Taimoor Rana is seasoned criminal defense attorney specializing in DUI related cases. He shares his expert legal opinion here « “The Death Penalty for DUI” Is it Justified?
0
- Yes, here I am talking about the death penalty. In a drunk driving case. Here in United States. For murder…… No, that is not for an involuntary manslaughter. Not for vehicular homicide. Murder. And that is a first-degree murder. Likewise someone has pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. MADD has achieved so much success in their political pressure campaigns that they’ve actually gotten some courts and legislatures to create a new type of crime which is referred to as “DUI murder”.
Just hold on for a minute, you say. I thought if you want to kill a person then you had to intend to kill him or her. You have to "premeditate" and such kinds of other things, right? Well, yes and no. Of course, each state is a little different, but most od the states follow similar laws. And by those laws generally a homicide ("the killing of another human being") has been broken into different categories. The first one is excusable homicide that is such a homicide where, due to the self-defense or other justification, the death is not considered as a crime. Next one is "manslaughter" — basically, which is considered as a killing but that is not murder. Usually there are two kinds of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary.
Voluntary manslaughter is sometimes referred to as a killing in the "heat of passion"; means that you lacked the time or ability to reflect on the act.
Whereas Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional homicide: means that you didn’t mean to do it, but you caused a death just due to your negligence or recklessness.
When an accident is caused by a drunk driver in which someone is killed, usually he is going to be facing involuntary manslaughter charges. Different terms are used by some states such as "vehicular manslaughter" or "vehicular homicide". Although, the death was unintentional, but it has occurred by the driver’s negligent or reckless conduct.
And then there’s murder. That is the one that you mostly see on TV and read about in the papers: someone has made a plan to kill someone else and, in cold blood, he had taken his life. But in most states there are two kinds of murder, this is just to complicate things, these are first degree murder and second degree murder. Usually murder in the first degree requires meaningful premeditation what it means is that you have to have a thought about it, then plan it, and finally carried it out. Second degree murder just need a mental state known as "malice".
Now what is malice?
Well, usually it means the intention to kill someone: You have intended to kill that person, but it might have happened so quickly that you never really thought that you would do it. Means there is Intention, but no premediation.
So where does DUI fit into all of this?
It looks like that it is pretty obvious that it belongs to the "involuntary manslaughter" category which is an unintentional accident but that is done with negligence/recklessness. However this idea of "malice" is not expressed well. Actually, it may pretty much mean whatever you want. It is really very perfect, for a group like MADD who are always looking for new ways to "get tough " on drunk drivers.
A few years ago a prosecutor in California came up with a bright idea. He has simply ignored the vehicular manslaughter statute and by him a drunk driver was charged with second-degree murder. And, DUI since it is a pretty unpopular crime, actually managed to convict him. The defendant appealed, and it has been said by them that the prosecution can’t just invent new crimes, he must have to charge the offense that are specified by the legislature. The California Supreme Court disagreed, and it has been said by the court that he could be charged and convicted of murder if in case he has acted with "malice" that means that if he "does an act with a high probability that it will result in death and it has been done by him with a base antisocial motive and having a wanton disregard for human life".
Base antisocial motive? What’s that?
It has been clarified by the Court that:
"One by whom willfully alcoholic beverages are consumed to the point of intoxication, and he know that he must operate a motor vehicle, thereby combining sharply impaired physical and mental facilities with a vehicle that is capable of great force and speed, reasonably he might be held to exhibit a conscious disregard of the safety of others." People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290 (1981)
Well, now the problem is that any drunk driver was pretty much described by any drunk driver. I must recognizing that this has opened the gates a bit wide, the courts have made efforts to limit over-zealous prosecutors by requiring a more serious type of malice. So for that they came up with "conscious indifference": A drunk driver can be possibly charged with murder if his state of mind was, that he or she know that his conduct is dangerous to others, but he or she don’t care if someone is hurt or killed." Still it is not very much cleared.
Doesn’t the difference is caused by the alcohol itself? And how would you know what’s in someone’s head when he’s drunk?
Well, it shows that you can now prove malice if you are able to show that the defendant was aware of the fact that drinking and driving could be dangerous. Of course, everyone knows that, right?
So what does it tell us? Is that so that any DUI defendant who are aware of the fact that drunk driving is dangerous can be charged with murder?
Apparently so. In People v. Murray, 275 Cal.Rptr. 498 (1990), DUI murder conviction has been up by the appellate court where it as been proved by the prosecution that he had attended a DUI education class and he has told someone that he had learned a lot from it. This evidence is enough to show that he was aware that drunk driving was dangerous and so he acted with "malice". And, thus, murder.
You might also like
 |
 |
 |
 |
