Why is drunk driving so lightly punished?

It would still qualify for "attempt at" Involuntary Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

You'd probably want to check the laws, some places don't even have attempted manslaughter as an offense.

^^ No, it doesn't. "Attempted" in front of a charge means "You meant (intended) to do it, but failed". Both Involuntary Manslaughter and Negligent Homicide require you to ''not have meant (intended) to do it. You can't be charged with meaning to do something you didn't mean to do.

edited 4th Jun '11 4:40:11 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Madrugada: Then why is drunk driving then illegal?
Last time I checked firering a full magazine of a Ak47 towards a unsecure location is in the exact same legal basis. You could have hit people, and perhaps even killed them.
Attempting at doing something you did not intent is still a attempt, even if the English language works around that by putting in other words for it.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

@Madrugada

Wow, you are really intelligent.

Anyway, I don't think it's too light... If anything I would be inclined to rail against the harshness of drunk driving laws. But that's just my inclination.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

@del diablo: if I read the conversation right, the difference is thus: the only possible use for firing a gun is to shoot something, whereas the primary purpose of driving is to get from point A to point B.

And there have been cases involving firearms discharge (and accidental death) where the person holding the gun got a manslaughter charge instead of murder. Think intent and purpose.

@OP: I don't know what the laws look like where you are, but in WA drunk driving is Serious Business. That, and the legal limit is so low mouthwash could set it off.

I've driven intoxicated a few times...In all cases I was not that drunk and there was a good reason for it. I still regret having to do it; this is why when I want to get seriously tanked I do it in the comfort of my own living room.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Because there are laws regulating driving, which include an allowed BAC.

The separate laws regarding firing a weapon are yet another section of the law, and are constructed as desired. It's why some places have laws against firing a gun at all, while others ban it being into the air, or for other locations, they have other requirements and criteria for their charges.

See, here's something you're not getting, the law may follow a logic, but that logic is rarely a simple one, and that is why the law is usually codified. Said codifications may be quite complex.

There's a reason why lawyers go to school, it's because the law takes a lot of work.

edited 4th Jun '11 4:53:21 PM by blueharp

Drunk Driving is illegal because it increases the likelihood of something bad happening, and because it provides revenue in the form of fines, and for a number of other reasons.

The fact that it might result in a fatality does not make it an attempt to cause a fatality.

My putting chopped peanuts in my lamb stew may result in a fatality if someone who's allergic to peanuts eats it. But it's only an attempt at killing them if I deliberately (there's "intent" again — it's pretty damn important in the American legal system) add the peanuts knowing both that they are allergic and that they are likely to eat the stew.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

: The analogy is still false.
Lets say you remove all labels, and then add in random ingredients in a stew. Instead of checking them, you now risk killing people because of their allergies.
Then the analogy would hold more true .

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

@del diablo:

That's what maddie's getting at. And flawed metaphor or not *

, she's also right.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

You're trying too hard to use analogies that aren't congruent with the law. They only work to explain the law, not to refute the law.

edited 4th Jun '11 5:04:31 PM by blueharp

: Sure, but a lethal peanut allergy is so rare that it can be dismissed.
Hence, the analogy can not hold true.
Sober driving is when you know that the person is lethally allergic to peanuts, and you still do it.
Drunk driving is when you have no idea if you are actually putting it in the stew, and because of the number of ingredients the chance of picking peanuts randomly at the least once is starting to get really high.
I agree there is a point, but I want it to be a habit to call out on silly analogies unless their intent is soo clearly stated it is not a analogy.

edited 4th Jun '11 5:06:59 PM by del_diablo

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

I suggest you avoid that habit, because I've found it only serves to make a discussion more acrimonious, and completely misses the point of analogy, which is to aid in understanding, not to give something to argue over as if it were a real case.

: Lets say A is A, and B is B.
Claiming A is B is then nonsense ain't it?
The thing is: Unless the analogy is either properly stated to be flawed, or the analogy is good, then it must be pointed out. Otherwise other people could see the analogy and misunderstand.
And it is not my fault that people can not take the idea that they might be wrong, and yes I am equally guilt of it as well.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

It's rather more complicated than that, and the real point is that such arguments tend to not further discussion, but rather get it caught up in a pointless snarl. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about communication and a silly argument.

I see it all the time, people get caught up in a disagreement over nothing, completely missing the point of the discussion.

Which I suppose might make one think analogies serve no purpose...except for the times they do work to foster a mutual comprehension.

But I think we're getting a little far afield.

If you want to ask about the law, you need to look at them, and since they vary greatly from place to place, it's important to know where you're talking about.

edited 4th Jun '11 5:25:07 PM by blueharp

del diablo, you are either missing or ignoring the point that, to the law, there's a difference between "intent" and "effect", and that what a person is charged with relies on taking both of them into account.

In case it's that you really don't understand the difference, here it is in very small words:

Intent is "Did he mean for that to happen?"

Effect is "What happened?"

edited 4th Jun '11 5:25:13 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Madrugada: Lets say I get a gun, and shoot somebody. Will I get charged for "accidental death", "manslaught" or "murder"?
Lets say I have a gun, and shoot towards a crowd. Which one will I get charged with?
Lets say I shoot in a random direction? Which one will I get charged with?
Then lets say I am drunk, well aware of the fact I am drunk, and I then attempt to drive 10 km.... Should the drunk driver get charged equally to the other examples, or not?

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

I get the sense you're still relying too much on attempts at logic, and not enough on what the law actually says.

But in regards to your questions, they'd probably need more details.

For example, firing a gun in a random direction could be covered under laws against discharging a firearm without due care, because you didn't specify anybody being hit.

edited 4th Jun '11 5:29:25 PM by blueharp

Not enough details on any of them. Law is not one-size fits all, any more than socks are, no matter what you think.

And this makes me inclined to believe that you are ignoring the fact that intent matters, which means that I'm out of this because you aren't interested in communicating, you're just interested in fighting.

edited 4th Jun '11 5:37:01 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

@Del: guns don't have much to with cars. I believe I mentioned this.

Anyhow, back to the original topic; I think the OP is making some assumptions regarding how "lightly" drunk driving is punished. Some places, yes; all you get is temporary suspension of your license on the first offense. Other places it is a good deal stricter.

Yes, drunk drivers can be a menace. But I disagree that the offense is punished lightly everywhere. In some Muslim countries, it's a felony punishable by prison time or worse.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

"Yes, drunk drivers can be a menace. But I disagree that the offense is punished lightly everywhere. In some Muslim countries, it's a felony punishable by prison time or worse. "

Do they really have the same legal distinction between felonies and misdemeanors in those particular countries, or do you just mean "felony" in the sense of a serious offense?

@Wander: forgive my imprecision, I apologize. I was applying US legal terms to other countries' law codes. So yes, I was using "felony" as a word for "serious crime".

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

deldiablo: It has been explained in perfectly clear language. Every time you have addressed it you have been wrong now get over it.

Maddy has hit it pretty much on the head. If your purpose in driving was to kill another human then you would likely be charged with an appropriate crime.

If you get into a vehicular accident the crime is different.

One is I put effort into intentionally killing this person vs I didn't try to kill this person on purpose their death is an unfortunate consequence of my actions.

They are two very different crimes.

Also you keep bring up guns. Gun crimes are vastly different then automobile crimes because a gun is a weapon by design a car is not.

Edit. Fixed a typo vs. I did to didn't

edited 4th Jun '11 6:35:56 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

"@Wander: forgive my imprecision, I apologize. I was applying US legal terms to other countries' law codes. So yes, I was using "felony" as a word for "serious crime". "

Cool. I honestly have absolutely no idea how any Middle Eastern legal system works, so I wasn't sure how to interpret the word "felony" in that context.

When people who are about to drive drunk think they're okay to drive, and that they won't get caught... I doubt the level of penalty "if they get caught" is going to make that much of a difference to their decision. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

We just need to find better ways of addressing this, and punishment on its own won't.

edited 4th Jun '11 7:06:18 PM by neoYTPism