from the vehicle hitting his head on a concrete post resulting in instant death. In the other the passenger is thrown from the vehicle landing in a rhubarb patch and walking away. Is one driver more guilty than the other?

 

[shadowshiv]

There should be a set sentence to what a person gets for a DUI, and then a different sentence if someone is killed because of the DUI. Of course, one is more serious as the person was killed. The person with the DUI should just count his lucky stars that the person that landed in the proverbial rhubarb patch did not die.

JLM, since this isn't really a news article(although it is a good topic for discussion), I am going to move it from here to the Hot Topics sub-forum.

 

[SLM]

If we had strict, and I mean zero-tolerance strict, penalties for DUI's then perhaps we wouldn't have as many incidences where so many, unfortunately, do not get to walk away from the crash.

Given the scenario in the question though, I'd say it's less about the driver have more or less guilt based on the outcome and more about the driver in the second scenario being damned lucky that his or her actions did not cause more serious harm. The actual level of guilt doesn't change but the consequences that need to be faced as a result of their actions does.

 

[CDNBear]

Is one driver more guilty than the other?

Both can be charged with DUI.

One can be charged with vehicular manslaughter. On top of the DUI charge.

 

[lone wolf]

The biggest problem I see the bulletproof buzz....

 

[Goober]

Two drunks are involved in an accident while driving. In one the passenger is thrown from the vehicle hitting his head on a concrete post resulting in instant death. In the other the passenger is thrown from the vehicle landing in a rhubarb patch and walking away. Is one driver more guilty than the other?

When I was in Germany a 17 year old was killed by a drunk driver. In Germany, when exiting from the rear seat of a parked vehicle, the person must exit on the sidewalk side of the vehicle. Slide over, from the rear of the drivers side and out. That is the law.
The 17 year old exited on the street side, hit by a really over the limit drunk driver. The 17 year old was found to have significantly caused his own death by not exiting on the correct side as per the law.

The drunk driver got the usual punishment for drunk driving - Driver - Not Guilty of causing a death.

 

[JLM]

When I was in Germany a 17 year old was killed by a drunk driver. In Germany, when exiting from the rear seat of a parked vehicle, the person must exit on the sidewalk side of the vehicle. Slide over, from the rear of the drivers side and out. That is the law.
The 17 year old exited on the street side, hit by a really over the limit drunk driver. The 17 year old was found to have significantly caused his own death by not exiting on the correct side as per the law.

The drunk driver got the usual punishment for drunk driving - Driver - Not Guilty of causing a death.

That makes sense- guilt is very seldom confined to one person. In the Tobin case the victim was also at fault, not wearing a seat belt and riding with a driver whom he knew to be drunk. I was a little p'd off at his family complaining about the sentence handed to Tobin. It's the same thing with elderly people walking on the street in black clothing after dark.............it amounts to suicide by drunk!

 

[Cannuck]

Two drunks are involved in an accident while driving. In one the passenger is thrown from the vehicle hitting his head on a concrete post resulting in instant death. In the other the passenger is thrown from the vehicle landing in a rhubarb patch and walking away. Is one driver more guilty than the other?

Legally speaking...yes but I'm not sure if you meant legally.

 

[JLM]

Legally speaking...yes but I'm not sure if you meant legally.

Good to see you back. That is an old post but I was thinking morally and what SHOULD be legally.

 

[mentalfloss]

Two drunks are involved in an accident while driving. In one the passenger is thrown from the vehicle hitting his head on a concrete post resulting in instant death. In the other the passenger is thrown from the vehicle landing in a rhubarb patch and walking away. Is one driver more guilty than the other?

Both are equally guilty of the DUI charge, however, the severity of punitive damages will still be appropriated based on the degree of loss.

This is employed in the current judicial system and it works quite well already.

That being said, if all victims of drunk driving hit rhubarb patches, we wouldn't give a crap either way. It's precisely the likely adverse consequences of a drunk driver's actions that makes society take notice.

Another victory for consequentialism.

 

[JLM]

Both are equally guilty, however, the severity of punitive damages will still be appropriated to the degree of loss.

This is employed in the current judicial system and it works quite well already.

That being said, if all victims of drunk driving hit rhubarb patches, we wouldn't give a crap either way.

I think you will find, invariably a much more severe sentence is handed down where death occurs. I would agree in a civil case he should be dealt with more severely.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

That makes sense- guilt is very seldom confined to one person. In the Tobin case the victim was also at fault, not wearing a seat belt and riding with a driver whom he knew to be drunk. I was a little p'd off at his family complaining about the sentence handed to Tobin. It's the same thing with elderly people walking on the street in black clothing after dark.............it amounts to suicide by drunk!

So this 17 year old was given a death sentence for exiting on the left side of the car? Hate to see what they would have done to the poor kid if he had jaywalked.

 

[mentalfloss]

I think you will find, invariably a much more severe sentence is handed down where death occurs.

Right.

If I press a big red button to launch a nuke and the nuke fails to launch, but my communist buddy successfully launches his - we're both guilty of pressing the big red button.

But he will have to face some serious repercussions.

I'll probably lose my job and be kept away from big red buttons.

 

[Cannuck]

Good to see you back. That is an old post but I was thinking morally and what SHOULD be legally.

I don't have a moral issue with DUI. The issue (morally) is whether or not you place other people at risk. If you were to have six beer in an hour and drove home @ 20 kph with your hazards on, are you placing people at the same risk as you would if you hit the highway at 110 kph? DUI laws don't differentiate between the two but they should.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I don't have a moral issue with DUI. The issue (morally) is whether or not you place other people at risk. If you were to have six beer in an hour and drove home @ 20 kph with your hazards on, are you placing people at the same risk as you would if you hit the highway at 110 kph? DUI laws don't differentiate between the two but they should.

The thing with alcohol is that it ****s up your judgment. You would figure you didn't have to drive home at 20 kph with your hazards on and you can hit the highway at 130 kph. Of course, you react at speeds which may work if you are driving 20 kph.

 

[petros]

The thing with alcohol is that it ****s up your judgment.

Is that why I woke up to Mexicans kids playing with my toes asking if I was their new padre?

 

[Bar Sinister]

That makes sense- guilt is very seldom confined to one person. In the Tobin case the victim was also at fault, not wearing a seat belt and riding with a driver whom he knew to be drunk. I was a little p'd off at his family complaining about the sentence handed to Tobin. It's the same thing with elderly people walking on the street in black clothing after dark.............it amounts to suicide by drunk!

Why the reference to the elderly? I have seen dozens of people in their twenties dressed in dark clothing and walking with the traffic coming up behind them. You don't have to be old to be stupid.

 

[JLM]

Why the reference to the elderly? I have seen dozens of people in their twenties dressed in dark clothing and walking with the traffic coming up behind them. You don't have to be old to be stupid.

Only in that younger people can generally react faster and such faculties as hearing and sight may be better and it's more often you hear of elderly pedestrians being killed, BUT you are right it can happen to anyone who is stupid.

 

[Mowich]

So this 17 year old was given a death sentence for exiting on the left side of the car? Hate to see what they would have done to the poor kid if he had jaywalked.

He was not 'given' a death sentence. He chose his own destiny.

 

[JLM]

So this 17 year old was given a death sentence for exiting on the left side of the car? Hate to see what they would have done to the poor kid if he had jaywalked.

I don't quite see what his age has to do with it, exiting a vehicle directly into the traffic can be deadly at any age. He made two serious mistakes, one not exiting onto the sidewalk and two if he had to exit into the traffic, he didn't look to see if there was traffic coming before alighting. :smile: