Do the numbers count?

[nobbie48]

To keep this out of the fallen riders as the question is more about the law.

1) Woman, allegedly DWI kills four motorcyclists in Missouri.

2) Would she be less guilty if she only killed one?

3) How about only injured one?

4) What if she only almost hit someone?

Do we punish intent or results? She didn't (Assumption) intend to hurt / kill anyone so is a slap on the wrist enough?

Or do we look at the potential damage and drop the massive hammer on the driver because of what could have happened, regardless of whether anyone was hurt or not?

 

[TK4]

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
At that point the results of the decision (and how it was arrived at) should be made public knowledge.

 

[bitzz]

I don't know about Missouri DUI laws, but here in Ontario we have laws/charges that escalate with damages done.
Here we have impaired, impaired causing bodily harm and impaired causing death.
Simple impaired gets your license suspended.
Impaired causing bodily harm gets you somewhere around two years in jail.
Impaired causing death get you at least 5 years.
We have sentencing "guidelines" and precedents to use for sentencing.
If she killed only one person she would be no less GUILTY, but would get a lesser sentence than if she killed 4.

Do we punish intent or results?

Yes we do both. Learn about Mens Rea

 

[nobbie48]

I don't know about Missouri DUI laws, but here in Ontario we have laws/charges that escalate with damages done.
Here we have impaired, impaired causing bodily harm and impaired causing death.
Simple impaired gets your license suspended.
Impaired causing bodily harm gets you somewhere around two years in jail.
Impaired causing death get you at least 5 years.
We have sentencing "guidelines" and precedents to use for sentencing.
If she killed only one person she would be no less GUILTY, but would get a lesser sentence than if she killed 4.

Yes we do both. Learn about Mens Rea

Where does the law get fuzzier than a drunk’s vision?

Unless someone has been in a coma for 50 years they know dui is illegal and it’s unlikely someone else’s hand poured the booze down their throat

They didn’t know they would cause a crash because they’ve done it before and nothing happened. How does that get played?

I don’t know anyone that hasn’t broken a law to some degree.

 

[Mad Mike]

I don't know about Missouri DUI laws, but here in Ontario we have laws/charges that escalate with damages done.
Here we have impaired, impaired causing bodily harm and impaired causing death.
Simple impaired gets your license suspended.
Impaired causing bodily harm gets you somewhere around two years in jail.
Impaired causing death get you at least 5 years.
We have sentencing "guidelines" and precedents to use for sentencing.
If she killed only one person she would be no less GUILTY, but would get a lesser sentence than if she killed 4.

Yes we do both. Learn about Mens Rea

It goes even more granular than that. Judges also consider aggravating circumstances. For example, if your drunken self bragged 'I have a lot of drunk driving experience', or you were caught weaving, drove over your neighbours lawn, were 2x the legal limit, or you hassled the law during your arrest... just to name a few.

 

[happycrappy]

I've often wondered about the escalation; if the transgression is a singular event, in theory escalating the penalty because of the number of victims seems odd. I.E. if I sideswipe an empty bus causing it to crash, or if I sideswipe a full bus and kill everyone, how is my culpability different? Not implying this is the law, just my way of thinking......

 

[GreyGhost]

I've often wondered about the escalation; if the transgression is a singular event, in theory escalating the penalty because of the number of victims seems odd. I.E. if I sideswipe an empty bus causing it to crash, or if I sideswipe a full bus and kill everyone, how is my culpability different? Not implying this is the law, just my way of thinking......

I agree but the hard part of that argument is as you approach zero. What if you almost cause an empty bus to crash but the bus drivers skill (or luck) meant there was no crash. Should punishment be the same for that instance as it would be for killing a bus load of people? The offending behaviour was identical in both cases. I don't have a good answer to this question.

 

[Malks]

What if you almost cause an empty bus to crash but the bus drivers skill (or luck) meant there was no crash.

Almost doesn't count, sadly that's just a daily occurrence. How often has someone made an illegal / stupid move that required you to take evasive action to avoid a collision? With the quality of drivers in this Province, it should come as no surprise. If you can avoid a collision using defensive driving or luck, then it's no harm-no foul. The only way the offending person would learn is if there is a police officer witnessed the offence and chose to stop and ticket that person for their illegal move. Even then it would only be for that particular offence and not what could have happened.

 

[AFJ]

.

 

[GreyGhost]

I can remember a case many years ago when a fellow came out of a pub, realized he was not sober enough to drive home, got into the back seat of his legally parked car and locked the doors, intending to "sleep it off" and drive home when he had sobered up.
The police later found him asleep, woke him up, tested him, "he was still over 80mg" and was charged as impaired - since he had the ignition key in his pocket. I don't remember what the judge ruled but a legal opinion went around that if he had put the ignition key in the trunk of the car and locked it, an experienced lawyer opined that the driver would not be convicted.

Thankfully I haven't been in the position of needing to sleep it off in my car. In the chance it happened, my plan was to put keys somewhere nearby (crook of a tree, in a bush, etc). They could get you while unlocking the car but after that point, arguing you had care and control would be very difficult (because I sure as hell wouldn't tell them where the keys were). I understand the concept of this portion of the law, but when they use it as a weapon vs people that are trying to do the right thing, I get angry.

 

[Evoex]

Thankfully I haven't been in the position of needing to sleep it off in my car. In the chance it happened, my plan was to put keys somewhere nearby (crook of a tree, in a bush, etc). They could get you while unlocking the car but after that point, arguing you had care and control would be very difficult (because I sure as hell wouldn't tell them where the keys were). I understand the concept of this portion of the law, but when they use it as a weapon vs people that are trying to do the right thing, I get angry.

Agreed. This ain't minority report, cops are not 'preventing' any future crime in this instance.

Want to sit there and pull him over a few hrs later when you have RAS that he 'could' be impaired? Go nuts.

 

[Mad Mike]

I agree but the hard part of that argument is as you approach zero. What if you almost cause an empty bus to crash but the bus drivers skill (or luck) meant there was no crash. Should punishment be the same for that instance as it would be for killing a bus load of people? The offending behaviour was identical in both cases. I don't have a good answer to this question.

Some parts of the law are based on intent, some on outcome. No collision -- no charge typically, if witnessed by the lay careless at best.

Crash and kill 1 person, 1 charge. Kill 4, 4 charges.

The penalty increases, but it's not by much for 2n, 3rd, ...nth count.

 

[hedo2002]

Well, because she killed 4 people in one crash, The law, (here), classifies it as one offence. Only if she killed multiple people in separate collisions are they treated, as separate offences.

Yes, during sentencin, the judge can view the gravity of the offence. Intent only really comes into play in certain crimes, IE murder, premeditated, Intent catches 1st degree murder. Others catch 2nd degree, or even gets kicked down to manslaughter.

Of course, with the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling. If a person kills 4 people, they can NOT be sentenced to 4 life sentences. Not that ANYONE in Canada would get life even for impaired driving causing death X 4. Prime example is the person in York Region that broadsided the van killing the 3 children, and the grand father. He got if memory serves me correctly 10 - 14 years, and is now on partial parol.

In the USA, however, their legal system is MUCH more focused, on the punishment aspect. She is likely to get life + 3,000 years… lol

 

[nobbie48]

Well, because she killed 4 people in one crash, The law, (here), classifies it as one offence. Only if she killed multiple people in separate collisions are they treated, as separate offences.

Yes, during sentencin, the judge can view the gravity of the offence. Intent only really comes into play in certain crimes, IE murder, premeditated, Intent catches 1st degree murder. Others catch 2nd degree, or even gets kicked down to manslaughter.

Of course, with the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling. If a person kills 4 people, they can NOT be sentenced to 4 life sentences. Not that ANYONE in Canada would get life even for impaired driving causing death X 4. Prime example is the person in York Region that broadsided the van killing the 3 children, and the grand father. He got if memory serves me correctly 10 - 14 years, and is now on partial parol.

In the USA, however, their legal system is MUCH more focused, on the punishment aspect. She is likely to get life + 3,000 years… lol

The only logic I can see in the US system is that if the perpetrator beat one charge on appeal they would still have several life sentences ahead of them. The US legal / social system is so screwed up it's beyond hope.