Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
This is crazy talk. In some cases it might be true, but the idea of applying such a broad judgment on an entire class of crimes would be a huge injustice.
Severity of punishment is not a good way to reduce the incidence of crime. Do you think someone who's judgment is so impaired that they're ready to drive while drunk is really going to stop and think, hey this is extra illegal, maybe I shouldn't do it? They're already putting their own lives in severe danger, so I doubt it.
The solution is better education, not increased punishment.
The solution is better education, not increased punishment.
Without commenting on the question of a person's criminal liability for drunk driving...
How do you think education will help? Do you really think that today, in 2010, there is anybody who hasn't spent at least an aggregate 24 hours hearing the "don't drink and drive" message?
It seems to me that too often, people attempt to address problems with a knee-jerk "we need more education". But at least here in the USA, I've got to believe that we've all heard the messages about drunk driving, your brain on drugs, AIDS, domestic abuse, etc., ad nauseam. What more education do you want?
There is a difference between being informed and being educated. Someone who has lost a friend or family member due to drunk driving is more educated about the risks than someone who has been informed about the risks from seeing the ubiquitous TV commercials.
I'm not sure exactly how to best go about educating people, or I would be out doing it.
Increasing punishment for drunk driving (combined with lower limits and more random roadside testing) might make people think twice about risking it.
Coming from Sweden where we have relatively high punishments and low legal limits, I was shocked about how cavalier most people I met in the States where about getting in their car after a nights drinking. If you want to lower drunk driving relates deaths you have to change peoples attitudes towards drinking and driving.
If you can't make clear judgement while drunk, such as not driving, then maybe you shouldn't be getting drunk in the first place. Driving is a privilege you kill someone while drunk and you should NEVER be allowed to drive again.
Right, and I believe that educating people about the real risks involved with drunk driving will prevent more of those deaths than punishing people who have already demonstrated the poor judgment in doing that in the first place.
I fully agree with permanently barring someone from driving after they kill someone while drunk driving, but tacking on 'pre-meditated' to the original crime is nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? The person made the decision to drink and drive. Someone is dead or injured and the person causing the pain needs to be punished.
Education doesn't really get us there, people know it is bad and do it anyway. Look at the repeat stats on DUI, suspended licenses don't deter as much as people wished.
Pre-meditation has a specific legal meaning that really doesn't apply to typical drunk driving. Something more along the lines of what you're talking about is the Felony murder rule:
Unfortunately drunk driving is a misdemeanor and doesn't qualify.
Just to clarify, by nonsense I'm referring specifically to the idea of arbitrarily applying legal terms to situations where they aren't valid for punitive purposes. I disagree with harsher punishment as a crime deterrent, but I don't think harsher punishment itself is 'nonsense'.
This is crazy talk. In some cases it might be true, but the idea of applying such a broad judgment on an entire class of crimes would be a huge injustice.
Severity of punishment is not a good way to reduce the incidence of crime. Do you think someone who's judgment is so impaired that they're ready to drive while drunk is really going to stop and think, hey this is extra illegal, maybe I shouldn't do it? They're already putting their own lives in severe danger, so I doubt it.
The solution is better education, not increased punishment.