Is Drunken Driving Murder?
Since I'm a 60-year-old man stuck in a 25-year-old body (or is that a 6-year-old boy stuck in a...), nevermind. Any way, I was watching 60 Minutes last night and watched this report about New York's Nassau County district attorney who successfully prosecuted a drunken driving case as a second-degree murder crime.
In the case, 24-year-old Martin Heidgen was driving his full-size GM pickup with three times the legal limit of alcohol in his system. His friends told him not to drive but he did it anyway. He ended up driving for three miles the wrong way on the parkway before slamming head-on into a Town Car limousine carrying a family from a wedding. The result was horrifying, as the video below shows.
This piece brings up very interesting points -- especially about people identifying as much with the drunken driver as the victim. I certainly know people who seem to think nothing of it -- especially having lived in the Midwest with wide-open roads where things supposedly are less likely to happen. I've stolen the keys from people in such situations and taken the brunt of their protests. If I fail in my key theft, I make it clear I won't bail them out of jail. But enough about St. James.
The fact of the matter is, drunken driving penalties are pathetic. Look no further than all those stupid celebrities like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie, the last of which also found herself driving the wrong way down a freeway. They all got off extremely easy, often with no time served because the jails are so full. Who cares? Ship them to Utah where they aren't. The only difference between Richie and Heidgen is she was lucky enough not to hit someone.
Despite what the defense attorney says in the 60 Minutes piece, it is not the alcohol's fault. It may cause a diminished capacity for critical thought, but a person chooses to put themselves in that position. They chose to go out without a safe way of getting home again. They chose to have that second and third drink (way before diminished capacity would come in) knowing they'd have to drive home.
But even if you find yourself in such a situation, there're ways around it. If you're Nicole Richie, hire a guy named Jeeves to cart your skinny butt around. Otherwise, establish a safe DD, anticipate needing a taxi, or here's an idea, walk. Heck, call me at 3 a.m., I'll pick you up in the R8. Whatever you do, just don't booze it up and drive home. Because with this Nassau County case serving as precedent, you could find yourself in the klink -- quite rightly -- forever.
James Riswick, Automotive Editor
- Posted by
- James Riswick January 6, 2009, 6:00 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Thoughts from the Curb
There's so many ways to get around driving drunk or even buzzed that it's even more of a stupid decision now than it's always been. Even in my second-tier city (hint, we're hosting a Super Bowl in about a month) we've got AAA giving you a ride and towing your car home, free cab rides home for drunks, guys on tiny motorbikes who will drive you home in your car, and there's always friends or paying for a cab. You have to be a special kind of stupid these days to drive drunk.
I think the legal limits are a bit too low, but agree that the penalties are too light. There is simply no reason to drive drunk, period. "Murder" seems too high a charge as it's not premeditated or intentional, but it is foreseeable, preventable, and reckless.
While I don't think the legal limits are too low, I agree with ahightower. Murder is too harsh because the crimes are not premeditated or intentional. And I don't think getting drunk driving to the level or murder will stop or even reduce it significantly, as dunken drivers always theink they're not drunk.
In my opinion, there are only two ways around this problem. Either ban alcohol or add features that will prevent cars from starting if the driver is drunk. The latter seems like the more feasible solution.
I heard Toyota was developing such a technology.....
blackadder - Such systems already exist, people just don't have one on their car without having a DUI conviction and most jurisdictions don't have them.
My problem is that if you've been drinking, you're assumed at fault. No one cares that tired driving causes more accidents than drunk driving. If a tired person hits an intoxicated person, the intoxicated person is at fault. If a tired person is pulled over, the most they'll get is a ticket. The intoxicated person goes to jail and it gets worse from there.
Driving while intoxicated is stupid and you need to be held accountable, but that doesn't mean you're the scapegoat.
Here's a plan. Take a cab, or look into other pick-up services that will drive you home in your own car. A cheap alternative to the guilt you'd have to face every day for killing or injuring someone.
As with the woman in the article who killed the priest, she was a 3rd time offender. These people think they can get away with it because the penalties aren't severe. "Oops, I made a bad decision" just doesn't cut it anymore. How many times can a person say "Oops" before someone says, that's enough. You've had your chance, You're being put away. For that woman, she's had three tries, and the last one killed someone.
Driving drunk behind the wheel of a vehicle is just as potentially deadly as getting drunk and playing with a gun.
I'll switch the question around. Why should people get off so lightly for killing someone intentionally or not? What should the consequences be for snuffing out a life?
It's foolish to re-define murder, and it's unjust. It would breed discrespect for the law, and show it to be arbitrary.