Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
One the act of drinking and driving is an intentional act and not a decision is made to do it while sober before a person takes their first drink. No one accidently drinks and drives.
I think the big part of the life sentence in this case is about preventing recidivism. Parole conditions of abstaining from drugs and alcohol are important restrictions or ignition interlocks . I think that more crimes should have longer term restrictions on rights of people not to punish but to reduce recidivism and protect society.
|
That is just not the definition of criminal intent. as far a the charge of man slaughter goes.
I do understand that there can be criminal intent in committing the crime of drinking and driving although in my opinion it would pretty had to proven someone is guilty of unimpaired intent when being charged for being impaired. I do think there is a place in our justice system for addressing the unintentional consequences.
To have a liberal, rehabilitation focused justice system, we have to avoid seeking retribution for 2nd or 3rd order effects and focus on the what actions people are willing to take in the future and what lessons they will learn from the punishment they receive.
I also wonder if there is any evidence that extending sentences in these circumstances would have an effect on recidivism? I know there is ample evidence that increasing punishment for drug crimes actually increases recidivism, and I think the circumstances are very different for a person who had the intent of doing harm. This seems to be an assumption you are making that I doubt.
Taking away what is likely the 50% - 75% of a persons remaining productive life is teaching them they are of no use to society and those people scare me allot more than the person who has learnt drinking and driving can cause personal injury, moral injury and the loss of liberty for nearly 4 years.