Alcohol, a Car and a Fatality. Is It Murder?

[didymus]

from The NY Times

DRUNKEN drivers who kill people with their vehicles are almost never charged with murder.
Even the usual terms of criminal prosecution, vehicular manslaughter or reckless homicide, which carry far lesser degrees of punishment, are felony charges that until 25 years ago were only lightly used by prosecutors. When a presidential task force tallied the numbers of victims from various crimes in 1981, drunken driving was not even on the list.

Times have changed. “Reckless homicide” and then “manslaughter” became common charges brought against drunken drivers after advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving began campaigning in the early 1980’s. But now even those terms are considered gentle euphemisms by some advocates against drunken driving — as in, words that shelter people from looking too closely at the ugliest of realities.

So, many advocates were cheered when a Long Island, N.Y., jury last week convicted Martin R. Heidgen, 25, of murder for killing two people in a head-on collision with a limousine on July 2, 2005. Still, it was such a rare event that advocates, prosecutors and defense lawyers are still trying to figure out its implications.

[sign]HALLELUJAH!!![/sign]

It’s about time! I’m sick of killers getting away with 2-3 years for “vehicular homicide” if they do any time at all.

See also this Newsday story.

 

[deb1]

from The NY Times

DRUNKEN drivers who kill people with their vehicles are almost never charged with murder.
Even the usual terms of criminal prosecution, vehicular manslaughter or reckless homicide, which carry far lesser degrees of punishment, are felony charges that until 25 years ago were only lightly used by prosecutors. When a presidential task force tallied the numbers of victims from various crimes in 1981, drunken driving was not even on the list.

Times have changed. “Reckless homicide” and then “manslaughter” became common charges brought against drunken drivers after advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving began campaigning in the early 1980’s. But now even those terms are considered gentle euphemisms by some advocates against drunken driving — as in, words that shelter people from looking too closely at the ugliest of realities.

So, many advocates were cheered when a Long Island, N.Y., jury last week convicted Martin R. Heidgen, 25, of murder for killing two people in a head-on collision with a limousine on July 2, 2005. Still, it was such a rare event that advocates, prosecutors and defense lawyers are still trying to figure out its implications.

[sign]HALLELUJAH!!![/sign]

It’s about time! I’m sick of killers getting away with 2-3 years for “vehicular homicide” if they do any time at all.

See also this Newsday story.

I thought that in order to be guilty of murder a person had to be purposely trying to murder the other person.

Hopefully, someone with some amount of knowledge of law will answer the thread because my opinion will depend on what the legal definition of murder is.

If murder means to purposely kill someone-like I think that it does- then no, the drunk driver is not guilty of murder but of manslaughter.

If I am incorrect-which I very well might be- and murder means doing something incredibly dumb and immoral that the person knows could potentially cause death to another, then yes, he/she should be charged with murder.

Like I said, I would like to see the legal definition of murder first.

Either way, 2-3 years for driving drunk and killing someone is too light a sentence and I agree with you on that count.

 

[didymus]

I thought that in order to be guilty of murder a person had to be purposely trying to murder the other person.

Hopefully, someone with some amount of knowledge of law will answer the thread because my opinion will depend on what the legal definition of murder is.

If murder means to purposely kill someone-like I think that it does- then no, the drunk driver is not guilty of murder but of manslaughter.

If I am incorrect-which I very well might be- and murder means doing something incredibly dumb and immoral that the person knows could potentially cause death to another, then yes, he/she should be charged with murder.

Like I said, I would like to see the legal definition of murder first.

Hegden was convited of second-degree murder because his behavior showed a “depraved indifference” to human life. This link offers instructions for the judge to give the jury to explain "depraved indifference to the jury but I’ve had some problems with it.

This blog explains it pretty clearly:

Depraved indifference murder was traditionally reserved for exceptionally heinous cases of involuntary manslaughter, where the perpetrator’s conduct was so wanton and devoid of regard for human life that it could reasonably be equated with intent to kill. Some of the “classic” examples of depraved indifference murder are firing a weapon in a crowded place, dropping a heavy object from a height onto a busy street or driving a speeding vehicle down a sidewalk.

Another example: a few years ago in this area a woman was killed when her car crashed due to someone dropping chunks of snow/ice onto the interstate from an overpass. The perp(s) have never been caught but not for lack of trying. – didymus]

Depraved indifference was generally regarded as a state of mind involving both moral culpability - the “depraved” part - and extreme indifference to the lives of the victims.
In 1983, however, the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) decided that depraved indifference wasn’t a state of mind after all, and that it solely involved the objective degree of risk to the victim. All of a sudden, the only difference between reckless manslaughter and depraved indifference murder was that the former required a “substantial” risk of death while the latter required a “grave” risk. That was clear as mud, and it also brought a great many more homicides within the depraved indifference statute - as one scholar has stated, all that was then necessary was “well packaged manslaughter.” (A good deal of the relevant New York legal history is discussed in this case - read all the opinions to get all sides.)

The classic defense in a case like this is that after the first couple drinks your judgment is impaired and you are unable to realise that you are unfit to drive. Of course, that logic vitiates the logic of having drunk-driving laws at all.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
The classic defense in a case like this is that after the first couple drinks your judgment is impaired and you are unable to realise that you are unfit to drive. Of course, that logic vitiates the logic of having drunk-driving laws at all.

It would seem that the classic prosecution argument would be that, when taking the first couple of drinks, one could forsee this outcome but proceeded to take those drinks with depraved indifference.

A couple of convictions like this will help people in that forseeing.

 

[psteichen]

I can’t comment on the legal definitions. In my opinion, it’s not murder unless you intended to do it. But that doesn’t mean we cant have 30 year sentences for gross manslaughter.

By the way, whats up with the light sentences lately. A guy in our town was arrested a few weeks back for breaking into a house and stealing electronics. They only kept him in jail overnight, then released him and told him to come back for his court date. What happened to putting criminals in jail? No room…build more! Simple solution.

 

[crohnie4life]

Common sense tells me you should know your limitations when you drink (most ppl do anyway). When you get behind the wheel you can kill someone seeing as the car can be used as a deadly weapon just like playing russian roulette w/a half loaded gun–why take the risk? There are alot of public service announcements showing the dangers of drinking and driving plus showing photos of the victims they’ve killed and their families they’ve affected. Wouldn’t one think of this as totally wrong…no ands, ifs, ors, or buts? I guess some people are just selfish & care about themselves w/o even thinking of their actions.

Here where I live I’ve seen it too many times(repeat offenders pulled over and then they’re out there again endangering the community thanks to the courts) Even when I was on grand jury a few yrs. ago, the drunk driver had his license taken away (but that doesn’t stop him from driving), got probation for a yr & then did it again not once but 4 times!!! each time without being incarcerated.

There needs to be tougher laws. It doesn’t matter if you have $$ (we have a few here in town who got away with just a slap on the hand recently ). if you do the crime do the time!!!

 

[AndyF]

from The NY Times

DRUNKEN drivers who kill people with their vehicles are almost never charged with murder.
Even the usual terms of criminal prosecution, vehicular manslaughter or reckless homicide, which carry far lesser degrees of punishment, are felony charges that until 25 years ago were only lightly used by prosecutors. When a presidential task force tallied the numbers of victims from various crimes in 1981, drunken driving was not even on the list.

Times have changed. “Reckless homicide” and then “manslaughter” became common charges brought against drunken drivers after advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving began campaigning in the early 1980’s. But now even those terms are considered gentle euphemisms by some advocates against drunken driving — as in, words that shelter people from looking too closely at the ugliest of realities.

So, many advocates were cheered when a Long Island, N.Y., jury last week convicted Martin R. Heidgen, 25, of murder for killing two people in a head-on collision with a limousine on July 2, 2005. Still, it was such a rare event that advocates, prosecutors and defense lawyers are still trying to figure out its implications.

[sign]HALLELUJAH!!![/sign]

It’s about time! I’m sick of killers getting away with 2-3 years for “vehicular homicide” if they do any time at all.

See also this Newsday story.

I think so and MADD will back me in that, but I think the reasoning should also include anyone who takes an impairing substance while driving. We can even take it further if the rule is to be taken seriously. What happens in a case where someone who has a chronic cough due to a life of heavy smoking and loses control of his vehicle during a cough spasm, is it still considered a drug caused accident? I’ve seen some individuals pull into a drive lot of a clinic I’m visiting and can hardly stand due to the coughing.

AndyF

 

[didymus]

I can’t comment on the legal definitions. In my opinion, it’s not murder unless you intended to do it. But that doesn’t mean we cant have 30 year sentences for gross manslaughter.

By the way, whats up with the light sentences lately. A guy in our town was arrested a few weeks back for breaking into a house and stealing electronics. They only kept him in jail overnight, then released him and told him to come back for his court date. What happened to putting criminals in jail? No room…build more! Simple solution.

Murder doesn’t always require intent. Besides “depraved indifference” there is also “felony murder” which is when a death occurs during the commission of another crime: you are the wheelman at a bank robbery and your partner shoots someone, you are both guilty of 2nd degree murder; likewise, if the inside man doesn’t shoot anybody but you run somebody over driving the getaway car you’re both guilty. Legally, you intended to commit the robbery (or whatever) and knew (or should have known) that a death could result.

Since DWI is a felony that’s another theory DAs could use to prosecute drunk drivers who kill.

 

[wcknight]

Folks who drink and drive are guilty of gross negligance and should be jailed for a loooonnnng time if they should kill someone.

Many judges are far too linient on drunk drivers, sometimes, I wonder if they may have the same problem. Hefty fines don’t ususally work, a few weeks or more in jail may (for non-fatal accidents or druck driving - fatalities need to be much more punitive).

Every car should be equiped with some sort of lockout device if the driver has greatly dimished capacity.

25,000+ traffic fatalities a year (more than half caused by drunk driving) is absolutely scandalous.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

I say it IS murder.

 

[LSK]

II am a recovering alcoholic, and I have heard the argument that because this man may suffer from the same disease I suffer from then he should somehow be given some slack. I happen to disagree. He may not know, yet, that he is an alcoholic or he may not BELIEVE he is an alcoholic, but that should not mitigate his responsibility in what he did.

The woman who started Moderation Management years ago because she did NOT want to think of herself as never being able to drink again ended up downing a pint of vodka, getting on a freeway the wrong way and killing a man and his 12 year old daughter. She knew she had problems, she refused to acknowledge those problems. As far as I am concerned what she did was murder than man and his child.

If anyone gets into a vehicle without being able to properly operate it, they are showing ‘depraved indifference’ IMHO. I think that if a Diabetic who has been too busy to take their meds, check their surgar levels or refuses to properly monitor their eating habits gets behind the wheel of a car and has some sort of diabetic reaction that causes them to plow into someone and kill them, then they should suffer the consequences. They had a disease and they did not care enough about themselves or others to make sure they are not a danger on the road.

But what do I know…as you can tell, I have a bit of passion about this subject…lololol

 

[wcknight]

I stop short of saying it is murder because the deliberate intent is not there, BUT it is pretty darn close and the net effect is the same.

 

[mosher]

Morally it is not murder as the death of the other is not directly intended. Legally, however, I think that the case cited above is good when it references depraved indifference. I believe that in some cases but not all cases this is a good precedent to follow.

 

[didymus]

If anyone gets into a vehicle without being able to properly operate it, they are showing ‘depraved indifference’ IMHO. I think that if a Diabetic who has been too busy to take their meds, check their surgar levels or refuses to properly monitor their eating habits gets behind the wheel of a car and has some sort of diabetic reaction that causes them to plow into someone and kill them, then they should suffer the consequences. They had a disease and they did not care enough about themselves or others to make sure they are not a danger on the road.

But what do I know…as you can tell, I have a bit of passion about this subject…lololol

Funny you should mention that. The State of New York won’t give me a license because I have epilepsy but there’s no such restriction on diabetics. Oh, well