Yes, it is no different from shooting someone to death because they don't care to kill.
2006-10-17 11:48:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by knight35966 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
The crime is involuntary manslaughter if the drunk is repeat offender should be sentenced for what the state statue applies to vechulcar manslaughter. The death sentence should only be used when there all the facts are gathered and if the murder was premeditated, or the killing of the child under the age of 12. Remorse, IQ, mental stability, and the understanding of right from wrong be factored in, and if the crime was a fact of impulse stupidity or premeditated cold murder. The death penalty never deters murders, and in some states it death penalty is overused sentence because of the fact prosecutor screw up cases, and police use questionable means of questioning to a person doesn't have the mentally capability of understanding the crime. Also, defense attorneys been found sleeping thru there clients trail , and that gotta be factored in. Question is? Did this condemned person get a adequate defense? Did the police use proper interrogation techniques, and is the person mentally capable understanding the crime committed. Also, Eye for a Eye is not good justice because it leads down a slippery slope, and fair trails, and fair sentences what makes the justice system work 90% of the time.
2006-10-17 12:02:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by ram456456 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In Jan 2005, driving home from a night of partying i passed out behind the wheel only 5 minutes from home. i crashed into a parked saturn so hard my motor was the saturn's trunk. the saturn leaped forward and hit the SUV in front. The SUV leaped forward and hit the van parked in front of it. I didn't kill anyone that night. i walked away with a broken rib and a broken finger. i got off really light.
prior to the accident, i felt the standard sentence for a drunk driving was sufficient as a premeditated murder. anytime a person gets behind the wheel intoxicated, should be treated as a murderer. i still feel that way. once it becomes law that a premeditated murderer gets automatic death sentence, then the same should hold for a drunk driving death. just because you didn't "intend" to kill that one particular person, doesn't mean you didn't have an intention to kill yourself or another person. anytime you put yourself in that situation, you deserve the horrifying outcome.
2006-10-17 13:00:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bella 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure about the death penalty, but definitely life behind bars. Make the drunk driver live with what they've done. I can't stand idiots who insist on driving drunk, and the laws are way too lenient. There are alot of repeat offenders in my area, and they pretty much get what amounts to a slap on the wrist. Until there are stiffer penalties, people won't take it that seriously. I know people that will drive around without a license and think nothing of it.
2006-10-17 11:56:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
This is actually a pretty tough question.
The death penalty to me should be reserved for the worst of the worst. This being those individuals who you would never want the chance to be free, or when even behind bars, they are capable of doing harm. This includes individuals who have commited acts that would be, for a lack of a better word "inhuman".
Drinking and driving is basically caused by a lack of respondsibility, by not only the invidual, by in some cases, the social environment. The penalty for this should be based on the whole picture, not just nature of the crime.
One solution instead of the death penalty is to enforce long-term incareration (prison/jail). Once released, the individual must then never drink again. If at any time they are caught drinking,then they are returned to jail for life. In addition, the individual shoul;d be required to perform a large number of community service hours, preferable in such a way that would require them to be respondsibile and a chance to try and make-up for what happened.
The only reason I feel this way way is that the person made the choice to drink, which means they willingly allowed themselves to not be fully in control of themselves. By simpy forcing them to hold themselves respondsible, this may allow people to reform themselves and perhaps do something to help the community that they caused harm to with their actions.
2006-10-17 12:01:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
It's called vehicular homicide, and yes, they deserve the death penalty. The vehicle was the murder weapon. I almost lost 2 family members to a drunk driver. My cousin and her little girl were struck by a guy who ran a stop sign. It was 2 years before my cousin was fully recovered, and her little girl had to have a steel plate put in her head. The drunk driver died a few days later due to his injuries. I guess that's a small amount of justice.
2006-10-17 11:51:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by sparkie 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
We raised the ingesting age, post speed limits, and set federal crash risk-free practices policies and shrink the form of deaths in a million/2. no person is heavily speaking approximately banning all weapons, yet automobiles are a super occasion of how some nicely-seen rules and regulations could make a super effect on what number harmless human beings get killed.
2016-11-23 16:35:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by getts 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think he should go to jail for a long time because then you know he's paying his dues. If you think about it life in prison is the same as death except they have to torture themselves with the fact that they're still breathing and because of them someone else can't experience a good life.
2006-10-17 12:16:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It all depends on whether your philosophy is an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek. I believe the driver should have his license suspended for five years, and be charged with vehicular homicide
2006-10-17 12:29:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by beez 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The death penalty is a very serious matter. I believe it should only be doled out to those who have knowingly and willfully committed murder. While the drunk driver killed someone he was under the influence of a drug and because of that I don't think he is deserving of the death penalty, reserve that for serial killers and other sick human beings. Drunk Drivers who kill should receive strict and harsh penalties though.
2006-10-17 11:49:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by stewcat123 1
·
2⤊
4⤋
The drunk driver should get life, no parole. If the drunk driver were to premeditate the murder then yes to death. I'm so so sorry for the loss..God bless to all...
2006-10-17 11:49:36
·
answer #11
·
answered by bestgoodman 2
·
2⤊
2⤋