Alcohol Laws & Driving
 

I was listening to the first team on fox this morning and they were discussing the recent death of the St. Louis Cardinals Pitcher. One of the hosts (usually a jokester) got very passionate about this argument and said that anyone who gets a DUI should be charged with Attempted Manslaughter.

I thought this was an interesting argument and wanted to pose it to the board. I know that we've batted around alcohol laws before, but I found this solution to be particularly interesting.

His argument, of course, is that when you drink and drive you are attempting to kill someone because you impare your abilities to make sound decisions etc...And just because some people succeed and actually harm someone and you don't doesn't mean you shouldn't be charged with attempt to harm someone.

He then went on to talk about this idea that sports figures think they are invincible and that whenever that is trotted out to the public, it is a slap in the face to those affected by drunk driving accidents.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as attempted manslaughter. The term is self-contradictory. Manslaughter is used when intent is diminished, but attempting to do something indicates that you have intent. Isn't it like saying you intended to do something you didn't intend to do?

Well, I think that the angle they were taking on the radio was that the consumption of alcohol along with the decision to drive goes to the intent...even if you don't mean to kill someone in the process.

You're right, the terms are contradictory, but I just found it to be an interesting discussion.

The technical distinction you are drawing is correct, but I think the point is you could create a seperate offense or elevate the penalties in a way that it is treated the same. I think that Virginia has the right approach. For the garden vairety DUI case which is a first offense with a blood alcohol content at or somewhat about .08, you get a suspended jail sentence that gets triggered if you reoffend. This is in recognition of the fact that you can have one too many drinks at dinner and be at .08 which is impaired, but not falling down drunk by any means.

The next step in our scale is for second or subsequent offenses, or any offense where your BAC is .15 or above, with additional penalty enhancements above .20. With any of these there is mandatory, not waivable by the judge, jail time you must actually serve. This recognizes that if you are very drunk or a repeat offender, that you are in a totally different category and need to be out of circulation for a while. In addition, you lose your licencse for three years and driving without one under those circumstances will get you more jail. When you do get your license back you must install a devise on your vehicle that tests your blood alcohol before it will start, and then intermittently while you drive. If you are over it kills the engine.

Most DUI's are in the first category, I would say 95% or more, and the person never reoffends. People in the second category get their lives turned upside down and rightly so.

You can alway argue for tougher penalties, more time etc. I don't oppose it. You just have to do it in the context of how we punish other equally serious crimes.

So what do you propose the law does with those who are guilty of DUI?

That sounds like a reasonable approach. I like the idea of a sliding scale. The difference between .08 and .20 is huge. It should be treated entirely differently. Someone who is at .08 is not necessarily very impaired. Probably comparable to someone who text messages while driving.

You are attempting to kill someone when you drink and drive?

I find this argument idiotic, which is probably why you find it interesting.

That's weird, I find you to be a total idiot as well as a pillow biter.
________
Buy cannabis seeds