The ramblings of a restless mind - Page 5

Originally posted by: chocolover89

But, the first decision is to drink right? That was not made with 'impaired' judgement.  If someone takes the first decision to drink then they should figure out who will do the driving also especially because most people today KNOW what can happen if you drive drunk.  

More generally, if you are choosing to take a substance that you know can alter your state of mind then you are responsible for the consequences of that action. Period. 

Being irresponsible is NOT an excuse from making bad decisions. 

If someone knows they are going out for the night and want to drink, then IMHO, they should make sure they are NOT driving first and foremost.  It's fairly easy to get a taxi today too...and cabs like uber are not even that expensive.

To me...it just seems intent matters in such a case. I know the law says otherwise.  Edited by desigal90 - 8 years ago

Originally posted by: desigal90

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 😆

By that logic any crime committed while under the influence of drugs and alcohol would be deemed as non-intentional. Rape, murder, robbery - impaired judgement due to alcohol and hence the perpetrator is not liable for harsh punishment.
Do you see where this would lead us?
 An adult making the decision to drink and then getting behind the wheels of a car has to take responsibility of his action. It's not rocket science that drinking makes your mind fuzzy. A child may not be aware of all the implications of doing something rash.. But as an adult you have the responsibility to face the consequence of whatever happens while you were drunk.

Originally posted by: tantal

By that logic any crime committed while under the influence of drugs and alcohol would be deemed as non-intentional. Rape, murder, robbery - impaired judgement due to alcohol and hence the perpetrator is not liable for harsh punishment.
Do you see where this would lead us?
 An adult making the decision to drink and then getting behind the wheels of a car has to take responsibility of his action. It's not rocket science that drinking makes your mind fuzzy. A child may not be aware of all the implications of doing something rash.. But as an adult you have the responsibility to face the consequence of whatever happens while you were drunk.

Edited by desigal90 - 8 years ago

Desigal and Kitkataha, this is becoming a very interesting discussion. You guys are making some very interesting points. I don't drink either so I have no personal perspective here. But I have been at parties with friends who have been aware enough to look at me and say "you'll have to take me home." So not everyone loses that sense of judgment. But even if you make the argument that the person lost their sense of how drunk they were (I think this would fall under sense of judgment, no?) that's no the same as developing amnesia. So then the person should have still remembered that they shouldn't be driving drunk since it's against the law. Know what I mean? Unless a defense attorney argues that their client experienced complete failure of cognitive functioning.

This is starting to sound like something I would see in an episode of Law & Order. Though honestly I imagine that this theory has been at least tried by some defense attorneys. There probably is some kind of precedent for it.

& when you and I speed, or when you and I text while driving, we are not even impaired due to substance. But that will not amount to 5 years in jail.

Intoxication manslaughter - more or less there for exemplary purposes. How else would the government be able to regulate alcohol? They cannot ban it, right (we all know how that went)? When you're in your home and you decide to drink, you will not call for an Uber service because you're at your home and you have no intention of leaving your house. But once you get drunk, you get a call from a friend, and you leave to drive. What happens then? It's a murky area. At one point in my life, I was only for retributive justive, but the older I've gotten, and the more knowledge I've acquired, I am open to other forms of punishment. As it is, statistics show that harsh punishments like the death penalty, play no role in lowering crime rates. A criminal with an intent to carry out a crime will either way commit it. Incarceration rate among Blacks and Hispanics is so high in the States...those people are never able to get out of the poverty cycle. Going to jail will not get them an education, a job, and an understanding of their choices...what will help them is if they're able to contribute in the society while understanding the consequences of their actions. I am not advocating for full criminal justice system reform, because punishment in certain cases are FAIR and DESERVED, but in other offenses, there are other ways to punish.

I don't know what my take would be on sexual harassment under the influence. I would probably say that the jail time would be deserved as a punishment. But I kid you not when I say that even in those instances, a lot of times offenders are not sentenced to jail. It all boils to intent/mens rea.

With SK, his punishment will not reform him, but the victims may feel that the justice has been served.

My post limit is almost up for the day btw. This has been a good discussion.
Edited by kitkataha - 8 years ago

Originally posted by: desigal90

Oh yeah, absolutely. I know that. But that first decision was not the illegal one. That is a completely legal decision. You're an adult, you can drink. Society doesn't discourage anyone from making that first decision. No one thinks twice of it.

Adults drink, yet they know some may make some very stupid decisions after. Adults still do it. 

But yes, the responsible thing is to designate a driver or someone to take you home before you start. I absolutely agree with that.

However, I wouldn't say that failing to do the responsible thing should result in someone being punished for murder...that's where things become a little hazy in my opinion.

I think that's what I"m trying to say.

That we say you should take responsibility, but does that still take away from the fact that it was still an accident. Yes it resulted in a life lost. But accidents do often result in lost lives. I believe the punishment should reflect that intent. Which is completely a theoretical POV at this point, not practical.

To make in a nutshell, intoxicated drinking seems like irresponsible decision UNINTENTIONALLY causing a loss of life. Not too different than a sober adult driving a car and getting reckless and speeding and causing an accident. Both result from irresponsibility, not intent to kill. Yet I don't think someone who speeds will go to jail for 5 years, right?

To me...it just seems intent matters in such a case. I know the law says otherwise. 

I'm just debating philosophically here. In such cases, making the accused who committed the crime pay for the victim's children, throughout until college and changing their circumstances would have seemed like the more beneficial thing to do.

Great debate everyone!


Edited by desigal90 - 8 years ago

Texting and driving should bear the same punishment as driving intoxicated IMO. But the law needs to catch up and reform accordingly here.

One other thing, the prison system in the United States is a hot mess that's for sure. Over crowding results in shortage of sentences, but then there is no programs for them to be able to continue with a productive life style. Not to mention that most don't even get rehabilitated on the inside. A lot of times it's just a matter of time before they return back to prison. Having said this, I don't know what the solution would be. I haven't read or heard enough about any other type of programs as alternatives for confinement to form an opinion yet.

Thanks for this discussion everyone :)

Originally posted by: ponymo

 

If you look at it a bit more objectively, you will see how it will help them.

 

By giving Salman 5 years, it might not help the victims of this case directly, but it will be a warning to those who might drink and drive in the future. It will help prevent many such accidents in the future. It will help the 'future' victims, who will not be victims anymore, thanks to the strict implementation of the punishment.

 

The It's-been-13-years-why-punish-now is such a scary argument. Had he confessed 13 years ago, it would not have dragged for so long in the first place. He chose to fool the law. But at the end he has to pay the price.

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

Desigal and Kitkataha, this is becoming a very interesting discussion. You guys are making some very interesting points. I don't drink either so I have no personal perspective here. But I have been at parties with friends who have been aware enough to look at me and say "you'll have to take me home." So not everyone loses that sense of judgment. But even if you make the argument that the person lost their sense of how drunk they were (I think this would fall under sense of judgment, no?) that's no the same as developing amnesia. So then the person should have still remembered that they shouldn't be driving drunk since it's against the law. Know what I mean? Unless a defense attorney argues that their client experienced complete failure of cognitive functioning.

This is starting to sound like something I would see in an episode of Law & Order. Though honestly I imagine that this theory has been at least tried by some defense attorneys. There probably is some kind of precedent for it.

You're right. Which is why alcohol as a defense is rarely successful, unless it is involuntary intoxication. Failure of cognitive functioning or temporary insanity are at times used in cases, but they are only there as mitigating factors. In my opinion, the law (in the States especially) is grey with such offenses and judges have discretion because, like we discussed, these sort of crimes lack the intention required. While in many other crimes, the crime has occurred with an intentional or a knowing element.

I am fine in charging someone with intoxication manslaughter...I do have a different approach on the sentencing portion though. Five years, that too, after 13 years is in my opinion is unfair and unusual. If I were Salman, I would sue the State for its own contributory negligence in delaying the trial. If the Courts were supposedly fooled by the money, power, fame, celeb status, then that is their own contributory negligence which they need to be held accountable for. In fact, why only Salman? Even the victims should sue the State for mental anguish, in the fact that justice was not served to them in a timely manner.
Edited by kitkataha - 8 years ago