krm (12/21/82)
There are manslaughter laws and the aggreved party has recourse. Only if he is still alive. What do I do when my father is killed *and* the other driver is killed? No such thing as legal recourse. 'chard.
laman (12/27/82)
To answer part of cwruecmp!krm's question about what do you do when your father is killed, you cry. You can swear, scream, yell, and lots of other things, but you won't get him back. Some of the talk seems to be moving off the track that it is human lives we are discussing. Thank god I have never been in the position of deciding (a little sarcastic) how to react. I think you see my point, and I would like to complement the person who said the driving it a privilege and not a right. I know that I would do EVERYTHING in my LEGAL power to remove that driver's license! He lost it, because he/she sure isn't accepting his responsibilities to the other drivers (I for one). If it were possible I would love to see that person's license revoked for a very LONG time if not for his/her lifetime! And god help him if he does it again (especially without a license)! Mike Laman sdcsvax!laman
white (12/28/82)
Several of us have been debating the proper response to a drunk driver who DOES kill or maim. (Unlike the ones we discussed a while ago, and we were NOT flaming, rabbit!jj) Our conclusions are mixed, so I will report on the 50% that I represent. Our feeling is that the drunk driver who kills or maims has conciously operated a motor vehicle while in an incapacitated state. Furthermore, this individual is aware of the consequences of operating a motor vehicle in an impaired state, so: In the case of maiming injury, the person is guilty of WILLFUL assault with intent to cause injury or death. In the case of death, the individual is responsible for premeditated murder. In the case of non-life threatening injury that does not cause any permanent imparment of the victim's life, we propose that a charge of aggravated assault is proper. In the case of very minor injuries, the charge of simple assault would suffice. Property damage would also be handled in a like manner, thus the totalling of a car would be considered illegal conversion of property. (Grand theft.) And... We (collectively) are from strunk!white, NOT stuck!white.
leichter (12/29/82)
There have been attempts - sometimes successful - to consider a drunk driver who kills someone legally a murderer (of some sort). They run into a severe problem: Juries, put in a position in which bringing in a guilty verdict will result in "murder-level" punishment - say 15-20 years - for a drunk driver have a tendency for feel sorry for him and let him off entirely. (This is not a matter for philosophical debate; it's an observed fact in a number of states that have tried to impose really strict drunk-driver laws - "strict" in the sense of having very stiff punishments - only to find that they then couldn't get anyone convicted. It's often the DA's who then are among those trying to get the law changed to something they can succeed in court with.) Personally, I find this a sad commentary on the general social attitude toward alcohol in general, and drunk drivers in particular. While we may all give lip service to the need for strict drunk-driving laws - at least if questioned in public - all too few of us really seem to mean it. Both alcohol and driving are fundamental parts of our society, and we are just not willing to do what is necessary to control them. -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter