Should someone who kills people while driving drunk get the death penalty?

[Bill McBlueState]

See here in LBN

[Bill McBlueState]

1. I've seen a lot in my time on DU

But "Our judicial system should be more like China's" is a new one.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. I've seen arguments here that we "coddle criminals" in this country...

I've replied that compared to Saudi Arabia and Iran, we most certainly do.

[sandnsea]

4. It's the week-end

I'm forever reminding myself not to take anything seriously that is said her on the week-end, particularly what I call "Silly Sunday".

[redwitch]

40. A real progressive stance.

Good God.

[enzymatic]

86. So are you happy with our drunk driving laws?

Because I am FURIOUS with them! I am against the death penalty; too many innocents have been held and/or killed. But if you know that the guy did the crime (which is obvious when he's gotta be extracted from the vehicle) and multiple people have died, then what? Let him stay in jail for a few years and come out and do it again? It's happened, in case you are not aware.

What I would like to see is if someone gets a DUI, they automatically have their car taken away FOREVER. No revoked license bullshit when they'll drive anyway! Give the car to someone who needs it and they'll have to buy a new one. And don't allow the DMV to issue them a new license for five years AFTER they go through rehab for 6 months and AA meetings (or that type) for a year.

[Bill McBlueState]

96. clearly, those are the only choices

One must either a) be happy with the drunk driving laws or b) think the death penalty should be an option.

Nope, no middle ground in there. :rofl:

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Without getting into the death penalty debate itself....

I absolutely DO believe they should be charged with murder. Now having said that, the states that allow the death penalty usually have certain conditions, like premeditation that is required for that "ultimate penalty" to be the result of the trial.

So the real question is, does drunk driving qualify as premeditation? In most cases, I would say it does.

[sandnsea]

6. Premeditation means thinking about killing someone

Engaging in behavior that you should have known had a possiblity in ending up in a death, like say a bank robbery, is usually manslaughter.

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. If you go to a bar and get shit faced, knowing you have to drive home

Isn't that premeditated?

[sandnsea]

16. Not unless you thought about killing someone

before you got in your car.

It definitely sets events in motion and so there is definitely criminal liability. But it isn't necessarily premeditated murder.

[MajorChode]

43. More like malice aforethought

Premeditation means you specifically planned the event with that specific intent in mind. A murder charge generally doesn't require premeditation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. No it's just stupid.

[Hepburn]

78. No....

...under the law, that is "gross negligence" which can and does substitute for general criminal intent. However, murder is a specific intent crime and therefore, gross negligence is not sufficient.

[TahitiNut]

14. "Felony Murder" is usually charged when someone is killed in the commission of a felony.

So, a bank robbery where the guard is shoot and killed is the same as a bank robbery where a pedestrian is hit and killed by the getaway car.

Drunk driving isn't (afaik) a felony. (Yet.)

[sandnsea]

15. It can be a felony in Oregon

Depends on how many you've had.

I understood part of the argument in charging the getaway driver in a bank robbery, for instance, is that they are responsible for the occurrences they set in motion. They should have known a murder could have taken place. I've seen this argument used repeatedly in cases where the cohorts are charged even though they didn't do the actual murder.

[madmom]

9. What about if a person talking on a cell phone causes a wreck with fatalities? In a lot

of places talking on cell while driving is illegal, as far as that goes any form of distraction could be cause for a "failure to control" citation. Would they also be qualified as premeditated?

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same damn thing.

Almost got taken out in a cross walk by some Republican asshole driving a Hummer and yakking on his cell phone. At least I could have seen the drunk coming (weaving all over the road)

[Thothmes]

32. Not sure about a death penalty, but manslaughter

come to mine. 10 to 20 in the state pen is appropriate if that persons actions have killed someone.

[sarge43]

5. The death penalty: Effective and fool proof.

Just in case: :sarcasm:

[SeattleGirl]

7. I do not support the death penalty at all. n/t

[anigbrowl]

8. I don't support the death penalty. However...

I do think that DD sentences tend to be way too short. a 5 or 10 year minimum per person would not bother me in the least. Insofar as China has a judicial system which does allow the death penalty, its application here seems appropriate within that context (ie, dishing out the maximum sentence for particularly severe crimes).

[anigbrowl]

22. Bear in mind, folks, it's more complex than it appears

Like if you don't support the DP (which I don't either), then you don't support it for any crime, no matter how evil or horrible. The real question here is whether it's appropriate to mete out the maximum sentence available under the law for killing people while drunken driving. Just saying you're against the DP doesn't help to answer that question.

Personally, I think the OP should be amended to 'should drunk drivers who kill people get the maximum possible sentence?'

[JitterbugPerfume]

11. I do not support the death penalty in any case or circumstance

and I speak with a certain authority becuse my beloved son Jeremy was killed by a drunken driver many years ago

[Iggo]

13. Nope.

[Engineer4Obama]

17. No one should get the death penalty. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

18. I don't think anyone should be getting the death penalty

The UK abolished it in the 1960s and I'm happy with that.

If this is about whether China's draconian penal code is a good thing, I should say definitely not.

[ingac70]

31. I don't know....

I kinda like the fact China executes company officials that intentionally poison people. ;)

[armyowalgreens]

50. So you like the idea of killing someone who poses no imminent threat?

How lovely.

[ingac70]

57. Poisoning people and animals for profit is a direct threat. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

58. But it's not imminent.

[ingac70]

63. They only get executed after the fact....

I don't know where you pulled this "imminent" stuff from. When little kids and babies are already dead the bastards deserve to die.

China isn't executing company heads because something MIGHT happen, they did it after they killed and harmed people.

[armyowalgreens]

72. "the bastards deserve to die"...

You should probably check your emotions. No one deserves to die.

Every living being that is self-aware has a right to life. No legal process removes that right. Just because we execute people does not make it right.

[anigbrowl]

97. You know, this is in itself an emotional position aoW

I don't support the death penalty either, but my reason for holding this position is that such a policy is a check on the power of the state. A right to life is basically just a social construct - if you go out into some remote forest and run into an angry bear, it's meaningless. For that matter, if you're violently attacked by another person, you can passively hold to your position but you're equally entitled in pretty much all societies to defend yourself, even if that results in the death of your attacker.

Moral absolutes are fundamentally a religious position. Thus talking about rights has no real objective meaning, it's just an expression of opinion about the sort of society you wish to live in and the sort of code you're prepared to live by. In cases like the above where people have died as a direct result of someone's knowing dishonesty or misbehavior, you are still entitled to hold that opinion, but it has no more inherent validity than that of the person who has (say) lost a relative as a result and considers it intolerable for the perpetrator to keep walking around. All you can do is argue that judicial revenge is counter-productive in the larger scheme of things and hope they see it your way.

So even though I agree with you about the death penalty being a bad thing, when you say there's a right to life that transcends law and legal process, my response is 'really? show this thing of which you speak'. It's like you've built a beautiful house on a heap of sand - it's a good position to hold, bu it's lacking a solid intellectual foundation.

[ingac70]

98. Check your own emotions....

you sounds just like the self righteous "pro-life" goofballs blathering on about "right to life".

[TexasObserver]

19. Of course not. No one should get the death penalty.

[noamnety]

20. opposed to the death penalty. (nt)

[Fla_Democrat]

21. yer kidding, right?

You couldn't get a 25% "yes" vote on a death penalty vote here (other than political or economic targets) if there was a signed confession, a you tube video of the act, and unanimous 'guilty' verdicts from every trial up to and including the SCotUS. :smoke:

[armyowalgreens]

51. That's because some of us think it's fundamentally wrong to kill someone...

who does not pose an imminent threat.

It doesn't matter whether someone is truly guilty or not.

[Fla_Democrat]

61. therefore

any poll 'here' is predisposed to return a resounding No. Which is pretty much what I said. It would be like posting a poll on the gator board if they thought Bobby Bowden should be named the all time greatest coach. If the results is a known, before it is ever posted, what's the mental exercise for? :shrug:

[armyowalgreens]

62. ah I get your point.

You are correct.

[spanone]

23. how does death justify another death? it's just more death.

[mnhtnbb]

24. Prison time--yes. Death penalty should be abolished.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

25. If a drunk driver gets the death penalty, then so should anyone who kills someone in a criminal

activity.


EVERYONE.


/I don't believe in the death penalty period.. for ANYONE. I think it's terrible to kill someone. Lock them up.

[Thothmes]

34. Sounds ok to me if the death of another person is involved.

[proteus_lives]

26. No. I would suggest life in prison.

And no possiblity of parole.

[stray cat]

27. No - but the people he or she killed didn't deserve to be murdered either

[Jeep789]

28. Is the unfortunate drunk driver that kills someone any more guilty

than the fortunate drunk driver that managed to get home without an accident or being stopped?

[Thothmes]

36. If a person gets home without causing an accident

or being stopped than no crime has been committed. If a person belts down a half liter of gin and causes an accident that kill some folks he should be held accountable to the utmost that the law allows.

[armyowalgreens]

54. No crime has been committed? BULLSHIT.

So if no one witnesses or stops the illegal action, it wasn't illegal?

What bizzaro world do you live in?

[LooseWilly]

67. Hehe,,, the bizarro world where nothing is illegal if you don't get caught.

A world which is shared with the likes of Nixon, and Bush, and Kissenger, and Rumsfeld... and me.

[stray cat]

29. What if its your fifth offense, you're driving with a revoked license and you killed someone

drunk driving before?

[Chemisse]

30. Moral indignation should not play such a large part in sentencing

Just because drunk drivers killing someone makes us really angry doesn't mean it is as bad as premeditated murder.

I think they should be punished much as they are now, but it should be followed up with a requirement that they have a device in their car to check for alcohol before it will start. Their local police should be alerted and required to do a spot check periodically to make sure they are only driving their own car and it is equipped with the device. If that has holes in it, put tracking bracelets on them.

Most of the drunk drivers are alcoholics. We can't make them quit drinking, but we can try to prevent them from driving.

[Thothmes]

37. Any source for the statement that "most of the drunk drivers

are Alcoholics" or is that a wild ass guess.

[Chemisse]

41. Yep, wild assed guess. But then I checked . . .

I just assumed that when older people - say over 30 or so - are driving drunk they have a problem. Younger people may have a problem but also may just be in a partying phase of their life.

In addition, people who are repeat offenders would have a higher probability of killing someone in their travels, simply because they do it more times. Lifelong alcoholics are probably going to drive drunk many more times than someone who goes through a 5 - 10-year party binge.

But then a quick googling turned up this source, which said nearly half are occasional drinkers:
THURSDAY, April 3 (HealthDay News) -- It's easy to assume that drunk drivers are habitual drinkers, but new research suggests that people who only get drunk occasionally account for almost half of those who drive while intoxicated.

http://www.drugs.com/news/alcoholics-not-blame-all-drunk-driving-cases-11612.html

[Native]

33. They're charging a teen her in FL with murder (instead of manslaughter) because the driver who died

was a police officer. The felony that had to have occurred to push for murder? They say he stole the car he was driving. He's a minor, and he took off in his parent's car. If I recall correctly, the teen has serious mental issues.

[NightWatcher]

35. why did Fonzi wear his leather jacket when he went water skiing?

[MadMaddie]

38. No, but they should receive the same sentences that other

murderers get. Not involuntary manslaughter. I have seen too many drunk driving incidents where the drunk driver kills 1-4 or more people and they get lighter sentences because they didn't mean to do it. Drunk drivers have destroyed families.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. I am vehemently opposed to government sanctioned death penalties. n/t

[EFerrari]

42. I don't support murder by the state, no.

[burning rain]

44. No. Getting behind the wheel drunk shows indifference, not malice.

I do favor serious penalties for drunk driving, an appalling crime that indicates not giving a damn about the lives of your fellow man. As for the death penalty in general, I'm slightly ambivalent but inclined to oppose it, period.

[MajorChode]

46. I think at some level, malice is involved

Someone who blows a .09 may not have malice, but someone who is two or three times the legal limit must know that there is a high probibility they are going to injure or kill someone. It's like firing a gun into a crowd.

[armyowalgreens]

60. That doesn't show malice. It shows gross indifference.

mal⋅ice   Show IPA
–noun
1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
2. Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.

[MajorChode]

68. Dictionary definition does not always equal the legal definition

Legally there are different types of malice and it's not always defined the same for all state statutes.

This is how the state of California defines malice:

Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

Gross recklessness and malice are two sides to the same coin. That's why I used the metaphor of shooting into a crowd. You may have not specifically intended to kill someone, but you knew your conduct carried a high degree of risk to death. That's implied malice.

There have been people convicted of murder (yes murder, not manslaughter) for DUI, and malice was cited.

The People v Watson was one such case (which was upheld on appeal to the California Supreme Court), but there are others as well.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3480202

[armyowalgreens]

71. Sorry, even your own definition defies your logic.

Malice and gross negligence are not the same thing. And they would not be the same thing in court because one shows intent to harm while the other simply shows indifference. And one also carries a harsher sentence.


Anyone convicted of murder for DUI is a sorry bastard that fell victim to a stupid system.

[MajorChode]

75. It's not my definition, it's the state of California's

Was this not stated clearly enough for you to understand?

I'm explaining how things are. Implied malice has been inseparably linked to gross negligence in case law for decades on all sorts of cases. It has nothing to do with my "logic" or how either of us thinks things should be. That's the way they are. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

So don't go spouting off your common dictionary definitions and think you know how malice is defined by the law because you obviously don't. Your ignorance is not the fault of my "logic". I've already shown how the California Supreme Court agrees with "my definition", and as the ultimate arbitrator of legal matters in the state, I'm kinda thinking their opinion carries just a bit more weight than yours. Call me crazy.

I could cite a number of legal dictionaries on the subject if I wanted, but somehow I get the impression you'd prefer to remain ignorant than deal with the possibility that you might just be wrong on something. By all means don't let me stop you. Live like you wanna live.

[armyowalgreens]

76. You provided me with a definition that completely defies your evidence...

How is that my fault?

The blue boxed definition does not support your claims from legal cases. I do not deny the fact that courts could rule otherwise, but your evidence has not supported your claims.

[MajorChode]

80. That's your opinion

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some are just more relevant than others.
I consider the California Supreme Court's opinion more relevant.

I'm not going to play your semantics game. The term has been defined by courts all over the world exactly the way I described it to you since before I was born and probably before you were born. As I said, if you prefer to remain ignorant that's entirely up to you.

[pitohui]

94. do you understand that alcohol affects the brain?

if someone who drives while having anxiety has a panic attack, goes off the road and kills someone, are they too a killer who deserves the maximum?

people who have anxiety do KNOW they have panic attacks, it's a tough thing to miss about yourself

alcoholism is a brain disease -- if your BRAIN is fucked up, you literally don't have the tool to make good decisions

if all these drunk drivers are really occasional drinkers making a "choice," okay, i guess that's different, but somehow i don't believe it to be the case

everyone who CAN stop drinking already has

[MajorChode]

99. Apples and oranges

People with health problems generally don't get behind the wheel while they are having an outbreak. So a person who has a condition like you describe are not being grossly negligent if they reasonably believe that their condition is sufficiently under control to drive. The same holds true for diabetics, epileptics, and others who may not even be able to get or keep a driver's license if they can't sufficiently control their condition.

A person who is addicted to alcohol may not have much of a choice when it comes to picking up a bottle, but they sure as hell have a choice when it comes to getting behind the wheel when they are hammered. And no I don't buy the excuse that since they are a drunk they just don't make good decisions. Good or bad decision making doesn't mean they still can't tell right from wrong. There may be insane people who may just happen to be alcoholics also who can't tell right from wrong, but I suspect that those people make up a minuscule number of drunk drivers.

[prayin4rain]

45. Noway, it is reckless disregard not intentional. n/t

[donheld]

47. Nobody should get the death penalty

[usregimechange]

48. That would be a massive waste of money

[armyowalgreens]

49. Hell no.

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. I don't believe in the death penalty

Not for anyone. Not even Ted Bundy.

A drunk driver who kills people while driving drunk needs treatment. Not the death penalty.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. sharing a bottle of wine and then having one cognac after dinner would make someone legally drunk

in terms of of the law and driving. One should NEVER do that. But the reality is, it happens a lot.

Unfortunately, many, many otherwise decent people do at times drive when their blood alcohol level is above .08. Two to three mixed drinks or full size beers or attending an average wine tasting will do that. People shouldn't, but it happens far more often than many people realize.

Every effort should be made to insure people don't drive while intoxicated. Insuring bars have a policy of making sure their customers get home without driving would make a lot of sense.

The death penalty is pretty extreme, by any standards. How many dumb teenagers would end up on death row if that were the case?

[MajorChode]

69. Ignorance is no excuse

It doesn't really matter if someone is swilling cheap beer in the parking lot of the 7/11 or sipping expensive brandy at a garden party. Any person with two or three synapses actively firing can figure out that they are impaired after more than one drink and if they are at all in doubt, they should assume they are.

I'm not for the death penalty under any circumstances, but anyone who gets a DUI should be required to receive education on the risks of drunk driving, and if they kill someone after that, they should never see the light of day outside of a prison fence again. They are no better than any other murderer at that point.

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. several years ago I knew a 19-year-old kid who did run over a kill a 13-year-old child

after drinking heavily. He was no doubt driving recklessly at the time.

Following that incident, be couldn't eat or sleep and he even attempted suicide. I doubt he ever recovered from it.

[MajorChode]

83. Part of the reason for this is the culture of driving that Americans have

We see driving as an inalienable right. The driver's license has no real value because regardless of how much you fuck up, you'll eventually be able to get it back. Furthermore you have to fuck up royally in order to have it taken away in the first place, and even in those instances a good lawyer might be able to get you off on a technicality.

That's why you can go out on any given day at any given time and see people driving carelessly, and if you keep looking for very long you'll see someone driving recklessly. Inevitably innocents pay the price for that culture.

[armyowalgreens]

74. You do realize that alcohol not only impairs motor skills, but also impairs judgment

and reasoning skills, right?


In reality, ignorance is an excuse.

[MajorChode]

77. If this were true, no person could ever be convicted of drunk driving

Or any other offense committed while they were intoxicated.

[armyowalgreens]

79. That's kind of where it leads...

I'm not a big fan of harsh punishment for drunk driving.

I believe that inter-lock devices and license suspension should be used first time DDers and repeat DDers. That isn't to be used as punishment. It's used as a last resort to protect the public.

[MajorChode]

81. I'm not a big fan of harsh punishment for 1st offenders either

Everone is capable of fucking up at least once in their lives and some are just too fucking stupid to know the ramifications of drunk driving. However, people should not get an unlimited number of chances to fuck up in life, especially if they have deprived innocents of life and liberty as a result.

Interlock devices are not only temporary in most instances, but work only to the extent people don't defeat them. They are a very useful tool in some circumstances, but are not the ultimate solution to the problem. If they were, there would be no such thing as a repeat offender.

[armyowalgreens]

82. I agree enforcement is an issue...

Anyone who attempts to get around devices or suspensions should be harshly punished. In that circumstance, assuming they were sober, they are knowingly violating the law. At that point, punishment is reasonable.

As far as repeat DDers, if it gets to the point where they cannot control themselves, they should be placed in some sort of mental health facility to protect themselves and others.

[MajorChode]

84. I can't agree that mental health facilities are the right place for repeat DDers

Alcoholism is an addiction, and yes there are some aspects of drinking they may not be able to control. However, getting behind an automobile while drunk is an entirely different situation. If someone is coherent enough to drive a car, they are coherent enough to know that drunk driving is wrong. If they know what they are doing is wrong, they should be punished.

[Madrone]

56. No one should get the death penalty.

Not ever.

[mmonk]

59. No, tortured in our new gulags.

[nini]

64. my emotional reaction is fuck 'em - yes

my logical reaction - which always prevails - is a big fat NO.

This coming from someone who was disabled by a drunk driver in 1985. I have zero sympathy for any mother fucker that drinks then drives - NONE. However, the death penalty is one of those things that I cannot support for punishment, especially since intent is a big blurry issue with drunk drivers.

I do believe punishment for drunk drivers in this country is way too lenient. Too many people are repeat offenders and get a little slap on the wrist. I think 6 months working with brain damaged victims of drunk drivers would leave a much longer lasting impression than a fine or probation.

[earth mom]

65. My mom was killed by a drunk driver. At my worst moments of grief, I wanted revenge.

But now, some 27 years later, I really can't answer this question yes or no.

I know I would have felt better if the woman who killed my mom had spent some time behind bars at the very least.

But she got off with a measly fine and probation, which was a great injustice IMO.

A personal apology from her would have helped too, but our family got nothing.

After all these years, I figure that the woman who killed my mom has probably punished herself over and over again for what she did-if she has a conscience that is.

But I'll never know if she was sorry for what she did and I'll never get any kind of closure about it either.

[MajorChode]

85. No one should have to endure what you've had to endure

Even though the US has made progress, at least 15,000 people are killed each year by drunk drivers.

That's equal to a WTC terrorist attack every two and a half months. The US has spent about a trillion dollars on a needless war of aggression in Iraq because of the WTC and we spend relatively nothing on preventing drunk driving deaths. It's truly pathetic if you think about it much.

[earth mom]

87. Thank you for your post, I really appreciate it because it hasn't been easy.

My experience is why I identify so much with the families who lost loved ones on 911. When you lose someone in such a shocking and horrific way, the shock and pain never goes away.

I believe that 911 was MIHOP or LIHOP. I am as outraged by how the criminals got away with 911 as I am with the woman who killed my mom because my mom was killed in a hit and run accident. The woman turned herself into police the next day, but her actions only added salt to the wound.

I would love to see driving under the influence outlawed. If everyone knew it was flat out illegal to drive under the influence, I have no doubt that there would be way fewer deaths from drunk driving. I've gotten flamed big time for this view before here on DU, but IMO, it's the only solution to so many needless and thoughtless deaths.

[Blasphemer]

66. No... I'm against the DP under all circumstances

The truth is that no penalty could ever be enough just as no financial settlement could ever be enough. It's impossible to quantify the worth of a human life. The question is what combination of penalty and rehabilitation actually prevents the perpetrator from doing it again. For some, the fact of having killed someone alone is enough. Of course, they should and would still be punished but even setting aside the death penalty, I couldn't see putting someone away for life who is truly unlikely to be a repeat offender.

[lexanman]

70. The death Penalty is a hard one

certainly not for DD death. Maybe for a very few horrendous crimes. Child rapes, where the child dies from the injuries. Serial killers. People who torture other people to death.

[Better Believe It]

88. Should someone who kills people while using a cell phone while driving get the death penalty?

Or text messaging while driving?

I'll have to answer no to all of the above.

[harun]

89. You poll that I bet more support the DP for driving while texting

incidents than drunk. Although they are probably just joking when they would answer that way.

[Orsino]

90. No one should get the death penalty.

No one.

[RebelOne]

91. Yes, I have had two family members killed by drunken drivers.

My stepfather and his passenger were killed by an off-duty policeman in 1949 in Miami, FL. That cop walked. The only penalty he received was to be discharged from the police department. He did no prison time at all.

Then in the late 1970s, my daughter's husband was walking down the street and was mowed down by a drunken driver. He was dragged beneath the car and died a few days later because of extreme brain trauma. That asshole got off with only a light sentence and was allowed weekends free for work. My daughter only received a couple thousand dollars in restitution.

Yes, in these cases, I do believe that these animals should have received the death penalty.

[pitohui]

92. no FFS, the drunk didn't choose to have a disease that affected his brain

i think many people honestly don't understand what addiction is, they live in a dream world where the drunk has a choice in his actions

the drunk is a slave and the majority of alcoholics/drug addicts are not cured, we don't have effective treatments

the death penalty is too harsh, the drunk didn't ask to be what he was or to pretty much have his brain taken over by an alien substance

think about if it was you, or if you can't imagine that because you won the genetic lottery, think about if it was someone you cared about, because addiction is so prevalent in our genes, almost everyone knows someone who can't beat alcohol

most drunk drivers hurt no one but themselves, yes, there has to be punishment when a life is taken, but the death penalty is too much

[Touchdown]

93. Against The DP period, so easy answer.n/t

[Xicano]

95. Killing is killing, period.

n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

100. No one should get the death penalty. n/t

[pipi_k]

101. I can't say one way or the other, but I do think that

anyone who kills another person in a motor vehicle accident should be sentenced to work at least six months in a city morgue and/or hospital ER.

Let 'em see the mangled bodies and the heart-ripping agony of the family.

Maybe that would have a greater impact than prison time.

[old mark]

102. Death, no - Life in prison, yes, if the driver has had previous DUI's, etc.

A local man killed another driver while driving drunk. He had previously had 40 DUI citations and arrests, had no license to drive. He got some jail time, but I always thought the judge who let him walk on all those DUI's should have gone to prison as well.

I know some of you here think driving drunk is funny, and all I can tell you is I hope you never kill anyone other than yourself.



mark