6 ms·

Nobody gets into a car drunk with the intention of harming someone else. With attempted murder there is clear intent to do harm. A better comparison would be to

Nobody gets into a car drunk with the intention of harming someone else. With attempted murder there is clear intent to do harm. A better comparison would be to manslaughter - if you do something dangerous which leads to the accidental death of somebody you are punished. The question would be, if you do something dangerous and nobody happens to be hurt, should you still be punished? Should "attempted manslaughter" be a thing?

rayiner 11y ago
No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else, which is a culpable state of mind as well. E.g. You shoot a gun into the air in downtown Chicago and the bullet happens not to kill anyone on the way back down. You didn't mean to kill any body, but it certainly was criminally reckless. Besides that, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Why is manslaughter different than murder? The only difference is the intent--the end result is the same (someone's dead). When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else False, you can be charged with DUI while perfectly sober; DUI applies to far more than alcohol. > Why is manslaughter different than murder? Manslaughter means accidental, murder means on purpose; if you don't see the difference, perhaps you need to think about that a bit harder. > When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment? If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really?
  - heartbreak 11y ago
    YSK 'rayiner is a lawyer.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      Then he should know DUI applies to more than just drinking and shouldn't be making such a silly point. And being a lawyer means he knows the existing law, it doesn't mean his opinion about what the law should be in regards to punishment is any more valid than anyone else's.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        I absolutely agree with your last sentence. My intention is not to stand on the law as authority, but try to work through the logic of the law. Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Intention is the most important thing in criminal law, because a guy who shoots at someone is equally a bad, culpable person worthy of punishment whether or not his aim is very good. On the flip side, someone who kills someone while driving in an accident that could happen to anyone is not worthy of punishment while someone who kills someone intentionally with their car is worthy of being punished as a murderer. Even though the end result is the same--the intention is what matters. That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. Even if you don't hurt anyone, you're guilty of that act and that recklessness is a form of malicious intent justifying punishment.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        > Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Agreed, however, the problem is what's considered "bad" isn't a matter of fact but of opinion. What is law is a matter of fact, but legal/illegal != bad/good. Also, please stop calling it drunk driving, the law pertains to more than just alcohol which is why it matters and why it's unjust. Getting in a car and driving while sober can still get you a DUI because the law is stupid in defining what intoxicated/impaired means, this is especially important now that marijuana is legal for recreation in several states. Just because someone gets a DUI does not mean they were in any way reckless, beyond that it's just as reckless to drive tired as to drive intoxicated yet no one argues that should be DUI worthy, additionally "reckless" is a matter of opinion, not empirical fact. The law is not logical, it is political, a popularity contest, not a logically evidence based means of helping society. There's certainly logic in keeping law self consistent for sure, which is where lawyers and judges have a role, but what becomes law has little to do with what is actually just. As you're a lawyer, you know this already.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > > When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment? > If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really? You miss the question here. If I am driving my car and I take y attetion off the road for a moment to adjust my car radio, and then plough into another car... 1) ... And kill the driver of that other car 2) ... And injure, but don't kill the other driver Why should y punishment for (1) be more severe than for (2)? My intent was the same, my poor behaviour was the same. Perhaps the difference between causing death and not causing death is the quality of the crashed driver's car. Murder requires intent to kill. Man-slaughter also requires intent to cause harm. That's why there are seperate laws for vehicular death - causing death by dangerous driving or vehicular manslaughter. It's hard to meet the burden of proof required by murder or manslaughter.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      At some level punishments based on outcome are a practical necessity. We cannot lock up everyone who takes their eyes off the road and causes a minor accident. Even though we know the did everything necessary to cause catastrophic injury, we let them off. It's a balance between the modern concept of punishments based on state of mind and actions, and the oldschool concept of an eye for an eye, punishment based on outcome.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        I agree! We create offences of "causing death by dangerous driving" and similar because we need to provide justice for the killed and because murder / manslaughter have (rightly) high burden on proof.
  - scott_s 11y ago
    Please apply the principle of charity here: it is very likely that rayiner knows that "under the influence" applies to substances other than alcohol, and wants his conclusions to apply to those circumstances as well. (Although, personally, I define "sober" as not under the influence of any intoxicant, not just alcohol.)
gnaritas 11y ago
Exactly, and no, attempted manslaughter should not be a thing and that's basically what a DUI is.

rayiner 11y ago

No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else, which is a culpable state of mind as well. E.g. You shoot a gun into the air in downtown Chicago and the bullet happens not to kill anyone on the way back down. You didn't mean to kill any body, but it certainly was criminally reckless. Besides that, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Why is manslaughter different than murder? The only difference is the intent--the end result is the same (someone's dead). When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?

gnaritas 11y ago
> No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else False, you can be charged with DUI while perfectly sober; DUI applies to far more than alcohol. > Why is manslaughter different than murder? Manslaughter means accidental, murder means on purpose; if you don't see the difference, perhaps you need to think about that a bit harder. > When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment? If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really?
- heartbreak 11y ago
  YSK 'rayiner is a lawyer.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    Then he should know DUI applies to more than just drinking and shouldn't be making such a silly point. And being a lawyer means he knows the existing law, it doesn't mean his opinion about what the law should be in regards to punishment is any more valid than anyone else's.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I absolutely agree with your last sentence. My intention is not to stand on the law as authority, but try to work through the logic of the law. Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Intention is the most important thing in criminal law, because a guy who shoots at someone is equally a bad, culpable person worthy of punishment whether or not his aim is very good. On the flip side, someone who kills someone while driving in an accident that could happen to anyone is not worthy of punishment while someone who kills someone intentionally with their car is worthy of being punished as a murderer. Even though the end result is the same--the intention is what matters. That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. Even if you don't hurt anyone, you're guilty of that act and that recklessness is a form of malicious intent justifying punishment.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        > Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Agreed, however, the problem is what's considered "bad" isn't a matter of fact but of opinion. What is law is a matter of fact, but legal/illegal != bad/good. Also, please stop calling it drunk driving, the law pertains to more than just alcohol which is why it matters and why it's unjust. Getting in a car and driving while sober can still get you a DUI because the law is stupid in defining what intoxicated/impaired means, this is especially important now that marijuana is legal for recreation in several states. Just because someone gets a DUI does not mean they were in any way reckless, beyond that it's just as reckless to drive tired as to drive intoxicated yet no one argues that should be DUI worthy, additionally "reckless" is a matter of opinion, not empirical fact. The law is not logical, it is political, a popularity contest, not a logically evidence based means of helping society. There's certainly logic in keeping law self consistent for sure, which is where lawyers and judges have a role, but what becomes law has little to do with what is actually just. As you're a lawyer, you know this already.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > > When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment? > If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really? You miss the question here. If I am driving my car and I take y attetion off the road for a moment to adjust my car radio, and then plough into another car... 1) ... And kill the driver of that other car 2) ... And injure, but don't kill the other driver Why should y punishment for (1) be more severe than for (2)? My intent was the same, my poor behaviour was the same. Perhaps the difference between causing death and not causing death is the quality of the crashed driver's car. Murder requires intent to kill. Man-slaughter also requires intent to cause harm. That's why there are seperate laws for vehicular death - causing death by dangerous driving or vehicular manslaughter. It's hard to meet the burden of proof required by murder or manslaughter.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    At some level punishments based on outcome are a practical necessity. We cannot lock up everyone who takes their eyes off the road and causes a minor accident. Even though we know the did everything necessary to cause catastrophic injury, we let them off. It's a balance between the modern concept of punishments based on state of mind and actions, and the oldschool concept of an eye for an eye, punishment based on outcome.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      I agree! We create offences of "causing death by dangerous driving" and similar because we need to provide justice for the killed and because murder / manslaughter have (rightly) high burden on proof.
- scott_s 11y ago
  Please apply the principle of charity here: it is very likely that rayiner knows that "under the influence" applies to substances other than alcohol, and wants his conclusions to apply to those circumstances as well. (Although, personally, I define "sober" as not under the influence of any intoxicant, not just alcohol.)

gnaritas 11y ago

Exactly, and no, attempted manslaughter should not be a thing and that's basically what a DUI is.