[DrCaleb]

Brenda Brenda:

So old uncle running naked in his yard and not caring about it should be criminally charged, where as the old uncles brother doing the same, but does not understand why it is not a good idea should be left alone?

I don't know, but I think that that is not really how the law works...

That is how the law works. "Intention" is everything.

Which is why I don't understand why drinking and driving is not considered 'murder' or 'manslaughter'.

[andyt]

He's saying if they can be cured they should be released. The difference is that he points to stem cells as the cure - that's something that's a physical cure that can be measured. We're not there with psychiatry (nor stem cells) and may never be.

As I said, at the very least there should be 3 psychiatrists involved in the decision, and the guy should be on parole for the rest of his life - have to go in for an evaluation once a month, say. Le'ts keep some kind of watch on somebody like this - if he popped once, he can easily pop again.

[Brenda]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Brenda Brenda:

So old uncle running naked in his yard and not caring about it should be criminally charged, where as the old uncles brother doing the same, but does not understand why it is not a good idea should be left alone?

I don't know, but I think that that is not really how the law works...

That is how the law works. "Intention" is everything.

Which is why I don't understand why drinking and driving is not considered 'murder' or 'manslaughter'.

Because the intent to causing an accident killing someone is not there. The fact that when you are drunk, you don't know that what you are doing just dismissed you from being responsible for the end result.

[andyt]

It's basically treated as manslaughter - criminal negligence, and has the same range of punishment.

[BeaverFever]

andyt andyt:

He's saying if they can be cured they should be released. The difference is that he points to stem cells as the cure - that's something that's a physical cure that can be measured. We're not there with psychiatry (nor stem cells) and may never be.

As I said, at the very least there should be 3 psychiatrists involved in the decision, and the guy should be on parole for the rest of his life - have to go in for an evaluation once a month, say. Le'ts keep some kind of watch on somebody like this - if he popped once, he can easily pop again.

I don't have a problem with any of that.

[BeaverFever]

Brenda Brenda:

Because the intent to causing an accident killing someone is not there. The fact that when you are drunk, you don't know that what you are doing just dismissed you from being responsible for the end result.

No. Being drunk is not the same as being insane nor is it a defence under the law, although I believe it could be considered a mitigating factor, depending on the circumstances.

[DrCaleb]

Brenda Brenda:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Brenda Brenda:

So old uncle running naked in his yard and not caring about it should be criminally charged, where as the old uncles brother doing the same, but does not understand why it is not a good idea should be left alone?

I don't know, but I think that that is not really how the law works...

That is how the law works. "Intention" is everything.

Which is why I don't understand why drinking and driving is not considered 'murder' or 'manslaughter'.

Because the intent to causing an accident killing someone is not there. The fact that when you are drunk, you don't know that what you are doing just dismissed you from being responsible for the end result.

When you are sober you know that driving drunk can hurt or kill people. Intending to get drunk and then driving home means you intended to hurt or kill someone. You don't forget that drunk driving can be lethal just because you have a drink.


Just my take on it.

[andyt]

How drunk do you have to be for what you said to apply? You should also be charged with murder then if you do other things that distract you while driving. And, we all also know every time we drive we may kill someone, even when sober and paying attention. Shit happens. You could push your argument to include all driving. I'm fine with the law as it is, just that often the consequences don't seem to fit the crime.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

How drunk do you have to be for what you said to apply? You should also be charged with murder then if you do other things that distract you while driving. And, we all also know every time we drive we may kill someone, even when sober and paying attention. Shit happens. You could push your argument to include all driving. I'm fine with the law as it is, just that often the consequences don't seem to fit the crime.

No, my argument stands. If a smoke drops in your lap, and you swerve and hit a bunch of people in a bus stop - where is the intention to hit them?

I'm fine with the law too. I was just telling Brenda that the difference in the two nudists is intention. Same with accidents, and driving while impaired.

[Brenda]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

How drunk do you have to be for what you said to apply? You should also be charged with murder then if you do other things that distract you while driving. And, we all also know every time we drive we may kill someone, even when sober and paying attention. Shit happens. You could push your argument to include all driving. I'm fine with the law as it is, just that often the consequences don't seem to fit the crime.

No, my argument stands. If a smoke drops in your lap, and you swerve and hit a bunch of people in a bus stop - where is the intention to hit them?

I'm fine with the law too. I was just telling Brenda that the difference in the two nudists is intention. Same with accidents, and driving while impaired.

But there is no intent of killing people when you drive drunk. The intent is to drive. Same with the accident, the intent is to drive.

[BeaverFever]

andyt andyt:

How drunk do you have to be for what you said to apply? You should also be charged with murder then if you do other things that distract you while driving. And, we all also know every time we drive we may kill someone, even when sober and paying attention. Shit happens. You could push your argument to include all driving. I'm fine with the law as it is, just that often the consequences don't seem to fit the crime.

Reminds me of an interesting story from a few years ago up in Alaska, where a guy had installed a DVD Planyer and a Sony Playstation in his dashboard, which were both operating at the time he strayed into the oncoming lane and hit another vehicle head-on, killing the occupants of the other vehicle. Interstingly, he was charged with both manslaugher and 2nd degree murder.

Even more interesting, he was acquitted because the prosecution couldn't disprove his defence that only his friend in the passenger seat was using the entertainment devices. The driver claimed he strayed into the other lane while reaching for a soda, which apparently was acceptable.

[BeaverFever]

Brenda Brenda:

But there is no intent of killing people when you drive drunk. The intent is to drive. Same with the accident, the intent is to drive.

It's a reasonably forseeable outcome. Just like if you try to play William Tell with your kid and end up blowing his head off. A reasonable person should know that its a likely enough outcome.

[Brenda]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Brenda Brenda:

But there is no intent of killing people when you drive drunk. The intent is to drive. Same with the accident, the intent is to drive.

It's a reasonably forseeable outcome. Just like if you try to play William Tell with your kid and end up blowing his head off. A reasonable person should know that its a likely enough outcome.

There is a reasonable foreseeable outcome ANYTIME you get in a car you might get an accident. Doesn't make every driver a murderer...

To be clear, I have no respect for people driving when they have been drinking, whether they are drunk or not. But I do not consider them murderers until they actually intently killed someone.

[Lemmy]

To convict, the Crown needs to prove that an illegal act was committed (actus reus) and there was criminal intent (mens rea). Mens rea can be many different things. Criminal intent doesn't just mean the act was intentional. It could be an act of recklessness or willful blindness.

There are two "levels" of criminal intent: specific intent and general intent. Specific intent means that the action and the outcome were intended. With homicide, that's murder (the action causing death was intended and the result (death) was also intended). But there's also general intent, which means the action was intended, but the result was not. In the case of impaired driving causing death, the action causing death was intended (driving a car) but the result was not intended. General intent homicide is manslaughter. So, no, impaired driving causing death isn't murder, it's manslaughter. It's criminal because recklessness is a form of criminal intent, just not specific intent. Also be careful with the use of the word "accident". Accidents aren't crimes. Most car crashes, however, aren't accidents. They're recklessness and, therefore, general intent offences. Car crashes aren't foreseeable if you're driving carefully and obeying the rules of the road. If you're not driving carefully, then an crash is foreseeable and, therefore, criminal by recklessness. That's general intent.

[Benn]

Brenda Brenda:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Brenda Brenda:

But there is no intent of killing people when you drive drunk. The intent is to drive. Same with the accident, the intent is to drive.

It's a reasonably forseeable outcome. Just like if you try to play William Tell with your kid and end up blowing his head off. A reasonable person should know that its a likely enough outcome.

There is a reasonable foreseeable outcome ANYTIME you get in a car you might get an accident. Doesn't make every driver a murderer...

To be clear, I have no respect for people driving when they have been drinking, whether they are drunk or not. But I do not consider them murderers until they actually intently killed someone.

Getting in your car to drive to work sober is a calculated risk, one deemed acceptable by society, driving home when drunk is an unacceptable risk. At least in imperfect principle, society decides what is acceptable under the law, DUI is not and therefore anything that happens while DUI should also carry a higher punishment than when the same thing happens while not breaking the law. No its not murder, but I think it should still carry many years in jail.

One innocent is dead and one douchebag drunk spends 8 years in prison, the douchebag got the better deal still.