Drink driving legal/ moral dilemma

  hastelloy 11:01 18 Mar 2017
Locked

Here's a question which i hope will give rise to a good discussion.

Firstly though, I have to be clear that I believe that the drink/drive alcohol limit should be zero.

First Scenario: After a business lunch the driver loses control of his car, mounts a pavement and smashes into a lamp post. Nobody is hurt.

Second scenario: Identical to the first except that, on its way to the lamp post, the car hits a young mother with a child in a pushchair and they both die.

The question is: As they have both behaved in exactly the same way, do they both have the same punishment or is the second driver punished more harshly because the result of his accident is far more serious?

  rickf 11:06 18 Mar 2017

Simple, ban them driving.

  Forum Editor 12:17 18 Mar 2017

There's no moral dilemma involved. Drink driving is an offence. no matter what else happens.

Hitting a lamp-post whilst driving over the limit is a far less serious matter than killing two people. The punishment has to fit the crime.

In the future, drunk drivers who kill people are likely to automatically be charged with manslaughter, which can carry a life sentence on conviction.

  bremner 12:52 18 Mar 2017

New legislative proposals

click here

  bumpkin 13:18 18 Mar 2017

* is the second driver punished more harshly because the result of his accident is far more serious?*

Of course they will.

  Fruit Bat /\0/\ 14:07 18 Mar 2017

Swap alcohol in blood stream for checking phone while driving the result is exactly the same.

Surely the punishment should be the same.

  Burn-it 14:24 18 Mar 2017

Indeed, if not higher. The drunk at least has the excuse that his judgement was impaired, so the sober driver knowingly committed a far more serious crime

  Quickbeam 14:32 18 Mar 2017

Interesting take on it Burn-it.

  Old Deuteronomy 16:35 18 Mar 2017

I think it is time drivers, who cause death by drink (or otherwise dangerous, eg using phone) driving, were automatically given a life ban in addition to any other sentence their crime may attract. No let-off because it will cause hardship, they should have thought about that before committing the crime and jail if they flout the ban.

  rickf 19:25 18 Mar 2017

"No let-off because it will cause hardship, they should have thought about that before committing the crime and jail if they flout the ban." In full agreement.

  Forum Editor 22:57 18 Mar 2017

"so the sober driver knowingly committed a far more serious crime"

What sober driver? Both drivers in the opening post are drunk.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

See iconic duo Smith and Foulkes' epic animation for the BBC's Winter Olympics coverage

iMac Pro review

Idées cadeaux pour geeks et tech addicts