Originally posted by kitkataha
Desi gal : that's the same debate we had in class a couple of weeks back when we discussed intoxication manslaughter. It is an interesting topic altogether. I have limited insights as well when it comes to alcohol due to religious restriction (personal choice as well), however, here in the States, there are defenses like involuntary intoxication (rarely successful though). Temporary insanity under voluntary intoxication can also be used as a mitigating factor interestingly. The main defense to it is obviously "intention", as that's difficult to prove, which is why most cases end up amounting to recklessness and negligence.
It just seems kinda counterintuitive to me.
The law says don't drink and drive because it impairs balance, perception, reflexes.
But alcohol also impairs judgment. And decision to drive drunk or to find a friend to designate to drive you is a judgement you make in a state when theoretically your judgement is impaired.
I find it so much more similar to punishing a minor because their judgement is not mature yet/impaired. In a state of intoxication, I would think that even a responsible adult would make the same mistakes a minor makes.
I guess that's why to me, when it comes to punishment, I think the intent takes precedent over the end matter.
Yes, a life was lost. But a life is also lost in an accident. We still say it was an accident.. I didn't mean for it to happen.
From what I've read, most people seem content that Salman is punished because it was the law and nobody should be above the law.
I'm more concerned about the victims, the families involved, and yes, even the accused's intent.
In such cases, my intuition and basal morality says to me...well if you didn't mean for it to happen, you still caused harm. You still caused a life to be lost. Make up for it. Do something about it. Help these people out.
But I guess I'm not the law.
Just a rambling mind 😆
Edited by desigal90 - 8 years ago